e-parade
All American
Posts: 2,680
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 441
I Root For: UMass
Location:
|
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-04-2022 10:47 PM)Jericho Wrote: (08-04-2022 03:12 PM)e-parade Wrote: (08-04-2022 02:45 PM)Jericho Wrote: (08-04-2022 10:29 AM)e-parade Wrote: (08-04-2022 10:24 AM)Jericho Wrote: And what does getting into SoCal and Texas get the PAC? Anything? A toaster?
Recruiting.
You say that word, though I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Is the PAC really hurting for SoCal recruits or Texas recruits as is? If the PAC suddenly had 1/12 of the conference in some other location, is that really going to move the needle? If SMU joins, will PAC Texas (at least for non-SMU schools) recruits jump by 400%? Or will it increase by like 5 people. Total. And for the low, low cost of what's likely millions of dollars per school (as they basically have to now give SMU 1/12 of their pie). I'd like see some realistic projections on this, but I'm guessing the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
I didn't say it would be ALL of their recruiting, but even 5 recruits a year is more than a toaster (obviously a joke on your part).
The Arizona schools have stressed the importance of the Southern California market to them. On ASU's current roster, there are 23 students originally from Southern California (link) Also, recruiting is about more than just athletes - per this article, ASU employs 3 full time recruiters in California, but 2 of them being in SoCal (Orange County and San Diego). Having a football/basketball presence in the area helps with recruiting, even if it is just one game a year.
So I'm not saying they'll gain a bunch of recruits (and students in general) by having a SoCal presence, just that there's a risk of losing it that might not be worth it.
I didn't claim to say you meant ALL their recruiting either. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. And I didn't mean 5 recruits per year per school. I meant 5. Total. For the entire conference. And to be a clear, I mean a net gain of 5 guys. As there's already recruiting going on in those areas.
As you pointed out, Arizona State already recruits SoCal. Are you suggesting those players all suddenly are going to go elsewhere? And, if so, to where? I get the idea that having a PAC game in the "area" might help recruiting. But you're talking about 1 game a year in what's a pretty large area of land. I'm simply putting it out there that the idea of impact of recruiting is probably greatly inflated by many on these boards. Is a SoCal kid suddenly going to go to Rutgers instead of Arizona State because USC is now in the Big 10? But if somehow the PAC added San Diego State, now that same recruit is going to go back to Arizona State because he lives 200 miles from San Diego in Santa Barbara and Arizona state might play there every two years?
I can't predict the choices of every recruit, but I don't think the location of a school is going to move the needle that much.
All? No. But certainly some of them. What I'm posing is that there's a risk involved with no longer having any presence in Southern California. ASU alone has 23 students from the area, and some of the recruiting activities were likely taking place on trips for games there. Will those students now go to Rutgers? Not necessarily, but there is a chance they will now be more heavily recruited by Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and Wisconsin. Now there's a chance those schools would win the recruiting battles anyway, but by backing completely out of the region you're giving them a much higher likelihood of winning them over without a fight.
And again, I'm not predicting they'll no longer get any recruits. The risk of losing those recruits without a fight to the B1G programs is on their mind. If they determine that risk is worth inviting an SDSU to the conference, then that's what they'll go with. Their determination is worth far more than your opinion and mine put together, and as of right now we don't know what that is.
When I said "recruiting" this is what I was referring to. So yes, it does mean exactly what I thought it meant, in contrast to what your accusation said. I'm just thinking about this in a different way than you are.
|
|
08-05-2022 09:24 AM |
|