(01-10-2023 11:46 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 11:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 11:05 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  Add SDSU and UNLV or don’t do anything at all.

I fail to see what, if any, appeal SMU has to the existing PAC members.

SMU can offer a few things:
1. Being in the DFW market would not be a bad thing. It is the 5th largest TV market. Getting into an SEC/Big 12 market could be interesting.

2. It might help for football recruiting in Texas. Oregon has signed five four-star football recruits from Texas in the 2023 class. Other Pac-12 schools are recruiting the area, but not with the degree of success that Oregon has had. SMU in the Pac-12 might help.

3. In the 2022 season, SMU played two home games in the 12:00pm EST time slot. One was on ESPN and the other on ESPNU. They could help the Pac-12 get into that noon time slot.

4. They are strong academically. They are not AAU, but they should be acceptable to the conference.

True, SMU has certain things to offer the PAC, but do they have enough to offer to offset the geographical disadvantages?

If I were a PAC fan, I'd rather add SDSU and Fresno State (or Boise State), or Gonzaga and Hawaii or Air Force FB.

SMU’s main challenge is that they don’t really draw and audience or carry their market. SMU has some regional interest but would people across Texas, or even Dallas, start tuning in more because SMU is play Arizona/Colorado/etc? Probably not. The PAC will have a hard time grabbing CST eyeballs with JUST SMU. The PAC would need to grab more Eastern teams to create interest.

Not to mention that going to 12 cuts down on the number of opportunities that teams have to play Oregon and Washington. In a 10 team setup, everyone plays everybody every year. Adding SDSU and SMU would mean dropping a game a year against either Oregon or Washington.

Finally, there is the issue of ego, which seems to make all the Big 12 teams untouchables as of last year, but somehow SMU is immune? They aren’t even an R1 university. A small school in Dallas, without the academic credentials that were used to reject a number of Big 12 programs, without an active following, with little support from the local area, far from the core of the PAC 12, and without any historical or cultural ties to the PAC.

I think SMU works well as a #2, I would pick them myself. But there is some hypocrisy going on if SMU is passing muster in 2023 when Baylor and others were not in 2021. I think the PAC staying at 10 makes more sense, I could even see going to 11 and holding firm as a viable path if SoCal is important.