(01-06-2019 04:23 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 12:14 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 04:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The way Boise State jumped quickly to R2 shows that they are getting the funds, but Idaho are staying the same. In a couple of years, Boise State could be R1. Boise State might be a possible PAC 12 candidate in a few years since they do sometimes get more viewers watching them than some others in the MWC.

This is one I agree with you on.

Academics can always be fixed with enough money. Louisville is an example of a university that changed its profile through fundraising and got the invite from the ACC.

WVU for those in the east was last resort university for years and even its profile has moved up with a 566 billion dollar endowment. It will never be confused with Georgia Tech or another top tier public school but with enough money it was deemed "acceptable" for the XII.

It would take a whole lot more money than you realize for Boise State or UNLV to "fix" their research problem. Graduation rates are another issue for these two schools as well. (The ACC definitely has a case of indigestion and heartburn from Louisville).

Even Houston is not close to Pac-12 level (although the much lower B12 level is reachable). They would have to double their research spending (and extra $150M per year) just to be the bottom school in the Pac-12; or put another way $1B extra over 6 years to be even with WSU. It's a little easier to spend $5M on coaches.

The Pac-12 is not too far from B1G in what it's Presidents and Chancellors will sign off on. To be invited you need the California schools and Washington to agree that the school is acceptable. Like the SEC and B1G, recent additions have been flagships and AAU members or close. (R1 ranges from Memphis and FIU to Harvard and Cal; so that alone is not telling). A good rule of thumb would be a combined $400 million in research and athletic budgets, with research at least double, and preferably more than triple athletics budgets.

Below a real comparison, by the numbers. You can see how much higher the standards are on the research side than the B12 or ACC.

Some Pac-12 schools:

Washington
Research: $1,180,563,000
Athletics: $123,503,513

UCLA
Research: $1,021,227,000
Athletics: $104,106,646

Cal
Research: $788,505,000
Athletics: $ 90,976,576
// has another $16M/year in stadium debt service Chancellor has decided to eat this for now

Washington State
Research: $333,134,000
Athletics: $ 71,801,820

Colorado
Research: $420,775,000
Athletics: $ 90,640,627

Arizona
Research: $606,219,000
Athletics: $ 91,756,963

Utah
Research: $518,928,000
Athletics: $ 81,620,307


B12 School (we are looking at, they are also the top along with Iowa State)
Texas
Research: $650,608,000
Athletics: $207,022,323

Oklahoma
Research: $253,344,000
Athletics: $132,910,780

Kansas
Research: $311,383,000
Athletics: $ 94,709,233


Some G5 for Comparison

Boise State (R2 School)
Research: $ 31,341,000
Athletics: $ 45,456,789

Houston
Research: $150,628,000
Athletics: $ 55,277,308

Colorado State
Research: $317,219,000
Athletics: $ 43,965,622

UNLV
Research: $ 42,000,000
Athletics: $ 47,476,606

San Diego State (R2 school)
Research: $ 93,572,000
Athletics: $ 51,569,852

// below for fun

Idaho (FCS)
Research: $ 97,493,000
Athletics: $ 22,817,285

UC Davis (FCS)
Research: $721,077,000
Athletics: $ 34,625,583

UC San Diego (no football; note they are ramping up to around $17M for Big West; were $8.9M 2 years ago)
Research: $1,101,466,000
Athletics: $ 12,535,867

There really isn't a school beyond the three B12 I listed, that checks the boxes for academic stature, athletic credibility and market. No G5 schools checks all those boxes off, or even two of them. And we can rule out both Texas and Oklahoma from consideration, given the economic disparity between the Pac-12 and it's rivals the B1G and SEC. No doubt many of the little 8 would come running, each asking for a life boat from the Pac-12. Only an orphaned Kansas with no offer from the B1G or SEC strikes me as intriguing -- especially if division-less football is adopted (so you can have an odd number like 13 or 15).

USF spent $475 Million in research last year...

Or BIG12 brings in Fresno St, San Diego St., UCF & UCF to create the greatest recruiting base in the history of college sports. Increasing fertile recruiting states for its northern schools. And eye balls for TV contracts.

And let PAC 12 (Pacific Arrogant Conference) reap what it sows.

(01-06-2019 08:41 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 04:23 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 12:14 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 04:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The way Boise State jumped quickly to R2 shows that they are getting the funds, but Idaho are staying the same. In a couple of years, Boise State could be R1. Boise State might be a possible PAC 12 candidate in a few years since they do sometimes get more viewers watching them than some others in the MWC.

This is one I agree with you on.

Academics can always be fixed with enough money. Louisville is an example of a university that changed its profile through fundraising and got the invite from the ACC.

WVU for those in the east was last resort university for years and even its profile has moved up with a 566 billion dollar endowment. It will never be confused with Georgia Tech or another top tier public school but with enough money it was deemed "acceptable" for the XII.

It would take a whole lot more money than you realize for Boise State or UNLV to "fix" their research problem. Graduation rates are another issue for these two schools as well. (The ACC definitely has a case of indigestion and heartburn from Louisville).

Even Houston is not close to Pac-12 level (although the much lower B12 level is reachable). They would have to double their research spending (and extra $150M per year) just to be the bottom school in the Pac-12; or put another way $1B extra over 6 years to be even with WSU. It's a little easier to spend $5M on coaches.

The Pac-12 is not too far from B1G in what it's Presidents and Chancellors will sign off on. To be invited you need the California schools and Washington to agree that the school is acceptable. Like the SEC and B1G, recent additions have been flagships and AAU members or close. (R1 ranges from Memphis and FIU to Harvard and Cal; so that alone is not telling). A good rule of thumb would be a combined $400 million in research and athletic budgets, with research at least double, and preferably more than triple athletics budgets.

Below a real comparison, by the numbers. You can see how much higher the standards are on the research side than the B12 or ACC.

Some Pac-12 schools:

Washington
Research: $1,180,563,000
Athletics: $123,503,513

UCLA
Research: $1,021,227,000
Athletics: $104,106,646

Cal
Research: $788,505,000
Athletics: $ 90,976,576
// has another $16M/year in stadium debt service Chancellor has decided to eat this for now

Washington State
Research: $333,134,000
Athletics: $ 71,801,820

Colorado
Research: $420,775,000
Athletics: $ 90,640,627

Arizona
Research: $606,219,000
Athletics: $ 91,756,963

Utah
Research: $518,928,000
Athletics: $ 81,620,307


B12 School (we are looking at, they are also the top along with Iowa State)
Texas
Research: $650,608,000
Athletics: $207,022,323

Oklahoma
Research: $253,344,000
Athletics: $132,910,780

Kansas
Research: $311,383,000
Athletics: $ 94,709,233


Some G5 for Comparison

Boise State (R2 School)
Research: $ 31,341,000
Athletics: $ 45,456,789

Houston
Research: $150,628,000
Athletics: $ 55,277,308

Colorado State
Research: $317,219,000
Athletics: $ 43,965,622

UNLV
Research: $ 42,000,000
Athletics: $ 47,476,606

San Diego State (R2 school)
Research: $ 93,572,000
Athletics: $ 51,569,852

// below for fun

Idaho (FCS)
Research: $ 97,493,000
Athletics: $ 22,817,285

UC Davis (FCS)
Research: $721,077,000
Athletics: $ 34,625,583

UC San Diego (no football; note they are ramping up to around $17M for Big West; were $8.9M 2 years ago)
Research: $1,101,466,000
Athletics: $ 12,535,867

There really isn't a school beyond the three B12 I listed, that checks the boxes for academic stature, athletic credibility and market. No G5 schools checks all those boxes off, or even two of them. And we can rule out both Texas and Oklahoma from consideration, given the economic disparity between the Pac-12 and it's rivals the B1G and SEC. No doubt many of the little 8 would come running, each asking for a life boat from the Pac-12. Only an orphaned Kansas with no offer from the B1G or SEC strikes me as intriguing -- especially if division-less football is adopted (so you can have an odd number like 13 or 15).

USF spent $475 Million in research last year...

Based on this metric, Houston and Colorado State would be the two invited.

What are the other metrics to be considered? Trave cost for all sports?

The northwest states' higher ed made an agreement that they share med school resources.
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado are the states. While U. of Oregon, Colorado and Oregon have a med school, the other schools did not. Many pre-med students from the other states did grad studies at the University of Washington.

UNR, UNLV, Utah, Utah State, Montana, Alaska-Fairbanks, and Washington State are getting med schools by having it built are in planning stages. Portland is also a target for a new med-school that could be shared with Portland State and Oregon State. Washington State is getting a med-school in Spokane. University of Montana have planned on the books. The state of Idaho is looking to build a med-school in Boise that would be shared by the Big 3. The people in Moscow, Idaho are not happy, but a med-school in that town would not benefit the state.

As it is, PAC 12 schools used to be at Boise State levels. Plus, adding Houston and Colorado State would turn fans away even more. The fans want regional rivals, and not schools that are outside like from states of Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and kansas.

Create some states between the West Coast and Hawaii, establish schools out there, then invite the flagships. Which in this case would probably literally be ships.

(01-07-2019 03:38 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Create some states between the West Coast and Hawaii, establish schools out there, then invite the flagships. Which in this case would probably literally be ships.

Or just go into the Pacific in general, say somewhere like Bikini atoll.

(01-04-2019 01:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P12 needs to improve the 12 schools they have, fix their problems with the P12N, scheduling, and leadership (first move fire Larry Scott). Expansion is meaningless until you do that.

Stu is correct. Any discussion of expansion is meaningless until you fix the following problems:

1. Pac-12 Revenue - The P12 in fiscal 17 reported $509 million in revenue and $138 million in expenses. The revenue was good, the expenses were ridiculous. Revenue per school would improve overnight if the expenses were cut in half.

2. Pac-12 Network - With seven channels and no DirecTV, it has not been working. Pac-12 Networks offers live coverage of 850 sporting events annually, but does anyone really watch the ancillary sports? The ratings have been horrible.

3. Larry Scott - The commissioner gets paid $4.8 million in salary and he moved the offices to San Francisco, where the rent is $7 million annually. Scott has an extravagant lifestyle that is a bad fit for the P12.

4. Performance - This is a school problem. USC goes 5-7 in football with their top five recruiting classes. UCLA, with their top five recruiting classes in basketball, loses by 15 at home to Liberty. Conference expansion cannot address bad leadership.

If these problems are fixed, then maybe expansion can be discussed. I don't think expansion is ever going to happen with Texas and without UT, it just is not that attractive. Expansion is more about football than any other sport and from top to bottom, the Pac-12 has more talent than the Big 12. For example, the last two NFL drafts have had 66 players drafted from the Pac-12, 34 from the Big 12. Over the last five years, the Pac-12 has 171 players drafted, the Big 12 has had 102 players drafted over that five year period.

The attraction in adding UT is the opportunity that an avenue for Pac-12 schools could possibly open up for the recruitment of talented Texas high school talent like Baker Mayfield, Patrick Mahomes and Kyler Murray. Without the University of Texas, forget it.

(01-07-2019 03:38 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Create some states between the West Coast and Hawaii, establish schools out there, then invite the flagships. Which in this case would probably literally be ships.

First up: New California and Jefferson. State realignment is even more fun than conference realignment!

(01-07-2019 02:31 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 08:41 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 04:23 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 12:14 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 04:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The way Boise State jumped quickly to R2 shows that they are getting the funds, but Idaho are staying the same. In a couple of years, Boise State could be R1. Boise State might be a possible PAC 12 candidate in a few years since they do sometimes get more viewers watching them than some others in the MWC.

This is one I agree with you on.

Academics can always be fixed with enough money. Louisville is an example of a university that changed its profile through fundraising and got the invite from the ACC.

WVU for those in the east was last resort university for years and even its profile has moved up with a 566 billion dollar endowment. It will never be confused with Georgia Tech or another top tier public school but with enough money it was deemed "acceptable" for the XII.

It would take a whole lot more money than you realize for Boise State or UNLV to "fix" their research problem. Graduation rates are another issue for these two schools as well. (The ACC definitely has a case of indigestion and heartburn from Louisville).

Even Houston is not close to Pac-12 level (although the much lower B12 level is reachable). They would have to double their research spending (and extra $150M per year) just to be the bottom school in the Pac-12; or put another way $1B extra over 6 years to be even with WSU. It's a little easier to spend $5M on coaches.

The Pac-12 is not too far from B1G in what it's Presidents and Chancellors will sign off on. To be invited you need the California schools and Washington to agree that the school is acceptable. Like the SEC and B1G, recent additions have been flagships and AAU members or close. (R1 ranges from Memphis and FIU to Harvard and Cal; so that alone is not telling). A good rule of thumb would be a combined $400 million in research and athletic budgets, with research at least double, and preferably more than triple athletics budgets.

Below a real comparison, by the numbers. You can see how much higher the standards are on the research side than the B12 or ACC.

Some Pac-12 schools:

Washington
Research: $1,180,563,000
Athletics: $123,503,513

UCLA
Research: $1,021,227,000
Athletics: $104,106,646

Cal
Research: $788,505,000
Athletics: $ 90,976,576
// has another $16M/year in stadium debt service Chancellor has decided to eat this for now

Washington State
Research: $333,134,000
Athletics: $ 71,801,820

Colorado
Research: $420,775,000
Athletics: $ 90,640,627

Arizona
Research: $606,219,000
Athletics: $ 91,756,963

Utah
Research: $518,928,000
Athletics: $ 81,620,307


B12 School (we are looking at, they are also the top along with Iowa State)
Texas
Research: $650,608,000
Athletics: $207,022,323

Oklahoma
Research: $253,344,000
Athletics: $132,910,780

Kansas
Research: $311,383,000
Athletics: $ 94,709,233


Some G5 for Comparison

Boise State (R2 School)
Research: $ 31,341,000
Athletics: $ 45,456,789

Houston
Research: $150,628,000
Athletics: $ 55,277,308

Colorado State
Research: $317,219,000
Athletics: $ 43,965,622

UNLV
Research: $ 42,000,000
Athletics: $ 47,476,606

San Diego State (R2 school)
Research: $ 93,572,000
Athletics: $ 51,569,852

// below for fun

Idaho (FCS)
Research: $ 97,493,000
Athletics: $ 22,817,285

UC Davis (FCS)
Research: $721,077,000
Athletics: $ 34,625,583

UC San Diego (no football; note they are ramping up to around $17M for Big West; were $8.9M 2 years ago)
Research: $1,101,466,000
Athletics: $ 12,535,867

There really isn't a school beyond the three B12 I listed, that checks the boxes for academic stature, athletic credibility and market. No G5 schools checks all those boxes off, or even two of them. And we can rule out both Texas and Oklahoma from consideration, given the economic disparity between the Pac-12 and it's rivals the B1G and SEC. No doubt many of the little 8 would come running, each asking for a life boat from the Pac-12. Only an orphaned Kansas with no offer from the B1G or SEC strikes me as intriguing -- especially if division-less football is adopted (so you can have an odd number like 13 or 15).

USF spent $475 Million in research last year...

Based on this metric, Houston and Colorado State would be the two invited.

What are the other metrics to be considered? Trave cost for all sports?

Why CSU? Outside of SJSU, they are one of the worst schools in the MW, adding them lowers any conference ranking in football and basketball.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think that the only way to make it work is to go big like Statefan proposed, going with 6 teams from the Central. But to really make it work, they'd have to pull off a nearly impossible feat - not only take 5 from the Big XII, but instead of including TCU, also get Nebraska to leave the B1G.

Should they do so, they'd have all but one of the marquee brands west of the eastern borders of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. You could just draw a line roughly down the middle of the country and they'd be the dominant presence to the West of that line.

The central zone teams would like that they'd still play the bulk of their schedules close to home, given that half the games against their Western brethren would be home games. They'd still be playing teams with which they have history. OU/NU would become an annual matchup again, Nebraska would have TX recruiting grounds back in conference and add CA, and UT would be a major player but wouldn't run everything. UT academics would probably love to be formally affiliated with Stanford and Cal. UT can fill out their schedule with Notre Dame and rotate through TCU/SMU/Baylor/UTEP.

The PAC adds TX and several other Central time zone schools, with a big enough mass to have more than a toe into those markets. They add schools that are truly passionate about college sports, with marquee football brands in OU and UT, with NU still having cache with older fans, plus KU basketball. The overall academic profile may not be stellar, but UT is well respected, KU is AAU, and NU used to be. There may be political resistance to adding red states, but they could also be persuaded that this alliance has the potential to be a route towards flipping them.

I don't think it's going to happen - but if the PAC were to try to expand again, I think that's how to do it.

Jjoey52,

Nice attempt at trolling, but you failed.

CSU system schools are all very similar in graduation rates and admission standards. Cal Poly is under the system but sort of independent. Of the CSU's 5 have large foundations (measured dollars per student): Cal Poly, San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State, and Chico State.

Fresno State is worse than Northridge and San Jose State in student performance. But then again most CSU's are. It's not any great feet by those two, rather zip code lottery. San Jose State is in Silicon Valley, so gets overflow students from the highest educated metro in the US. Similar for Northridge in north LA.

The CSU system is for the most part cash starved, always on the chopping block, oversubscribed, and by charter almost forbidden to undertake much research. The UC system schools are doted on, receiving something like 7x or 8x as many $ per student. Graduation rates at CSU's run 6-19% in 4 years, and 37-55% in 6 years. Most of these are commuters where half the students transfer in from Community College. UNLV and Boise State numbers look indistinguishable for student performance and background from the almost 20 CSU schools I speak of in a pile.

San Diego State has somewhat bucked that trend for CSU schools, and is in a sort of no mans land, similar student results of schools like Utah State, Colorado State, Arizona State, and Washington State. However their research arm and faculty ranking is barely different from the CSU schools (Fresno is really poor in this, as is Bakersfield ... but I think it's a zip code thing, most better faculty want to be in the Bay Area or Los Angeles area). SDSU may tower over the CSUs, but compared to R1 schools OSU, ASU, WSU, CSU they are extremely weak on the faculty front.

I lay most of the blame on the CSU charter and CSU BOT and State Legislature for setting the faculty pay and opportunities much too far below supposed peer State U's in the Western region. They also do not allow schools like SJSU and SDSU and probably a couple in the LA Basin, to set independent higher standards and industry partnerships in line with the high end metros they are attached to. This is not a new problem (since the late 1980's really when it came to head and SJSU was forced to reduce the Engineering requirements and standards on a direct order ... Gail Fullerton made her infamous "Taco Tech" speech), but it has hand cuffed the urban CSU schools from ever rising to their full potential. There is excessive fear that the CSUs with three times as many students, and a free hand to innovate might in some disciplines here and there rise to equal the UCs.

It is what it is. The CSU charter makes these schools mediocre. When I compare UNLV and Boise State to the CSU schools we are talking about the admission selectivity, high rate of commuter, and very low level of research. SDSU is much higher than the others, but still far below it's peers as stated above (Cal Poly should not be considered with the others as they have a special charter).

(01-08-2019 12:47 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Jjoey52,

Nice attempt at trolling, but you failed.

CSU system schools are all very similar in graduation rates and admission standards. Cal Poly is under the system but sort of independent. Of the CSU's 5 have large foundations (measured dollars per student): Cal Poly, San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State, and Chico State.

Fresno State is worse than Northridge and San Jose State in student performance. But then again most CSU's are. It's not any great feet by those two, rather zip code lottery. San Jose State is in Silicon Valley, so gets overflow students from the highest educated metro in the US. Similar for Northridge in north LA.

The CSU system is for the most part cash starved, always on the chopping block, oversubscribed, and by charter almost forbidden to undertake much research. The UC system schools are doted on, receiving something like 7x or 8x as many $ per student. Graduation rates at CSU's run 6-19% in 4 years, and 37-55% in 6 years. Most of these are commuters where half the students transfer in from Community College. UNLV and Boise State numbers look indistinguishable for student performance and background from the almost 20 CSU schools I speak of in a pile.

San Diego State has somewhat bucked that trend for CSU schools, and is in a sort of no mans land, similar student results of schools like Utah State, Colorado State, Arizona State, and Washington State. However their research arm and faculty ranking is barely different from the CSU schools (Fresno is really poor in this, as is Bakersfield ... but I think it's a zip code thing, most better faculty want to be in the Bay Area or Los Angeles area). SDSU may tower over the CSUs, but compared to R1 schools OSU, ASU, WSU, CSU they are extremely weak on the faculty front.

I lay most of the blame on the CSU charter and CSU BOT and State Legislature for setting the faculty pay and opportunities much too far below supposed peer State U's in the Western region. They also do not allow schools like SJSU and SDSU and probably a couple in the LA Basin, to set independent higher standards and industry partnerships in line with the high end metros they are attached to. This is not a new problem (since the late 1980's really when it came to head and SJSU was forced to reduce the Engineering requirements and standards on a direct order ... Gail Fullerton made her infamous "Taco Tech" speech), but it has hand cuffed the urban CSU schools from ever rising to their full potential. There is excessive fear that the CSUs with three times as many students, and a free hand to innovate might in some disciplines here and there rise to equal the UCs.

It is what it is. The CSU charter makes these schools mediocre. When I compare UNLV and Boise State to the CSU schools we are talking about the admission selectivity, high rate of commuter, and very low level of research. SDSU is much higher than the others, but still far below it's peers as stated above (Cal Poly should not be considered with the others as they have a special charter).

That is all nice and good, but I was referring to Colorado State.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(01-08-2019 01:13 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  That is all nice and good, but I was referring to Colorado State.

Colorado State has considerably more resources than anyone in the MWC. Just because they are not having a good couple of Football years is absolutely the wrong reason to dismiss them. This is a fans view, not a Presidents (the ones who decide).

Long term view is far better for them than anyone else. Colorado is growing, and the State allows the school to be a major research University. Unlike say Houston or Oklahoma State, they already are pretty close to Washington State in that respect. The other two would need to dump $1B into research over the next 5 years to get to the same level.

I suppose I could have include TCU and Baylor. Both have very selective admissions and high student success rate, but have essentially zero research (Baylor Medical is a separate Institution). It's the same issue as with BYU, but better students.

Anyway, I put CSU in to show how far UH has to go to match the minimum P12 level, and to show a P5 school is already there and has the athletic department resources as well, even if the results have not been on the field. They are a serious contender for the B12 replacement with the Denver market, but not a serious P12 target. Their rankings also show how hopeless the situation for P12 membership is for SDSU, Boise State and UNLV. If CSU can't make the cut, then nobody below them can.

To make the P12 you have to meet the institutional minimums first, and that yield this list:

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State
Colorado State, Hawaii, New Mexico, Rice

OU and UT are not realistic, SEC and B1G have dibs (hey if either wants to join, yes take them). Hawaii travel makes them a non starter (small market/recruiting base P12 already owns, nothing to gain). New Mexico is another small state, a lesser version of what you get with CSU. Rice is the 6th team in the Houston Market (Texans, Cowboys, Aggies, Longhorns, Cougars) so bring nothing besides prestige. Colorado State is in the same market as Colorado, adds nothing. Iowa State is too much of an outlier.

So what's left? Kansas, and only if the SEC and B1G pass on them. Are they worth it alone? Is KC enough of a recruiting zone and TV market to matter? Can KU pay for itself (do they help the TV package)? Marginal, except they would energize P12 Basketball.

Process of elimination says probably pass on expansion, but give KU serious consideration if they ask.

Realistically CSU and UH are probably in the running for the B12 after it loses UT and OU. But neither is in the conversation for the P12. they'd rather wait for UCD or UCSD to add FBS football or for the State of Nevada to turn UNLV into a serious research university (will take two or three decades to do that) with much more selective admission standards (a pulse is not an acceptable standard for the P12).

PAC 12 have no choice but go after MWC schools.

They need on court/field success. They got weaker when they added Colorado. Colorado State, New Mexico and in a degree Hawaii are weak. UNLV adds no competition.

These are the schools that would help improve PAC 12 competition.

1.Boise State
2.Fresno State
3.San Diego State
4.UNR

UNR is higher in the polls than any PAC 12 team in men's basketball right now. Boise State, Fresno State and San Diego State all have wins over PAC 12 teams in recent years in football.

None of the Big 12 teams want to join the PAC 12. Forget them.
Houston needs to be in Big 12, not the PAC 12. They are too far east.

(01-06-2019 08:41 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  USF spent $475 Million in research last year...

not "West of the Mississippi" as I stipulated. We are talking P12 candidates.

USF has a Med school, which is most of that. UAB also has a large number due to the Med school. (Actually if UAB gets better in sports the next five years, they would be the most likely candidate to replace any exiting schools from the American called up by the Big 12.)

Big 12 standards are different, and will be much lower when (if) Texas and Oklahoma leave. Baylor and TCU are not research schools at all, but do have high admission and good undergraduate rankings (BYU is not that dissimilar, especially to Baylor). But schools like Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and West Virginia represent the middle of the conference. A number of schools easily are almost on par, such as New Mexico, USF, UCF, Cincy, and Houston, while Colorado State is closer to Kansas and Iowa State. (Memphis is a bit lower due to student performance, SDSU a bit lower due to minimal research, UNLV and Boise State fall short in many categories). I really see all these schools people are floating for Pac-12 expansion as non starters, and are far more likely Big 12 replacement candidates.


Note: If we counted UCSF, which is the Med School administered by UC Berkeley, then Cal would be spending $1.8 Billion on research (the Med school is counted with UCLA which is why they are higher than UCB), 2nd only to Johns Hopkins. Similarly if the Texas Med were added the Longhorns, their total would double as well, and be 3rd behind Cal and Johns Hopkins, just ahead of Michigan and Washington. Caveats like this have to be taken in account.

Houston and North Texas were given the go ahead in 2017 to start Medical schools, so their totals may grow to be like those of UAB and USF. In fact some of the recent growth is related to this. But it doesn't change the base institution research level, which is what is evaluated. Baylor is a prime example, where their Medical school is counted separately, and the base institution has almost zero research, yet the med school is one of the best in the nation.

(01-08-2019 05:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  PAC 12 have no choice but go after MWC schools.

They need on court/field success. They got weaker when they added Colorado. Colorado State, New Mexico and in a degree Hawaii are weak. UNLV adds no competition.

These are the schools that would help improve PAC 12 competition.

1.Boise State
2.Fresno State
3.San Diego State
4.UNR

UNR is higher in the polls than any PAC 12 team in men's basketball right now. Boise State, Fresno State and San Diego State all have wins over PAC 12 teams in recent years in football.

None of the Big 12 teams want to join the PAC 12. Forget them.
Houston needs to be in Big 12, not the PAC 12. They are too far east.

Very short term thinking. Yes Reno is a far better school than Las Vegas, but they are not a strong school. The Basketball is strong now due to having an NBA capable coach (most college coaches are far inferior), and Musselman's success in getting Caleb and Cody Martin to play one more year. It's a senior laden team. It would not shock me if Musselman is hired away by one of the Pac-12 schools this April. Same for Fresno Football, it's a P5 coach in Tedford who will get called back up probably in a few years. I think he'll give Fresno a couple more years to fulfill his initial contract, then you'll see him probably at another P5 school. Fresno State is really weak academically and has no chance of P5 membership.

None of the schools you list do anything for the Pac-12 in the future. These are very short term.

Your view of the Big 12 availability is also very short sighted. Nobody is talking about today, They are talking about the aftermath of a Texas and Oklahoma departure. That iteration of the Big 12 loses over half it's market value, and the next contract will require a serious cost shaving by every school (as in $15M per year range). Every school left in the Big 12 will be desperate to get in a conference in better health -- this is a repeat of the 2010-12 situation of the Big East, everyone trying to get out. You will see Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech (as well as Baylor and TCU, who are non starters due to religious affiliation) calling the Pac-12 begging for entry. It's not the same situation as today.

(01-08-2019 12:25 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I think that the only way to make it work is to go big like Statefan proposed, going with 6 teams from the Central. But to really make it work, they'd have to pull off a nearly impossible feat - not only take 5 from the Big XII, but instead of including TCU, also get Nebraska to leave the B1G.

Should they do so, they'd have all but one of the marquee brands west of the eastern borders of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. You could just draw a line roughly down the middle of the country and they'd be the dominant presence to the West of that line.

The central zone teams would like that they'd still play the bulk of their schedules close to home, given that half the games against their Western brethren would be home games. They'd still be playing teams with which they have history. OU/NU would become an annual matchup again, Nebraska would have TX recruiting grounds back in conference and add CA, and UT would be a major player but wouldn't run everything. UT academics would probably love to be formally affiliated with Stanford and Cal. UT can fill out their schedule with Notre Dame and rotate through TCU/SMU/Baylor/UTEP.

The PAC adds TX and several other Central time zone schools, with a big enough mass to have more than a toe into those markets. They add schools that are truly passionate about college sports, with marquee football brands in OU and UT, with NU still having cache with older fans, plus KU basketball. The overall academic profile may not be stellar, but UT is well respected, KU is AAU, and NU used to be. There may be political resistance to adding red states, but they could also be persuaded that this alliance has the potential to be a route towards flipping them.

I don't think it's going to happen - but if the PAC were to try to expand again, I think that's how to do it.

Phog, if the Big 10 and SEC had more geocentric, or profitable targets to the East then I'm not sure that letting Nebraska go would be an issue.

If the PAC moved to 18 out of the Big 12 plus Nebraska then the Big 10 could move their with 5 selections to the East and the SEC with 4. Since neither would gain a significant advantage over one another by expanding to the East it would actually help balance the power a bit better. The Big 10 really wants East coast market penetration and the SEC would really like to consolidate the Southeast.

(01-09-2019 03:48 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 05:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  PAC 12 have no choice but go after MWC schools.

They need on court/field success. They got weaker when they added Colorado. Colorado State, New Mexico and in a degree Hawaii are weak. UNLV adds no competition.

These are the schools that would help improve PAC 12 competition.

1.Boise State
2.Fresno State
3.San Diego State
4.UNR

UNR is higher in the polls than any PAC 12 team in men's basketball right now. Boise State, Fresno State and San Diego State all have wins over PAC 12 teams in recent years in football.

None of the Big 12 teams want to join the PAC 12. Forget them.
Houston needs to be in Big 12, not the PAC 12. They are too far east.

Very short term thinking. Yes Reno is a far better school than Las Vegas, but they are not a strong school. The Basketball is strong now due to having an NBA capable coach (most college coaches are far inferior), and Musselman's success in getting Caleb and Cody Martin to play one more year. It's a senior laden team. It would not shock me if Musselman is hired away by one of the Pac-12 schools this April. Same for Fresno Football, it's a P5 coach in Tedford who will get called back up probably in a few years. I think he'll give Fresno a couple more years to fulfill his initial contract, then you'll see him probably at another P5 school. Fresno State is really weak academically and has no chance of P5 membership.

None of the schools you list do anything for the Pac-12 in the future. These are very short term.

Your view of the Big 12 availability is also very short sighted. Nobody is talking about today, They are talking about the aftermath of a Texas and Oklahoma departure. That iteration of the Big 12 loses over half it's market value, and the next contract will require a serious cost shaving by every school (as in $15M per year range). Every school left in the Big 12 will be desperate to get in a conference in better health -- this is a repeat of the 2010-12 situation of the Big East, everyone trying to get out. You will see Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech (as well as Baylor and TCU, who are non starters due to religious affiliation) calling the Pac-12 begging for entry. It's not the same situation as today.

PAC 12 is Texas/Oklahoma or bust. They are not interested in the rest. There are no value for the PAC 12 to add those schools you mentioned.

(01-09-2019 03:34 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 08:41 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  USF spent $475 Million in research last year...

not "West of the Mississippi" as I stipulated. We are talking P12 candidates.

USF has a Med school, which is most of that. UAB also has a large number due to the Med school. (Actually if UAB gets better in sports the next five years, they would be the most likely candidate to replace any exiting schools from the American called up by the Big 12.)

Big 12 standards are different, and will be much lower when (if) Texas and Oklahoma leave. Baylor and TCU are not research schools at all, but do have high admission and good undergraduate rankings (BYU is not that dissimilar, especially to Baylor). But schools like Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and West Virginia represent the middle of the conference. A number of schools easily are almost on par, such as New Mexico, USF, UCF, Cincy, and Houston, while Colorado State is closer to Kansas and Iowa State. (Memphis is a bit lower due to student performance, SDSU a bit lower due to minimal research, UNLV and Boise State fall short in many categories). I really see all these schools people are floating for Pac-12 expansion as non starters, and are far more likely Big 12 replacement candidates.


Note: If we counted UCSF, which is the Med School administered by UC Berkeley, then Cal would be spending $1.8 Billion on research (the Med school is counted with UCLA which is why they are higher than UCB), 2nd only to Johns Hopkins. Similarly if the Texas Med were added the Longhorns, their total would double as well, and be 3rd behind Cal and Johns Hopkins, just ahead of Michigan and Washington. Caveats like this have to be taken in account.

Houston and North Texas were given the go ahead in 2017 to start Medical schools, so their totals may grow to be like those of UAB and USF. In fact some of the recent growth is related to this. But it doesn't change the base institution research level, which is what is evaluated. Baylor is a prime example, where their Medical school is counted separately, and the base institution has almost zero research, yet the med school is one of the best in the nation.

North Texas was not given permission to start a medical school. TCU is opening one up this September on the UNT Health Science Center campus here in Fort Worth.

Is there a Cooley medical school now?