(08-21-2021 10:41 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  The answer is plain as day.

UC San Diego

Stu won't admit this, but UC San Diego has the foundation already in place. Location, student enrollment, research rankings. No football = no disruption of things.

So add UCSD and Hawaii or BYU football-only and call it a day.

People joke about it but I would say their chances of getting a Pac invite are better then a lot (if not everyone) that is currently available

(08-21-2021 10:55 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If the PAC expands, and that remains a big if, a significant compromise will be made by the BOTs and Presidents. On one hand, any addition of a Texas Tech or an Oklahoma State severely changes the academic standard and associations the league leadership has fought to maintain for so long. Additions like those very clearly affects the academic perceptions of the conference. On another hand, adding a Kansas, which has strong academics, hurts football - which the league is also trying desperately to improve.

Even for programs like BYU, Baylor or TCU, the PAC changes its public-only membership to suddenly start including religious and/or private institutions.

I very much doubt the PAC expands, but would be curious to see what compromise the leadership would make. Something would, in theory, have to give.

A key word here is "perceptions". Oklahoma State's academic emphasis might make them invaluable to their state's economy, but it isn't perceived as "academic" by many outside the state. And while you say that Kansas has "strong academics", how many people on either the west coast or the east coast would think of Kansas as an outstanding educational institution? Average, yes - outstanding, no.

You also perceive the PAC 12 as desperate to improve its football. Yet, once OU and UT move to the SEC, the PAC may be as strong top to bottom as any conference in the FBS other than the SEC. If they need anything, it's help at the top - at national championship contender level. There's no school out there who would help them there.

They would also like to close the financial gap, or at least keep it from getting much wider. If the remaining B12 schools are now only worth half of what they were getting with OU and UT in the conference, how do they miraculously add value to a conference that wasn't very far behind in revenue until now? There are probably more ways to improve their bottom line by cutting costs than by boosting revenue. They don't need to expand to do that.

For all these reasons, I agree with your assessment that PAC 12 expansion is unlikely in the near term. Nothing available to them makes them better in any way.

(08-21-2021 10:41 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  The answer is plain as day.

UC San Diego

Stu won't admit this, but UC San Diego has the foundation already in place. Location, student enrollment, research rankings. No football = no disruption of things.

So add UCSD and Hawaii or BYU football-only and call it a day.

Nah, the combo has to be UCSD and UBC -- that ought to thrill everyone who drools over the mere idea of new MARKETZ! as well as the academics who would love the research rankings of those two universities.

(08-20-2021 02:58 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Pac-12 open to possible expansion, new commissioner says
Link
https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/pac...s-2423684/

Could they take all 8?

The quotes are recycled from last month.

Momentum doesn't seem like its going the direction of expansion with the PAC/ACC/B1G alliance thing.

(08-21-2021 10:41 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  The answer is plain as day.

UC San Diego

Stu won't admit this, but UC San Diego has the foundation already in place. Location, student enrollment, research rankings. No football = no disruption of things.

So add UCSD and Hawaii or BYU football-only and call it a day.

UCSD would be a fine addition some day far in the future for the Pac-12. But they are nowhere near that level of athletics today, and they do not have football. But academically they are equal to UCLA and Cal, and seen as the 3rd member of the top tier of UCs.

Hawaii is a non starter. Just not enough value, serious questions about their ability to fund at P5 level -- MWC rejected them as all sports, and lots of grumbling about them in football. No help for early games to get larger eastern audience. Long travel.

BYU makes sense, except that it's BYU and the collection of Pacific coast schools wont accept them, DOA with the CEOs. They'd be equally dead with the Big West's UC Chancellors and CSU Presidents. So not happening.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit. The academics of the UC's are certainly Pac-12 level, especially UCSD (UC Davis too), but none of them are anywhere near the P5 level, none have the build up capital, donor level or following required, none close. It's quite a jump from a $17m budget like UCSD to $102m like Cal. That's a gap I don't see closing.

Going to 14 seems better than 16 + it matches the big10 and ACC without ND.

Kansas = national hoops brand

Texas tech = probably have interest from across the state more so than Houston + they seem like a western school

Always can jump to 16 later

(08-21-2021 12:43 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Going to 14 seems better than 16 + it matches the big10 and ACC without ND.

Kansas = national hoops brand

Texas tech = probably have interest from across the state more so than Houston + they seem like a western school

Always can jump to 16 later

Going to 14 would require the CA schools agreeing that they no longer have to play all 3 other CA school annually which is unlikely but its the only way you could align the divisions while maintaining everyone else's access to CA as best you could.

(08-21-2021 01:00 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 12:43 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Going to 14 seems better than 16 + it matches the big10 and ACC without ND.

Kansas = national hoops brand

Texas tech = probably have interest from across the state more so than Houston + they seem like a western school

Always can jump to 16 later

Going to 14 would require the CA schools agreeing that they no longer have to play all 3 other CA school annually which is unlikely but its the only way you could align the divisions while maintaining everyone else's access to CA as best you could.

Not necessarily. At 14, you could go divisionless: 3 permanent rivals, and see everyone else every other year.

Rivals (assuming Kansas and Texas Tech from the post above):
California / Stanford / UCLA / USC
Oregon / Oregon St / Washington / Washington St
Arizona: Arizona St, Colorado, Texas Tech
Arizona St: Arizona, Texas Tech, Utah
Colorado: Arizona, Kansas, Utah
Kansas: Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah
Texas Tech: Arizona, Arizona St, Kansas
Utah: Arizona St, Colorado, Kansas

Example 4 Year Schedule - Arizona
Annual: Arizona St, Colorado, Texas Tech
Years 1 & 3: California, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, Washington St
Years 2 & 4: Kansas, Stanford, Oregon St, USC, Washington

(08-21-2021 12:37 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 10:41 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  The answer is plain as day.

UC San Diego

Stu won't admit this, but UC San Diego has the foundation already in place. Location, student enrollment, research rankings. No football = no disruption of things.

So add UCSD and Hawaii or BYU football-only and call it a day.

UCSD would be a fine addition some day far in the future for the Pac-12. But they are nowhere near that level of athletics today, and they do not have football. But academically they are equal to UCLA and Cal, and seen as the 3rd member of the top tier of UCs.

Hawaii is a non starter. Just not enough value, serious questions about their ability to fund at P5 level -- MWC rejected them as all sports, and lots of grumbling about them in football. No help for early games to get larger eastern audience. Long travel.

BYU makes sense, except that it's BYU and the collection of Pacific coast schools wont accept them, DOA with the CEOs. They'd be equally dead with the Big West's UC Chancellors and CSU Presidents. So not happening.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit. The academics of the UC's are certainly Pac-12 level, especially UCSD (UC Davis too), but none of them are anywhere near the P5 level, none have the build up capital, donor level or following required, none close. It's quite a jump from a $17m budget like UCSD to $102m like Cal. That's a gap I don't see closing.

UCSD's financial endowment is in the billions. They were ranked 18 in the 2021 ARWU rankings. 18th, worldwide.
They are at the P5 level there. Student enrollment at 35k and counting. Is it that much of a stretch to say UCSD holds their own as a whole when compared to K.State, Okie Light, Texas Tech, etc.? IMO, it comes down to whether or not their lofty research rankings could offset their lack of Division 1 athletics success (which will come in due time).

And - does UCSD need football to get in? Not having it might make things easier. The CA members would welcome them as an academic equal, and ASU, Arizona, Wazzu, etc.won't be threatened with them in the mix.

As for BYU, football-only works for them too. They already have a home for all other sports. The WCC, as they have been for over a decade now.

(08-21-2021 01:42 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Not necessarily. At 14, you could go divisionless: 3 permanent rivals, and see everyone else every other year.

Rivals (assuming Kansas and Texas Tech from the post above):
California / Stanford / UCLA / USC
Oregon / Oregon St / Washington / Washington St
Arizona: Arizona St, Colorado, Texas Tech
Arizona St: Arizona, Texas Tech, Utah
Colorado: Arizona, Kansas, Utah
Kansas: Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah
Texas Tech: Arizona, Arizona St, Kansas
Utah: Arizona St, Colorado, Kansas

Example 4 Year Schedule - Arizona
Annual: Arizona St, Colorado, Texas Tech
Years 1 & 3: California, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, Washington St
Years 2 & 4: Kansas, Stanford, Oregon St, USC, Washington

OK, so in Year 1, what are the two divisions where all seven schools in each division play each other round robin, in order to have a CCG?

(08-21-2021 10:07 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  The Cali and the NW schools have said it’s a deal breaker if they don’t get to play all the teams in their local area each year.

The AZ schools could be mollified with guarantees that they will get to play in both TX and Cali at least once each every year

The mountain time zone schools might view your concept as effectively kicking them out of the Pac-12.

For sure, you would be kicking them out of a football division in which they play USC and UCLA every year, and for them, there are no other games you could offer them that are an acceptable replacement for playing USC and UCLA every year.

At any rate, 1845's response to your comment brings up the real deal breaker: TV won't pay this "Pac-16" enough money to make expansion sufficiently profitable for the existing Pac-12 schools. And, money would be the only way to sell this to them.

If they are looking for College Football Texas Tech and Kansas add NOTHING to the league ..Both are Big 12 Bottom Feeders


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

IMO, nobody.

To me, there is nobody out there who is willing to join the PAC that would add value to the PAC, nor none that would be of equal value. All possible candidates would reduce per-capita PAC value.

Only schools that add competitive football are Okie State and TCU


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

(08-21-2021 02:29 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Only schools that add competitive football are Okie State and TCU

Not Fiesta Bowl champ Iowa State?

(08-21-2021 02:29 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Only schools that add competitive football are Okie State and TCU


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

The only ones? Laughable

Baylor’s three years of being one game from the BCS/playoff this decade with a Heisman says hi.

WVU’s strong 2018 & 2016 seasons where they made it late in the year (10/29 rankings & 11/13 rankings) with playoff chances.

ISU’s fiesta bowl win says hi.

KSU teaching #1 says hi.

Well, my view is that the PAC 12, at this time, is only being polite and going through the motions, but nonetheless doing due diligence, only to conclude "not at this time" regarding expansion. They've been ruthless and predatory at times in the past (1959 when they dissolved the PCAA and formed the PAC in order to get rid of Idaho; 1979 when they added Arizona and ASU; and 2010, when they added Utah and Colorado). But they have usually done so on their timetable and not necessarily as a reaction to what other shave done. And they always wanted UT - and that's gone now. Their timetable now is that they must have a new TV contract in place by July 1, 2024, so a year or so in advance of that they need to know their conference configuration. And if they want current Big 12 schools - a logical assumption if they truly want to expand - the timing for them is an 18 month notice in advance of that (or January 1, 2023). That means a decision doesn't have to be made until next fall; not this fall. Now, maybe the Pac 12 doesn't care about the Big 12's timing, but it would mean $40 million to each prospective candidate.

As for candidates, we've all seen the recent TV ratings articles. From 2012-2020, both Oklahoma State and TCU draw better ratings than all Pac 12 schools other than USC. And Baylor and West Virginia are right there too. That is clear and obvious value to anyone who can read. All Big 12 schools currently make more than all Pac 12 schools in conference revenue distributions and if you discount the UT/OU value, it's still pretty close ($25 million v. $30-32 million). And performance-wise, TCU and KState would each have made a 12-team CFP 8 times in the past 25 years (TCU has 8 Top 10 AP finishes in the past 15 years) and Baylor, West Virginia and Oklahoma State are right there too. If the Pac wants football performance and TV ratings, there are candidates available.

The PAC has short-term problems and one big long-term problem. The big one is that the SEC and the Big 10 are both projected to make $70 million+ (and possibly a lot more) per school per year in the near future. The PAC currently makes $32 million per school per year, but they also each have to absorb $2-3 million in costs associated with their 7 networks, so it's really around $30 million. They probably are never going to be able to keep pace with the P2, but they need to remain in the ballpark. They need their next contract to do that for them. Their short-term problems are their current networks - none of which have a DirectTV tie-in and aren't shown on many cable systems (and if they are, it's only on premium tiers). COVID and their reaction to it last year is another short-term (hopefully) issue. Attendance is another and football performance is another. But all those can be addressed and turned around.

My guess is that they punt this time around and look more seriously next year. We'll see though...

(08-21-2021 01:59 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 12:37 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 10:41 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  The answer is plain as day.

UC San Diego

Stu won't admit this, but UC San Diego has the foundation already in place. Location, student enrollment, research rankings. No football = no disruption of things.

So add UCSD and Hawaii or BYU football-only and call it a day.

UCSD would be a fine addition some day far in the future for the Pac-12. But they are nowhere near that level of athletics today, and they do not have football. But academically they are equal to UCLA and Cal, and seen as the 3rd member of the top tier of UCs.

Hawaii is a non starter. Just not enough value, serious questions about their ability to fund at P5 level -- MWC rejected them as all sports, and lots of grumbling about them in football. No help for early games to get larger eastern audience. Long travel.

BYU makes sense, except that it's BYU and the collection of Pacific coast schools wont accept them, DOA with the CEOs. They'd be equally dead with the Big West's UC Chancellors and CSU Presidents. So not happening.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit. The academics of the UC's are certainly Pac-12 level, especially UCSD (UC Davis too), but none of them are anywhere near the P5 level, none have the build up capital, donor level or following required, none close. It's quite a jump from a $17m budget like UCSD to $102m like Cal. That's a gap I don't see closing.

UCSD's financial endowment is in the billions. They were ranked 18 in the 2021 ARWU rankings. 18th, worldwide.
They are at the P5 level there. Student enrollment at 35k and counting. Is it that much of a stretch to say UCSD holds their own as a whole when compared to K.State, Okie Light, Texas Tech, etc.? IMO, it comes down to whether or not their lofty research rankings could offset their lack of Division 1 athletics success (which will come in due time).

And - does UCSD need football to get in? Not having it might make things easier. The CA members would welcome them as an academic equal, and ASU, Arizona, Wazzu, etc.won't be threatened with them in the mix.

As for BYU, football-only works for them too. They already have a home for all other sports. The WCC, as they have been for over a decade now.

Their athletics is $80 million a year short of Pac-12 levels. There is no indication they have any plans to push it to that level. And it would take a few decades to build up a UCLA sized audience. Look at how difficult it is even for UCF, who are still 30% or so short of much smaller Kansas State. Longevity at major level matters.

Also nobody spends foundation money on Athletics. You know that.

BYU is DOA for the P12, end of story. California law makes it impossible for Cal and Stanford to vote for them due to LGBT, ditto Oregon, CU and UW. Stanford is a hell no too.

Further nobody measures conference suitability and fit by comparing to the caboose. You measure against the medium, after removing those not up to standard. WSU is not close to standards for the P12 (Oregon State is borderline), KU football is not up to Big 12 standards ("legacy programs"); so you remove them from comparisons.

(08-21-2021 02:57 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  Well, my view is that the PAC 12, at this time, is only being polite and going through the motions, but nonetheless doing due diligence, only to conclude "not at this time" regarding expansion. ...

My guess is that they punt this time around and look more seriously next year. We'll see though...

IMV this due diligence is not setting up for a punt until next year, its setting up for settling the power conference landscape by letting the Big12 schools know now whether they have an invite or not, and settling that, setting up the PAC12's path for the balance of the Twenties.

(08-21-2021 03:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 02:57 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  Well, my view is that the PAC 12, at this time, is only being polite and going through the motions, but nonetheless doing due diligence, only to conclude "not at this time" regarding expansion. ...

My guess is that they punt this time around and look more seriously next year. We'll see though...

IMV this due diligence is not setting up for a punt until next year, its setting up for settling the power conference landscape by letting the Big12 schools know now whether they have an invite or not, and settling that, setting up the PAC12's path for the balance of the Twenties.

You may well be right. The disclosure yesterday that they have a working group and have already held a series of initial meetings was a bombshell given the vagueness at Pac-12 Media Days. They are apparently taking this much more seriously than I originally thought they would.