(02-14-2022 11:05 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  They will add;

1. SDSU to protect their recruiting form the Big 12.

2. UNLV or Nevada to help with their POD formations. (Most likely Nevada).

3. Texas Tech and SMU. The remaining three Texas Big 12 schools opt to stick together. They will ask Houston and SMU first but, Houston knows their greater value is in an eastern - central time zone league. SMU will be happy to be invited to the table. (No slight to SMU, USF would be happy with an invite as well.)

4. OSU rejects the offer preferring to be the big Dog in their new conference.

This gives the PAC 16 full members and 4 PODs of 4 teams.

North : Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State.

West: Stanford, California, So Cal, UCLA.

South: SDSU, Nevada/UNLV, Arizona and Arizona State.

East: Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech and SMU.

P.S.; This is my guess, I have no sources.

Every Big 12 school would leave for the Pac-12 tomorrow. That's not really debatable.

At the same time, I go back to that the fact that you need to look at the votes within the Pac-12. Stanford, Berkeley and UCLA are UBER-elite institutions and they're also located in the league's most important markets of LA and SF. Those 3 schools alone can block Pac-12 expansion (and we're not even counting that USC and Washington, who are right behind those 3 other schools on the academic pecking order, probably feel the same way).

I think too many football-focused fans are way underestimating how much *institutional* power that the Pac-12 has compared to the rest of the P5. It's legitimately right there with the Big Ten and SEC (even if the football dollars and performance don't currently reflect that status) and that's because of the academic reputations of its members combined with the critical key markets that it represents (LA, SF, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, etc.) that have no other P5 competition. When Stanford says something, the rest of academia really DOES care because they're the primary crossover between the truly academic elite and the very top levels of athletics.

(02-14-2022 09:01 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 08:31 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 08:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:15 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 01:46 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  I'm talking entirely about TV value, which is only partially linked to wins and losses and is the defining factor in P5 realignment. Did Utah and Colorado allow the Pac-12 to keep pace with the SEC and Big Ten in revenues when those leagues added Texas A&M and Nebraska? Did they give the Pac-12 Network leverage for better distribution deals by virtue of delivering the SLC and Denver markets? Have Utah and Colorado consistently performed above average on TV over the last 10 years relative to other Pac-12 or P5 programs, and is there any indication that their specific success could lead to better TV revenues long-term? I would answer those questions "no," "no," "occasionally," and "not really." Someone else might come to different conclusions.

The lesson to take from that is not "Utah and Colorado are bums," because they're not. The lesson to take from it is, "nobody outside the Pac-12 is going to add more value than the schools already in it getting their **** together." The league moves forward when its traditional powers (USC, and to a lesser extent UCLA and Washington) are competitive at the same time for a sustained period of time. Expansion will not drive TV value for the Pac-12. The only real slam dunk addition in terms of academic standards, athletic success, and brand power is BYU, but the presidents don't want BYU for other reasons. The next best choice is probably Kansas, and they're really bad at football.

So again I say - if the Pac-12 is left alone by other conferences, I don't think it expands without a major change in desired membership attributes.

It seems a little odd that Utah football has done so incredibly well (5 top 25 teams in the past decade), and yet hasn't been noticed or hyped the way a UCLA or USC or Oregon has been.

One wonders if there is something that either the PAC-12 or the University could have done, but didn't do.

At Oregon, the one thing they did - as I perceived it - was their amazing rebranding in the form of their mirror-shiny helmets and innovative uniforms. That got people's attention.

Maybe a western school that isn't known like UCLA or USC needs some kind of a gimmick.

Another example is Boise State. For them, it was the blue football field and their bold uniform/helmet designs that got people's attention.

Occasionally, a basketball can do the same, such as Gonzaga, but that usually requires winning NCAA championships, but there are so many possible visual gimmicks that can be used to "hype" and market and rebrand a football team (field design, stadium design, helmet designs, uniforms, all the rest).

Just an hypothesis, but if it's correct, then perhaps Utah football could make itself the next Oregon by designing some helmets and uniforms that get everybody talking...

.

Oregon is a super-unique case because Phil Knight, the founder of Nike, is an Oregon alum and Nike's headquarters are located near Portland. As a result, Oregon has been the beneficiary of Knight's personal largesse for donations and the school gets personal attention from Nike in a way that no other school could ever get. With that connection, Nike uses their top designers for Oregon and its shows in the quality of their uniforms. I'm very much a traditional uniform guy in general, but Oregon is a rare case where I think they work because it's clear that Nike takes a lot of care in the designs. The variety of Oregon uniforms might be a gimmick, but the uniform designs themselves aren't *gimmicky* to me. (Contrast this with Maryland's uniforms where that school has a similar relationship with Under Armour's founder. Those uniforms are garish for the sake of being garish.)

That's why I chose Oregon's uniforms/helmets - not Maryland's.

Whether it's called a gimmick or a strategy, or whatever, it's a use of visuals to rebrand a team, and Oregon has done it par excellence - brilliantly.

Boise State chose a different tack, but it's still basically about helmets and uniforms, in addition to their blue field, which - love it or hate it - was a brilliant way to grab attention. We are a highly species, after all.

Utah's helmets and uniforms are really boring. Plain red road jerseys, white helmets with a red logo. Home uniforms plain white, white helmets.

Perhaps adding a splash of silver to their uniforms & helmets would help. Go with a helmet & uniform design more like Ohio State's, only using silver instead of gray, or go with mirrored red helmets - - very much like Oregon's scheme, only with red instead of yellow or green.

Might help...

I dont think you’ve watched a single Utah football game. Utah wears a lot of alts including the hand-painted helmet series which had this 1962 throwback: https://www.uniswag.com/blog/utah-throwback-uniform

The problem with Utah branding is that it has a NA name but NA imagery is off the table. And the selection of a hawk mascot was a lazy way to justify the retention of the circle and feather (redskins) logo. A lot of us think that the branding would be more unified if we permanently dropped the logo and went to a more brand friendly (and mercy friendly) mascot like a moose.

Is there a reason they can't work with the Ute tribe to develop acceptable imagery like Florida State has with the Seminoles? I'm not trying to attack Utah, I'm just wondering. Perhaps the tribe is not interested, or maybe Utah is concerned that would still be a target of criticism if started up now. FSU has used Chief Osceola & Renegade as "school symbols" since 1978, whereas the mascot "Sammy Seminole" was retired in 1972 as insensitive and offensive.

(02-14-2022 01:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-12-2022 11:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I don't seem them adding anyone unless they can shake loose Nebraska.

If you do not have robust graduate programs and don't have a robust research element you don't fit. When it comes to San Diego, SDSU has the football team but very few graduate programs and no law or med school. UCSD has those things so why in the Hell would they be interested in College Football? Spanos will die some day and the Chargers will come back home.

As someone who has a soft spot in their heart for city of San Diego, I sincerely hope you are correct about the Chargers. However, history is not on San Diego's side, unfortunately.

Spanos won't live forever, but I can see some businessman doing with the Chargers what Ballmer did with the Clippers: make them a contender in LA. The best thing San Diego can do, IMHO, is to keep the Padres happy and try to get an MLS expansion team. Maybe call them the Chargers. That's probably as good as it is going to get for San Diego, again, IMO.

The Chargers are not going back to San Diego. They are building a new headquarters and practice facility in El Segundo, a suburb of LA, at a cost of over $100 million. It will be located less than three miles from LAX airport and seven miles from SoFi Stadium. It is scheduled to be ready in 2024. Their current facility is located in Costa Mesa in Orange County, about 37 miles from SoFi Stadium. The Lakers have their headquarters and practice facility in El Segundo (known as the UCLA Health Training Center) and the LA Kings also have their headquarters and practice facility in El Segundo (known as the Toyota Sports Center).

(02-14-2022 08:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:26 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  If the PAC 12 is serious about keeping up with the big boys (I have my doubts thanks to the bean counter presidents- yet these same buffoons like to study lizards on treadmills-I'm not making this stuff up!! The National Science Foundation has been studying lizards and shrimp on treadmills!!! Senator Rand Paul called them out on this on YouTube!!), they will take a Texas team with high academics (my guess is TCU because they have higher academic standards than Texas Tech and they are more liberal than Baylor, which is really saying something, IMHO!!!), probably Kansas or maybe K-State (they did hold their nose and take Arizona State, so anything is possible) if KU is not available, and Hawaii (Gateway to China!!).

If not, the PAC 12 will wind up looking like Ivy League West, and the Big 12 will regain power!!

You write this as if Ivy League West is a bad thing.

The Pac-12 is the dominant conference in *both* entertainment (Hollywood) and tech (Silicon Valley). I don't mean just proximity, but I mean actual direct dominance in terms of its grads starting and running companies in those two elite industries. The 5 largest market cap companies on Earth are all located next to Pac-12 universities (Stanford and Washington) and that wasn't a coincidence - those companies chose those locations *because* of the talent coming out of those universities. So, we can all bring up these esoteric anecdotal studies that universities perform from time to time as a joke, but it's a high probability that the Pac-12 actually has a way higher impact on everything that we do in our everyday lives (the entertainment that we consume and the technology that we use to consume it) than any other group of schools anywhere. That's the bigger picture that the purely football-focused fans keep missing whenever they critique any university president emphasis on academic reputations.

At the same time, even if we were just football-focused and completely ignored the academic side, why would the expansion that you have proposed actually make more money for the Pac-12? Are any of those programs really going to add any more value compared to any current member outside of maybe Oregon State or Washington State? I just don't see it. The University of Texas specifically (not merely the Texas market) was essentially mandatory if the Pac-12 was going to move into the Central Time Zone and that's now off the table.

The Pac-12's most direct path to football dominance and high TV ratings again is already in its conference: USC playing to historical standards. The league doesn't need to (and shouldn't) start simply adding random schools. Whatever high value football comes from the Pac-12 is going to have to come from its current membership.

Disagree Frank. If the PAC 12 goes with the Ivy League West approach, they won't win another NC in any of the big money sports on tv (football and basketball). How many has the Ivy League won recently?? Zero.

(02-14-2022 11:31 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-12-2022 11:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I don't seem them adding anyone unless they can shake loose Nebraska.

If you do not have robust graduate programs and don't have a robust research element you don't fit. When it comes to San Diego, SDSU has the football team but very few graduate programs and no law or med school. UCSD has those things so why in the Hell would they be interested in College Football? Spanos will die some day and the Chargers will come back home.

As someone who has a soft spot in their heart for city of San Diego, I sincerely hope you are correct about the Chargers. However, history is not on San Diego's side, unfortunately.

Spanos won't live forever, but I can see some businessman doing with the Chargers what Ballmer did with the Clippers: make them a contender in LA. The best thing San Diego can do, IMHO, is to keep the Padres happy and try to get an MLS expansion team. Maybe call them the Chargers. That's probably as good as it is going to get for San Diego, again, IMO.

The Chargers are not going back to San Diego. They are building a new headquarters and practice facility in El Segundo, a suburb of LA, at a cost of over $100 million. It will be located less than three miles from LAX airport and seven miles from SoFi Stadium. It is scheduled to be ready in 2024. Their current facility is located in Costa Mesa in Orange County, about 37 miles from SoFi Stadium. The Lakers have their headquarters and practice facility in El Segundo (known as the UCLA Health Training Center) and the LA Kings also have their headquarters and practice facility in El Segundo (known as the Toyota Sports Center).

Plus the new San Diego stadium that will be San Diego State's new home will seat 35k, hardly and NFL stadium. Perhaps in could be expanded but that would be quite a way into the future.

(02-14-2022 11:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  When Stanford says something, the rest of academia really DOES care because they're the primary crossover between the truly academic elite and the very top levels of athletics.

^This!

The PAC 12 is not going to expand just to expand. The academic snobs in that Conference (IMHO, led by Stanford) would say no to schools just on academics alone.

However I have said this for years and still hold to this: If they were going to expand, Hawai'i is the only logical conclusion....

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk

(02-14-2022 11:36 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 08:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:26 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  If the PAC 12 is serious about keeping up with the big boys (I have my doubts thanks to the bean counter presidents- yet these same buffoons like to study lizards on treadmills-I'm not making this stuff up!! The National Science Foundation has been studying lizards and shrimp on treadmills!!! Senator Rand Paul called them out on this on YouTube!!), they will take a Texas team with high academics (my guess is TCU because they have higher academic standards than Texas Tech and they are more liberal than Baylor, which is really saying something, IMHO!!!), probably Kansas or maybe K-State (they did hold their nose and take Arizona State, so anything is possible) if KU is not available, and Hawaii (Gateway to China!!).

If not, the PAC 12 will wind up looking like Ivy League West, and the Big 12 will regain power!!

You write this as if Ivy League West is a bad thing.

The Pac-12 is the dominant conference in *both* entertainment (Hollywood) and tech (Silicon Valley). I don't mean just proximity, but I mean actual direct dominance in terms of its grads starting and running companies in those two elite industries. The 5 largest market cap companies on Earth are all located next to Pac-12 universities (Stanford and Washington) and that wasn't a coincidence - those companies chose those locations *because* of the talent coming out of those universities. So, we can all bring up these esoteric anecdotal studies that universities perform from time to time as a joke, but it's a high probability that the Pac-12 actually has a way higher impact on everything that we do in our everyday lives (the entertainment that we consume and the technology that we use to consume it) than any other group of schools anywhere. That's the bigger picture that the purely football-focused fans keep missing whenever they critique any university president emphasis on academic reputations.

At the same time, even if we were just football-focused and completely ignored the academic side, why would the expansion that you have proposed actually make more money for the Pac-12? Are any of those programs really going to add any more value compared to any current member outside of maybe Oregon State or Washington State? I just don't see it. The University of Texas specifically (not merely the Texas market) was essentially mandatory if the Pac-12 was going to move into the Central Time Zone and that's now off the table.

The Pac-12's most direct path to football dominance and high TV ratings again is already in its conference: USC playing to historical standards. The league doesn't need to (and shouldn't) start simply adding random schools. Whatever high value football comes from the Pac-12 is going to have to come from its current membership.

Disagree Frank. If the PAC 12 goes with the Ivy League West approach, they won't win another NC in any of the big money sports on tv (football and basketball). How many has the Ivy League won recently?? Zero.

You're still not addressing the core issue: even if the Pac-12 were to just magically drop all academic standards for expansion, why would anyone other than some combination of UT and OU (who are off the table) actually improve per school revenue for the league?

If Texas Tech and Oklahoma State (or TCU, Houston, Kansas or any other combo of Big 12 schools) could show that they could dramatically increase TV revenue for the Pac-12, then we'd at least have a legitimate academics vs. athletic revenue debate. However, I think people are just forgetting the core issue that those schools probably *don't* increase the Pac-12's revenue in that fashion. That's why those schools haven't been picked up by the other P5 leagues despite (at least in the case of the Texas-based schools) being in desirable recruiting and market locations on paper.

That's what I mean - you can accuse the Pac-12 of supposedly focusing too much on academics, but ultimately, the schools that would give them pause academically aren't even going to bring them more revenue... so what's the point of expanding? There isn't any point. Pretty much the only school that could conceivably truly bring more revenue to the Pac-12 that's not already in one of the non-Big 12 P5 leagues is BYU. That's really the only school where you could say that the Pac-12 has core institutional issues (and it's not really on academics since BYU is a solid academic institution) despite BYU being a legit revenue maker. Other than that, no one is really bringing in more revenue, so it's essentially irrelevant whether they're academic fits with the Pac-12 or not. The fact that the Pac-12 is "Ivy League West" isn't holding up expansion, but rather there isn't anyone worth expanding for that isn't already in the Big Ten, SEC or ACC.

(02-14-2022 11:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:05 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  They will add;

1. SDSU to protect their recruiting form the Big 12.

2. UNLV or Nevada to help with their POD formations. (Most likely Nevada).

3. Texas Tech and SMU. The remaining three Texas Big 12 schools opt to stick together. They will ask Houston and SMU first but, Houston knows their greater value is in an eastern - central time zone league. SMU will be happy to be invited to the table. (No slight to SMU, USF would be happy with an invite as well.)

4. OSU rejects the offer preferring to be the big Dog in their new conference.

This gives the PAC 16 full members and 4 PODs of 4 teams.

North : Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State.

West: Stanford, California, So Cal, UCLA.

South: SDSU, Nevada/UNLV, Arizona and Arizona State.

East: Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech and SMU.

P.S.; This is my guess, I have no sources.

Every Big 12 school would leave for the Pac-12 tomorrow. That's not really debatable.

At the same time, I go back to that the fact that you need to look at the votes within the Pac-12. Stanford, Berkeley and UCLA are UBER-elite institutions and they're also located in the league's most important markets of LA and SF. Those 3 schools alone can block Pac-12 expansion (and we're not even counting that USC and Washington, who are right behind those 3 other schools on the academic pecking order, probably feel the same way).

I think too many football-focused fans are way underestimating how much *institutional* power that the Pac-12 has compared to the rest of the P5. It's legitimately right there with the Big Ten and SEC (even if the football dollars and performance don't currently reflect that status) and that's because of the academic reputations of its members combined with the critical key markets that it represents (LA, SF, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, etc.) that have no other P5 competition. When Stanford says something, the rest of academia really DOES care because they're the primary crossover between the truly academic elite and the very top levels of athletics.

Look at that, Frank. Who has the elite institutional status, the student enrollment and the location to get in the Pac? That would be UC San Diego, even without football.

(02-14-2022 11:24 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  Is there a reason they can't work with the Ute tribe to develop acceptable imagery like Florida State has with the Seminoles? I'm not trying to attack Utah, I'm just wondering. Perhaps the tribe is not interested, or maybe Utah is concerned that would still be a target of criticism if started up now. FSU has used Chief Osceola & Renegade as "school symbols" since 1978, whereas the mascot "Sammy Seminole" was retired in 1972 as insensitive and offensive.

FSU is a bit of a unique situation.
1) To my knowledge FSU has always used the name Seminoles and never names like braves, chiefs, or redskins.
2) The Florida Seminoles are rich AF which helps arrangements with the tribe avoid the appearance of being exploitative.
3) FSU is not in a conference or state where there is a whole lot of sensitivity to this issue.

Utah’s problem is that the names Redskins and Utes were used somewhat interchangeably. Although Utes was the predominant term, Redskins was somewhat promoted in the late ‘60s to early ‘70s when the football program dropped the locked U logo in favor of the Washington Redskins knockoff logo (the 1970 era Washington logo was like Utah’s current circle and feather but with an R instead of a U).

Also, there are several Ute tribes, and the one in Utah which gives approval for the use of the name is neither large nor wealthy. They are more interested in being sensitive to other NA groups. The Seminoles may not give a rat’s ass if general NA imagery is used because they don’t feel as compelled to appease the sentiments of other NA groups. The Utes I believe do. They restrict the use of Native American imagery. Nothing on the ground/field/court that can be stepped on, no headdresses or other important ceremonial/religious iconography. We basically use the Ute tribal seal and some historic Ute textile patterns in design motifs (pretty similar to other SW tribes like the Dine). It’s fairly limiting. It’s serious and respectful. I’m happy about the financial gain, scholarships, and publicity that the tribe gets.

But IMO, this stuff should be fun. We play a serious, hard-nosed defensive grind-it-out style of football. We memorialize 2 players who died tragically. We have a serious, respectful, and historically problematic relationship with our name/imagery. There’s a lot of room for something that’s more fun/light.

(02-14-2022 12:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:05 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  They will add;

1. SDSU to protect their recruiting form the Big 12.

2. UNLV or Nevada to help with their POD formations. (Most likely Nevada).

3. Texas Tech and SMU. The remaining three Texas Big 12 schools opt to stick together. They will ask Houston and SMU first but, Houston knows their greater value is in an eastern - central time zone league. SMU will be happy to be invited to the table. (No slight to SMU, USF would be happy with an invite as well.)

4. OSU rejects the offer preferring to be the big Dog in their new conference.

This gives the PAC 16 full members and 4 PODs of 4 teams.

North : Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State.

West: Stanford, California, So Cal, UCLA.

South: SDSU, Nevada/UNLV, Arizona and Arizona State.

East: Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech and SMU.

P.S.; This is my guess, I have no sources.

Every Big 12 school would leave for the Pac-12 tomorrow. That's not really debatable.

At the same time, I go back to that the fact that you need to look at the votes within the Pac-12. Stanford, Berkeley and UCLA are UBER-elite institutions and they're also located in the league's most important markets of LA and SF. Those 3 schools alone can block Pac-12 expansion (and we're not even counting that USC and Washington, who are right behind those 3 other schools on the academic pecking order, probably feel the same way).

I think too many football-focused fans are way underestimating how much *institutional* power that the Pac-12 has compared to the rest of the P5. It's legitimately right there with the Big Ten and SEC (even if the football dollars and performance don't currently reflect that status) and that's because of the academic reputations of its members combined with the critical key markets that it represents (LA, SF, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, etc.) that have no other P5 competition. When Stanford says something, the rest of academia really DOES care because they're the primary crossover between the truly academic elite and the very top levels of athletics.

Look at that, Frank. Who has the elite institutional status, the student enrollment and the location to get in the Pac? That would be UC San Diego, even without football.

Well, of course the issue is UCSD's lack of football and, even if they had a program, whether they would actually make any money for the league. Heck, you might as well bring up Cal Tech or the Claremont Colleges on that front.

A classic example is Rice, who certainly has the academic qualifications for the Big Ten and Pac-12 and is directly located in a major market with FBS football... yet they don't have the athletic brand to add revenue at this time.

These leagues are truly looking for unicorns: the ones that satisfy the academic side with various rankings AND have the athletics brand to make them money. It's not an "either or" situation - don't ever mistake my emphasis on academics with an argument that conferences and schools are ignoring the athletic revenue/brand side of the equation. That's definitely not true - you need both when you get to the Big Ten/Pac-12 level.

I think you're all over thinking the simple fact that the PAC needs MONEY! They need additional revenue streams. They need to expand their footprint and if any of you have taken notice, the Big 12 appears to have been promised a lucrative contract going forward. They believe, their numbers will be close to if not superior then the PAC's.

This has been suggested by several Big 12 AD's and the Sicem365 Guys. (I have no idea if they're credible or not). With this being said, If in fact the Big 12 schools are going to receive the same or even more money to be in the Big 12. Why would they then leave for the PAC and incur greater travel expenses not to mention the political angst that comes with all things West Coast.

I think people get lost when they think about RND assets or production, Academic standings and the like. The Conference members don't share in RND revenues. They don't share in Academic standings although their associations may be nice for bragging. No, the conference shares Athletic revenues by virtue of their Media and Athletics Contracts. Those are the primary revenues that are driving this bus.

I'll sit back now and watch this all play out. Just remember that when it comes down to Conference Realignment, It's all about money.

(02-14-2022 01:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 12:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:05 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  They will add;

1. SDSU to protect their recruiting form the Big 12.

2. UNLV or Nevada to help with their POD formations. (Most likely Nevada).

3. Texas Tech and SMU. The remaining three Texas Big 12 schools opt to stick together. They will ask Houston and SMU first but, Houston knows their greater value is in an eastern - central time zone league. SMU will be happy to be invited to the table. (No slight to SMU, USF would be happy with an invite as well.)

4. OSU rejects the offer preferring to be the big Dog in their new conference.

This gives the PAC 16 full members and 4 PODs of 4 teams.

North : Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State.

West: Stanford, California, So Cal, UCLA.

South: SDSU, Nevada/UNLV, Arizona and Arizona State.

East: Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech and SMU.

P.S.; This is my guess, I have no sources.

Every Big 12 school would leave for the Pac-12 tomorrow. That's not really debatable.

At the same time, I go back to that the fact that you need to look at the votes within the Pac-12. Stanford, Berkeley and UCLA are UBER-elite institutions and they're also located in the league's most important markets of LA and SF. Those 3 schools alone can block Pac-12 expansion (and we're not even counting that USC and Washington, who are right behind those 3 other schools on the academic pecking order, probably feel the same way).

I think too many football-focused fans are way underestimating how much *institutional* power that the Pac-12 has compared to the rest of the P5. It's legitimately right there with the Big Ten and SEC (even if the football dollars and performance don't currently reflect that status) and that's because of the academic reputations of its members combined with the critical key markets that it represents (LA, SF, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, etc.) that have no other P5 competition. When Stanford says something, the rest of academia really DOES care because they're the primary crossover between the truly academic elite and the very top levels of athletics.

Look at that, Frank. Who has the elite institutional status, the student enrollment and the location to get in the Pac? That would be UC San Diego, even without football.

Well, of course the issue is UCSD's lack of football and, even if they had a program, whether they would actually make any money for the league. Heck, you might as well bring up Cal Tech or the Claremont Colleges on that front.

A classic example is Rice, who certainly has the academic qualifications for the Big Ten and Pac-12 and is directly located in a major market with FBS football... yet they don't have the athletic brand to add revenue at this time.

These leagues are truly looking for unicorns: the ones that satisfy the academic side with various rankings AND have the athletics brand to make them money. It's not an "either or" situation - don't ever mistake my emphasis on academics with an argument that conferences and schools are ignoring the athletic revenue/brand side of the equation. That's definitely not true - you need both when you get to the Big Ten/Pac-12 level.

Agree. It's funny to hear UCSD mentioned as a PAC candidate. My youngest daughter goes to UCSD; she loves surfing, trekking and competing on the (national collegiate champion) ultimate frisbee team. It offers a unique combination of elite academics with an idealized outdoor life. But she'll be the first to admit that UCSD lacks school spirit. The moniker UC Socially Dead stings because there is some underlying truth. UCSD has zero athletic brand. They're going to need a generation of success in the Big West Conference before even considering sponsoring football. The PAC already has the best academic profiles, they need passion and spirit that promotes TV viewership.

(02-14-2022 01:57 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  I think you're all over thinking the simple fact that the PAC needs MONEY! They need additional revenue streams. They need to expand their footprint and if any of you have taken notice, the Big 12 appears to have been promised a lucrative contract going forward. They believe, their numbers will be close to if not superior then the PAC's.

This has been suggested by several Big 12 AD's and the Sicem365 Guys. (I have no idea if they're credible or not). With this being said, If in fact the Big 12 schools are going to receive the same or even more money to be in the Big 12. Why would they then leave for the PAC and incur greater travel expenses not to mention the political angst that comes with all things West Coast.

I think people get lost when they think about RND assets or production, Academic standings and the like. The Conference members don't share in RND revenues. They don't share in Academic standings although their associations may be nice for bragging. No, the conference shares Athletic revenues by virtue of their Media and Athletics Contracts. Those are the primary revenues that are driving this bus.

I'll sit back now and watch this all play out. Just remember that when it comes down to Conference Realignment, It's all about money.

The Pac-12 is going to be getting a brand new TV contract within the next couple of years. This wailing over their current revenue is a temporary item based on a decade-old TV contract that's now under market value. At the same time, I wouldn't trust internal Big 12 AD opinions about what they think about their revenue compared to the Pac-12 any farther than I can throw them. All of them (absolutely every single one of them) were dying to get into the Pac-12 a few months ago and they'd all still take an invite from them immediately. Any Big 12 school that claims that it would turn down the Pac-12 is straight up lying and just trying to preemptively cover the fact that the Pac-12 isn't going to invite them in the first place.

how about this???

Hawaii (fb only) ===> PAC 12
UCSD (non fb) ===> PAC 12

(02-14-2022 02:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:57 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  I think you're all over thinking the simple fact that the PAC needs MONEY! They need additional revenue streams. They need to expand their footprint and if any of you have taken notice, the Big 12 appears to have been promised a lucrative contract going forward. They believe, their numbers will be close to if not superior then the PAC's.

This has been suggested by several Big 12 AD's and the Sicem365 Guys. (I have no idea if they're credible or not). With this being said, If in fact the Big 12 schools are going to receive the same or even more money to be in the Big 12. Why would they then leave for the PAC and incur greater travel expenses not to mention the political angst that comes with all things West Coast.

I think people get lost when they think about RND assets or production, Academic standings and the like. The Conference members don't share in RND revenues. They don't share in Academic standings although their associations may be nice for bragging. No, the conference shares Athletic revenues by virtue of their Media and Athletics Contracts. Those are the primary revenues that are driving this bus.

I'll sit back now and watch this all play out. Just remember that when it comes down to Conference Realignment, It's all about money.

The Pac-12 is going to be getting a brand new TV contract within the next couple of years. This wailing over their current revenue is a temporary item based on a decade-old TV contract that's now under market value. At the same time, I wouldn't trust internal Big 12 AD opinions about what they think about their revenue compared to the Pac-12 any farther than I can throw them. All of them (absolutely every single one of them) were dying to get into the Pac-12 a few months ago and they'd all still take an invite from them immediately. Any Big 12 school that claims that it would turn down the Pac-12 is straight up lying and just trying to preemptively cover the fact that the Pac-12 isn't going to invite them in the first place.

I'll wait and see how the numbers shake out. Then watch the Big 12's deal. Only then will facts be displayed.

The PAC’s main problem isn’t the schools they don’t have. It’s the schools they DO have. Expansion was a bad idea for the PAC because it ended the feasibility of round-robin play. The CA nucleus of the PAC is so tight and so essential for the rest of the PAC due to the huge population disparity between CA and the rest of the PAC that it really shouldn’t be broken or partitioned. There’s simply no way to split into divisions and still retain fair/balanced CA-centricity (especially SoCal access for athletics purposes). The original PAC16 made sense because they essentially got to revert back to the PAC8 and shift the AZ schools into the eastern division.

The PAC just works a lot better as a 10 (or less) conference, or maybe even division in whatever mega conference comes along. Maybe the PAC can ultimately jettison CU/UU into some plains division of the B1G (or god forbid BigXII). Or maybe OSU/WSU get left behind when the B1G comes knocking.

But adding schools only exacerbates the problem, when really the PAC would simply be healthier at 8-10 schools.

I think in five years the league will add Houston and Oklahoma State.

(02-14-2022 08:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Pac-12's most direct path to football dominance and high TV ratings again is already in its conference: USC playing to historical standards. The league doesn't need to (and shouldn't) start simply adding random schools. Whatever high value football comes from the Pac-12 is going to have to come from its current membership.

Exactly. I don't know why that a concept that seems to be difficult for some to understand. Lincoln Riley is turning things around overnight at USC. He came in late but got 3 of the top 6 recruits in California, beating out Alabama for a five-star cornerback, flipping the No. 2 recruit, a running back, from Oklahoma to USC and flipping the No. 6 recruit, a wide receiver, from Notre Dame to to USC. He got quarterback Caleb Williams, wide receiver Mario Williams and cornerback Latrell McCutchin, all freshmen, to transfer from OU to USC.

They picked up additional transfers from Colorado, Stanford and Oregon. He has three five-star recruits from the 2023 class, two Southern California kids that de-committed from OU to go to USC and the top player in Nevada. The transfer from Oregon is running back Travis Dye, who rushed for 1,271 yards, 16 touchdowns and had 46 receptions in 2021. They are loading up and they are going to be very good, and it will not take long. Riley is already forcing the other schools to get more aggressive in recruiting and pushing schools to invest more in football. That is also a constant theme of the new commissioner, that football has to be a priority at every school in the Pac-12.

(02-14-2022 12:02 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  When Stanford says something, the rest of academia really DOES care because they're the primary crossover between the truly academic elite and the very top levels of athletics.

^This!

The PAC 12 is not going to expand just to expand. The academic snobs in that Conference (IMHO, led by Stanford) would say no to schools just on academics alone.

However I have said this for years and still hold to this: If they were going to expand, Hawai'i is the only logical conclusion....

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk

Thanks for saying so, and there are some reasons to think it could be true.

However (and unfortunately for UH), the reality is that the Pac-12 is not going to expand, period.

(02-14-2022 04:08 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 08:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Pac-12's most direct path to football dominance and high TV ratings again is already in its conference: USC playing to historical standards. The league doesn't need to (and shouldn't) start simply adding random schools. Whatever high value football comes from the Pac-12 is going to have to come from its current membership.

Exactly. I don't know why that a concept that seems to be difficult for some to understand. Lincoln Riley is turning things around overnight at USC. He came in late but got 3 of the top 6 recruits in California, beating out Alabama for a five-star cornerback, flipping the No. 2 recruit, a running back, from Oklahoma to USC and flipping the No. 6 recruit, a wide receiver, from Notre Dame to to USC. He got quarterback Caleb Williams, wide receiver Mario Williams and cornerback Latrell McCutchin, all freshmen, to transfer from OU to USC.

They picked up additional transfers from Colorado, Stanford and Oregon. He has three five-star recruits from the 2023 class, two Southern California kids that de-committed from OU to go to USC and the top player in Nevada. The transfer from Oregon is running back Travis Dye, who rushed for 1,271 yards, 16 touchdowns and had 46 receptions in 2021. They are loading up and they are going to be very good, and it will not take long. Riley is already forcing the other schools to get more aggressive in recruiting and pushing schools to invest more in football. That is also a constant theme of the new commissioner, that football has to be a priority at every school in the Pac-12.

Great points! If you were a down conference who had to depend on one member to bring you back, could you possibly be better positioned than the PAC is with Southern Cal? Time will tell if Riley succeeds, but things sure seem to be setting up well.