(10-17-2022 11:39 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: I'd say UTSA and UNT are better fits, but SMU is a pure NIL play with some "academic prestige". In reality, they do not fit the mold at all. I don't think it should be an island addition though. If not CSU, Fresno St would be a better pair with SDSU. Otherwise, UH/Zaga would be most preferred, followed by BSU.
I think SDSU and Hawaii/Gonzaga is the best the PAC could do.
Obviously SDSU, but Hawaii is way down the list - not sure they make the top 10, but maybe?
Hawaii would be more about potential and market, and would not make sense without bagging Gonzaga. I've even wondered about Air Force or Navy as football only with the Zags. Hawaii used to be a pretty good program and they are looking at building a new stadium. And heck, it is a nice travel destination.
Right now, there isn't a great partner with SDSU. SMU would be out on an island, UNLV has not been good at either football or basketball, Fresno St, no way the PAC would take a second CSU school and Colorado St. is the little sister to Colorado.
(10-17-2022 11:39 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: I'd say UTSA and UNT are better fits, but SMU is a pure NIL play with some "academic prestige". In reality, they do not fit the mold at all. I don't think it should be an island addition though. If not CSU, Fresno St would be a better pair with SDSU. Otherwise, UH/Zaga would be most preferred, followed by BSU.
I think SDSU and Hawaii/Gonzaga is the best the PAC could do.
I think that’s the best possible outcome after San Diego St and SMU. I understand SMU being on an island but Hawaii is literally an island.
San Diego St plus
1. SMU
2. Hawaii (football-only) + Gonzaga (non-football)
3. No one
Well, I'm assuming SMU would be for all sports. Hawaii would be football only just like they are now in the MWC.
(10-17-2022 11:39 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: I'd say UTSA and UNT are better fits, but SMU is a pure NIL play with some "academic prestige". In reality, they do not fit the mold at all. I don't think it should be an island addition though. If not CSU, Fresno St would be a better pair with SDSU. Otherwise, UH/Zaga would be most preferred, followed by BSU.
I think SDSU and Hawaii/Gonzaga is the best the PAC could do.
I think that’s the best possible outcome after San Diego St and SMU. I understand SMU being on an island but Hawaii is literally an island.
San Diego St plus
1. SMU
2. Hawaii (football-only) + Gonzaga (non-football)
3. No one
SMU may be considered an island, but it is the easiest island in the country to get to! Two major airports; Love field is 10/15 minutes from SMU campus/stadium.
(10-17-2022 11:39 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: I'd say UTSA and UNT are better fits, but SMU is a pure NIL play with some "academic prestige". In reality, they do not fit the mold at all. I don't think it should be an island addition though. If not CSU, Fresno St would be a better pair with SDSU. Otherwise, UH/Zaga would be most preferred, followed by BSU.
I think SDSU and Hawaii/Gonzaga is the best the PAC could do.
I think that’s the best possible outcome after San Diego St and SMU. I understand SMU being on an island but Hawaii is literally an island.
San Diego St plus
1. SMU
2. Hawaii (football-only) + Gonzaga (non-football)
3. No one
SMU may be considered an island, but it is the easiest island in the country to get to! Two major airports; Love field is 10/15 minutes from SMU campus/stadium.
I live in DFW and, despite its location, the Metroplex is close to everywhere because it’s CST with two very accessible airports.
(10-17-2022 11:39 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: I'd say UTSA and UNT are better fits, but SMU is a pure NIL play with some "academic prestige". In reality, they do not fit the mold at all. I don't think it should be an island addition though. If not CSU, Fresno St would be a better pair with SDSU. Otherwise, UH/Zaga would be most preferred, followed by BSU.
I think SDSU and Hawaii/Gonzaga is the best the PAC could do.
I think that’s the best possible outcome after San Diego St and SMU. I understand SMU being on an island but Hawaii is literally an island.
San Diego St plus
1. SMU
2. Hawaii (football-only) + Gonzaga (non-football)
3. No one
SMU may be considered an island, but it is the easiest island in the country to get to! Two major airports; Love field is 10/15 minutes from SMU campus/stadium.
I live in DFW and, despite its location, the Metroplex is close to everywhere because it’s CST with two very accessible airports.
You can even fly direct to Hawaii from DFW can't you?
UNLV and Boise have academic problems. If the PAC wanted to really accomplish something, they could take in a few schools and work with their states to build deeper institutions. The west in general is underserved.
(10-17-2022 11:39 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: I'd say UTSA and UNT are better fits, but SMU is a pure NIL play with some "academic prestige". In reality, they do not fit the mold at all. I don't think it should be an island addition though. If not CSU, Fresno St would be a better pair with SDSU. Otherwise, UH/Zaga would be most preferred, followed by BSU.
I think SDSU and Hawaii/Gonzaga is the best the PAC could do.
I think that’s the best possible outcome after San Diego St and SMU. I understand SMU being on an island but Hawaii is literally an island.
San Diego St plus
1. SMU
2. Hawaii (football-only) + Gonzaga (non-football)
3. No one
SMU may be considered an island, but it is the easiest island in the country to get to! Two major airports; Love field is 10/15 minutes from SMU campus/stadium.
It isn't the football or basketball teams that would be of concern, it is about the non-revenue sports and the cost of travel. I think for SMU to make sense the PAC would need to add another Texas school. I say the same thing about SDSU to the B12, we would need at least one other school in California or Arizona for it to make sense.
(10-28-2022 08:04 AM)Claw Wrote: UNLV and Boise have academic problems. If the PAC wanted to really accomplish something, they could take in a few schools and work with their states to build deeper institutions. The west in general is underserved.
University of Washington and Boise State been working together on something. Boise State needs their own med school which would help them.
(10-17-2022 11:39 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: I'd say UTSA and UNT are better fits, but SMU is a pure NIL play with some "academic prestige". In reality, they do not fit the mold at all. I don't think it should be an island addition though. If not CSU, Fresno St would be a better pair with SDSU. Otherwise, UH/Zaga would be most preferred, followed by BSU.
I think SDSU and Hawaii/Gonzaga is the best the PAC could do.
I think that’s the best possible outcome after San Diego St and SMU. I understand SMU being on an island but Hawaii is literally an island.
San Diego St plus
1. SMU
2. Hawaii (football-only) + Gonzaga (non-football)
3. No one
SMU may be considered an island, but it is the easiest island in the country to get to! Two major airports; Love field is 10/15 minutes from SMU campus/stadium.
It isn't the football or basketball teams that would be of concern, it is about the non-revenue sports and the cost of travel. I think for SMU to make sense the PAC would need to add another Texas school. I say the same thing about SDSU to the B12, we would need at least one other school in California or Arizona for it to make sense.
A ticket from Dallas to many PAC cities is probably less expensive than many PAC to PAC airports.
Quote:Carmin: Since you came into office, the Big Ten has expanded twice. You've added two teams, you add two more. Why is this a good thing for the league? Now, I ask this question because I want you to take the financial part out of it initially - how does the Big Ten benefit from being at 16?
Daniels: If you're asking if it weren't for the money should we do it? The answer is I don't think so.
Carmin: Ok, that's fair.
Daniels: There's that old Hoosiers saying, the old Hoosiers philosopher supposedly said - 'When a fella says it ain't the money, it's the principle of the thing. It's the money.’ I'm not faulting that. To do what we do and do it without subsidy from the university and so forth, the success of the Big Ten Network and now beyond that the broader network agreements that they’re reaching is incredibly important.
You have to remember that some of the folks who are so eager to sort of move to a pay-for-play system I wish would reflect for a minute on the fact that we're not an NFL team, we're not an NBA team. They don't have soccer and tennis and track and field and all these other sports to support.
When you talk about expansion, it's served important purposes. Certainly, the eastward expansion was a little awkward, but I think that hasn't worked out badly. Now, the grab for the LA market and my own personal view – a good time for a timeout. Let's see how we can digest this situation, let's at least see how we intend to because I don't think anybody has yet and I haven't seen a plan for what that world would look like. I mean, I don't think we're going to send our softball team to LA on a frequent basis to just be a little flip about things but, I think it would be wise to, at least, have an agreed-upon design for the 16 before we plunge ahead to some bigger number.
Carmin: Well, your commissioner has mentioned 20.
.Daniels: I know, and that might be the right answer. I can't say it's not. I think the westward move is a much longer move, not just in mileage, but in concept than the expansions we've seen over the previous 10 years. I just think caution would be in order here. There's not that much more money in it, I don't think. People have somewhat overrated and overstated in going beyond 16. I think people have a little bit overestimated the incremental money of the LA schools. It's real. It's not as big as some people have thought beyond what we would have had anyway.
Carmin: So it doesn't average a billion dollars a year?
Daniels: I'm not talking about the total; I'm talking about what it means to the individual schools when it filters down. It's more, but it's not massively more.
Carmin: You would have to define massively because right now, I think schools …
Daniels: It's a few million more a year. But in the context of we're already over $100 (million).
Carmin: When you say $100 (million) …
Daniels: I’m talking about the Purdue athletic budget ($102 million in 2019-20, the last non-COVID year available). I'm just trying to roughly size it for you. Yeah, we'll notice it. You're not going from 100 to 200 or 100 to 150 or something like that. And if, which I think is highly likely, more of that money gets shared with at least the revenue-producing athletes, then you're not necessarily moving way ahead. I'm not saying 18 is wrong. I'm not saying 20 is wrong. Others will make those calls. I just think that we can … let’s get the rules of engagement set. Let's get comfortable with the latest move first. I just think that it would be prudent.
And I've expressed that inside (the room) and by the way, I can tell you, in that view, I am far from alone in the Big Ten. There are many others who have said similar things when we're together.
Quote:Carmin: Since you came into office, the Big Ten has expanded twice. You've added two teams, you add two more. Why is this a good thing for the league? Now, I ask this question because I want you to take the financial part out of it initially - how does the Big Ten benefit from being at 16?
Daniels: If you're asking if it weren't for the money should we do it? The answer is I don't think so.
Carmin: Ok, that's fair.
Daniels: There's that old Hoosiers saying, the old Hoosiers philosopher supposedly said - 'When a fella says it ain't the money, it's the principle of the thing. It's the money.’ I'm not faulting that. To do what we do and do it without subsidy from the university and so forth, the success of the Big Ten Network and now beyond that the broader network agreements that they’re reaching is incredibly important.
You have to remember that some of the folks who are so eager to sort of move to a pay-for-play system I wish would reflect for a minute on the fact that we're not an NFL team, we're not an NBA team. They don't have soccer and tennis and track and field and all these other sports to support.
When you talk about expansion, it's served important purposes. Certainly, the eastward expansion was a little awkward, but I think that hasn't worked out badly. Now, the grab for the LA market and my own personal view – a good time for a timeout. Let's see how we can digest this situation, let's at least see how we intend to because I don't think anybody has yet and I haven't seen a plan for what that world would look like. I mean, I don't think we're going to send our softball team to LA on a frequent basis to just be a little flip about things but, I think it would be wise to, at least, have an agreed-upon design for the 16 before we plunge ahead to some bigger number.
Carmin: Well, your commissioner has mentioned 20.
.Daniels: I know, and that might be the right answer. I can't say it's not. I think the westward move is a much longer move, not just in mileage, but in concept than the expansions we've seen over the previous 10 years. I just think caution would be in order here. There's not that much more money in it, I don't think. People have somewhat overrated and overstated in going beyond 16. I think people have a little bit overestimated the incremental money of the LA schools. It's real. It's not as big as some people have thought beyond what we would have had anyway.
Carmin: So it doesn't average a billion dollars a year?
Daniels: I'm not talking about the total; I'm talking about what it means to the individual schools when it filters down. It's more, but it's not massively more.
Carmin: You would have to define massively because right now, I think schools …
Daniels: It's a few million more a year. But in the context of we're already over $100 (million).
Carmin: When you say $100 (million) …
Daniels: I’m talking about the Purdue athletic budget ($102 million in 2019-20, the last non-COVID year available). I'm just trying to roughly size it for you. Yeah, we'll notice it. You're not going from 100 to 200 or 100 to 150 or something like that. And if, which I think is highly likely, more of that money gets shared with at least the revenue-producing athletes, then you're not necessarily moving way ahead. I'm not saying 18 is wrong. I'm not saying 20 is wrong. Others will make those calls. I just think that we can … let’s get the rules of engagement set. Let's get comfortable with the latest move first. I just think that it would be prudent.
And I've expressed that inside (the room) and by the way, I can tell you, in that view, I am far from alone in the Big Ten. There are many others who have said similar things when we're together.
It doesn't look likely that the Big Ten would add in the next year or so.
Good article, by the way, especially the part about what happens if athletes become employees.
Excellent article, Transic. From the way Purdue's president talked, more expansion to the west is likely, just not right now. USCLA wasn't the huge financial windfall that many thought, so these next additions need to add more per team. That actually makes a lot of sense, and lines up with what many others have said.
(10-28-2022 08:04 AM)Claw Wrote: UNLV and Boise have academic problems. If the PAC wanted to really accomplish something, they could take in a few schools and work with their states to build deeper institutions. The west in general is underserved.
UNLV does not have an academic problem, whatsoever, it's rated R1 (Doctoral Universities: Very High Research Activity). SMU and SDSU, OTOH, are only rated R2 (Doctoral Universities: High Research Activity).
UNLV with its academic profile, not to mention location and athletic facilities, is a very desirable add for the Pac-12.
/
Latest realignment news and rumors
