Given the priority list provided I probably rank the candidates in the following order:

SDSU
UNLV
SMU (lots of west coast transplants in DFW area, adding that market would be huge for tv).
BSU ( especially if ESPN is the primary media partner)

I think expansion to 12 is a slam dunk with top two, after that you start reaching a little bit, but likely will be determined by who tv wants.

I think it’s a given the new members come in at a reduced tv revenue, it’s a win-win for both sides.

(07-30-2022 02:03 PM)Comet Wrote:  SMU brings a church-linked feel to the PAC? Lol well I’m glad their research for SMU was learning what the acronym stood for and that’s it.

Didn't SMU get rid of its ties to the Methodist church about a year ago?

USC apparently was tied to the Methodist Church until something like 1953, but that's not very well known since the word Methodist has never actually been in their name. I didn't know about this until I read an old thread on here about a week ago.

(07-30-2022 06:00 PM)hk25 Wrote:  Given the priority list provided I probably rank the candidates in the following order:

SDSU
UNLV
SMU (lots of west coast transplants in DFW area, adding that market would be huge for tv).
BSU ( especially if ESPN is the primary media partner)

I think expansion to 12 is a slam dunk with top two, after that you start reaching a little bit, but likely will be determined by who tv wants.

I think it’s a given the new members come in at a reduced tv revenue, it’s a win-win for both sides.

Big markets where nobody follows the team aren't a positive unless you have a conference network.

And are they seriously going to keep the PAC-12 network around without USC and UCLA? The PAC-12 network was a big enough flop when USC and UCLA were still in the conference. (For that matter, the ACC network is an embarrassing flop that should be discontinued too.)

Yes USC was tied to the Methodist church in its earlier days. A lot of private schools were tied to religious organizations when they started. Many schools have moved away from their religious beginnings over time. The exceptions are the catholic colleges and BYU which tied to LDS church.

(07-30-2022 03:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 01:57 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Good article here by Mark Zeigler of the San Diego Union-Tribune on SDSU and Pac-12 expansion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sandieg...f_amp=true

Zeigler did not quite get it right:
"We will look at media value, athletic strength, academic and cultural fit, and geography from a recruiting and student-athlete experience standpoint," said Kiavkoff.

Zeigler: "He outlined four criteria: media rights value, competitive strength, academic fit and geography. He declined to discuss specific expansion targets, but he didn’t have to. San Diego State doesn’t check all four boxes — its TV numbers aren’t eye-popping and its academics, though improving, are not yet on par with the top of the conference — but it checks enough of them to clearly separate from college football’s next echelon."

Kliavkoff never said that SDSU had to be on par with the top of the conference academically and the PAC knows that TV numbers are not relevant when comparing the MWC and PAC. The Boise State-SDSU game last season on CBS got 1.95 million viewers. That was an encouraging sign. But most MWC games are on at night on FS1 or CBSSN, and the TV ratings are just not good for those games. In San Diego, SDSU would own the TV market for college football.

Boise State's ratings against UCF, BYU, Oklahoma State and San Diego State that drew more than a million Boise State is clearly the top runner to the P5. Their viewership was better than Arizona, California, Oregon State and Colorado, and close to Arizona State. Move them in the PAC 12? They could easily past Arizona State and Washington State.

Boise State has no chance academically. Who would support them in the PAC? Which of the seven AAU schools would want them? Stanford and Cal have never played Boise State in football. Boise is in a small market that does not help in recruiting. They come to your market to recruit players, but no one is going to their market to recruit. They are not a good fit at this time.

Whenever I hear about Boise State joining the PAC, I always start thinking about how Idaho was in the predecessor to the PAC through something like 1959. It seems so weird.


Idaho had a 17-10-1 record vs Boise State through the 1998 season. And now they've become the first program to ever downgrade to FCS.

I think one thing that always gets forgotten in these Boise State to PAC talks is that Boise State was FCS until something like 1996. Nobody ever seems to mention that, but I suspect that might be more of a negative on them getting a PAC invite than people realize.

TCU, as a contrast, actually was an SWC member (albeit a very unsuccessful one) at the same time that Boise State was in FCS.

(07-30-2022 06:18 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:00 PM)hk25 Wrote:  Given the priority list provided I probably rank the candidates in the following order:

SDSU
UNLV
SMU (lots of west coast transplants in DFW area, adding that market would be huge for tv).
BSU ( especially if ESPN is the primary media partner)

I think expansion to 12 is a slam dunk with top two, after that you start reaching a little bit, but likely will be determined by who tv wants.

I think it’s a given the new members come in at a reduced tv revenue, it’s a win-win for both sides.

Big markets where nobody follows the team aren't a positive unless you have a conference network.

And are they seriously going to keep the PAC-12 network around without USC and UCLA? The PAC-12 network was a big enough flop when USC and UCLA were still in the conference. (For that matter, the ACC network is an embarrassing flop that should be discontinued too.)

Depends.

The P12N will be useful to new entrants like Apple

But the penetration issue will remain, which is why the same providers would pay more for Big 18.

ACCN would make more if the network of a national 3rd super conference imo

(07-30-2022 06:28 PM)Poster Wrote:  I think one thing that always gets forgotten in these Boise State to PAC talks is that Boise State was FCS until something like 1996. Nobody ever seems to mention that, but I suspect that might be more of a negative on them getting a PAC invite than people realize.

TCU, as a contrast, actually was an SWC member (albeit a very unsuccessful one) at the same time that Boise State was in FCS.

TCU won a couple national titles back when Boise was a new Junior College in the 1930s.

(07-30-2022 03:21 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 03:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 03:03 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Zeigler did not quite get it right:
"We will look at media value, athletic strength, academic and cultural fit, and geography from a recruiting and student-athlete experience standpoint," said Kiavkoff.

Zeigler: "He outlined four criteria: media rights value, competitive strength, academic fit and geography. He declined to discuss specific expansion targets, but he didn’t have to. San Diego State doesn’t check all four boxes — its TV numbers aren’t eye-popping and its academics, though improving, are not yet on par with the top of the conference — but it checks enough of them to clearly separate from college football’s next echelon."

Kliavkoff never said that SDSU had to be on par with the top of the conference academically and the PAC knows that TV numbers are not relevant when comparing the MWC and PAC. The Boise State-SDSU game last season on CBS got 1.95 million viewers. That was an encouraging sign. But most MWC games are on at night on FS1 or CBSSN, and the TV ratings are just not good for those games. In San Diego, SDSU would own the TV market for college football.

Boise State's ratings against UCF, BYU, Oklahoma State and San Diego State that drew more than a million Boise State is clearly the top runner to the P5. Their viewership was better than Arizona, California, Oregon State and Colorado, and close to Arizona State. Move them in the PAC 12? They could easily past Arizona State and Washington State.

Academically Boise is now "ok" because of their co-flagship status in Idaho.

Something Fresno and Gonzaga can't even get close to touching.

That has no value.

USNWR isn't great, but just for illustration, Fresno is #213 and Boise is in the "also rans," #s 299-391. Washington St. is the bottom of the Pac at #179.

Fresno has no PhD programs and sub 300 million dollar budget.

This is like trying to get Eastern Michigan added to the B1G.

Its a non-starter.

Actually Fresno has 3 granted by Fresno similar to SDSU. Curious if you know why that is true?

(07-30-2022 06:22 PM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  Yes USC was tied to the Methodist church in its earlier days. A lot of private schools were tied to religious organizations when they started. Many schools have moved away from their religious beginnings over time. The exceptions are the catholic colleges and BYU which tied to LDS church.

Now the M stands for Mustangs in SMU. I can't see the PAC blocking them on BYU/Baylor type reasoning.

(07-30-2022 02:14 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

That boils down to two out of SDSU, Colorado State and SMU, since there's No Way in Hades that Cal and Stanford agree to Boise State.

The PAC has a huge ego problem they can’t solve. 63% of the conferences footprint resides in the State of California.

In California, they have both schools sitting sitting in an area that accounts for 4.2% of the state in size. The schools represent an educational systems that only admits the top 4% of Ca High School students and is by far the smallest public higher educational system in the state.

And somehow they think the residents of this state give a **** about the PAC-12. They don’t and will soon care even less. They could fix it by adding a couple Cal State Schools in underrepresented areas of the state. But they won’t. Instead they will tell the majority of residents who graduated from Cal States they aren’t good enough to associate with them in a sports conference no less.

The result is the majority of the state will tune them out and do different things with their time. ESPN will give them a low number because 2/3rds of their footprint could care less about them. Eventually the conference will die. The PAC-12 is a study in hubris.

The Equivalent would be if the only P5 teams in Texas were A&M and Rice.

(07-30-2022 07:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:28 PM)Poster Wrote:  I think one thing that always gets forgotten in these Boise State to PAC talks is that Boise State was FCS until something like 1996. Nobody ever seems to mention that, but I suspect that might be more of a negative on them getting a PAC invite than people realize.

TCU, as a contrast, actually was an SWC member (albeit a very unsuccessful one) at the same time that Boise State was in FCS.

TCU won a couple national titles back when Boise was a new Junior College in the 1930s.

Yeah, well I was referring to how TCU was for the last 30 years of the SWC. The annual TCU-Rice game often determining who went 1-7 in conference play and who went 0-8.

If I were San Diego State, I wouldn't be particularly worried about a PAC offer if I knew the Big 12 was also interested.

The PAC would be the better option in a vacuum, but the league is on fragile ground. Whether some of those schools end up in the Big 12 or not doesn't even matter...some of them will inevitably end up in the Big Ten which means a couple more might go independent.

The Big 12, strangely enough, has better long term prospects so I would lean towards that league...especially given that it has alternative recruiting grounds and access to CTZ/ETZ markets. People are forgetting part of the reason USC and UCLA are getting out of dodge. It's the money at the center, but that's the symptom. There are several reasons why the PAC is unstructurally sound in the modern era of college sports and so there was never going to be a monetary leveling of the playing field. People assumed the PAC might not get raided simply because of the geographical distances to the big time moneymakers. Well, that turned out not to be an issue.

Also, one thing people forget in all this huffing and puffing back and forth. It wasn't really that long ago that the PAC 10 tried to kill off the Big 12. Have we all forgotten the concerted effort to take Texas and friends? Obviously it fell through, but they did get Colorado at that time and aided in the destabilization of the Big 12. And I'm sure they tried to get Texas after that situation unfolded. I'm also sure there were current members of the Big 12 that were rebuffed when they reached out for a landing spot.

So when PAC 12 leaders start sniping at the Big 12 reps, let's not think the Big 12 leaders have forgotten the last 10-15 years of politics and upheaval. If the Big 12 has an opportunity to finish off the PAC, I don't see a reason they wouldn't take it unless they figure it doesn't benefit them to do so.

(07-30-2022 07:51 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:14 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

That boils down to two out of SDSU, Colorado State and SMU, since there's No Way in Hades that Cal and Stanford agree to Boise State.

The PAC has a huge ego problem they can’t solve. 63% of the conferences footprint resides in the State of California.

In California, they have both schools sitting sitting in an area that accounts for 4.2% of the state in size. The schools represent an educational systems that only admits the top 4% of Ca High School students and is by far the smallest public higher educational system in the state.

And somehow they think the residents of this state give a **** about the PAC-12. They don’t and will soon care even less. They could fix it by adding a couple Cal State Schools in underrepresented areas of the state. But they won’t. Instead they will tell the majority of residents who graduated from Cal States they aren’t good enough to associate with them in a sports conference no less.

The result is the majority of the state will tune them out and do different things with their time. ESPN will give them a low number because 2/3rds of their footprint could care less about them. Eventually the conference will die. The PAC-12 is a study in hubris.

The Equivalent would be if the only P5 teams in Texas were A&M and Rice.

That's most of the PAC 12's problem right there. Their fan bases are relatively small.

Part of that is the culture of the West Coast. People aren't as invested in college sports as they are in a lot of other parts of the country. But the other part is as you say...they've been so exclusivist and elitist that they have not given very many casual fans much less a fair portion of the college educated population a single reason to care about their communities. Eventually that comes back to bite you.

(07-30-2022 07:51 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:14 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

That boils down to two out of SDSU, Colorado State and SMU, since there's No Way in Hades that Cal and Stanford agree to Boise State.

The PAC has a huge ego problem they can’t solve. 63% of the conferences footprint resides in the State of California.

In California, they have both schools sitting sitting in an area that accounts for 4.2% of the state in size. The schools represent an educational systems that only admits the top 4% of Ca High School students and is by far the smallest public higher educational system in the state.

And somehow they think the residents of this state give a **** about the PAC-12. They don’t and will soon care even less. They could fix it by adding a couple Cal State Schools in underrepresented areas of the state. But they won’t. Instead they will tell the majority of residents who graduated from Cal States they aren’t good enough to associate with them in a sports conference no less.

The result is the majority of the state will tune them out and do different things with their time. ESPN will give them a low number because 2/3rds of their footprint could care less about them. Eventually the conference will die. The PAC-12 is a study in hubris.

The Equivalent would be if the only P5 teams in Texas were A&M and Rice.

(07-30-2022 03:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 03:03 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 01:57 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Good article here by Mark Zeigler of the San Diego Union-Tribune on SDSU and Pac-12 expansion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sandieg...f_amp=true

Zeigler did not quite get it right:
"We will look at media value, athletic strength, academic and cultural fit, and geography from a recruiting and student-athlete experience standpoint," said Kiavkoff.

Zeigler: "He outlined four criteria: media rights value, competitive strength, academic fit and geography. He declined to discuss specific expansion targets, but he didn’t have to. San Diego State doesn’t check all four boxes — its TV numbers aren’t eye-popping and its academics, though improving, are not yet on par with the top of the conference — but it checks enough of them to clearly separate from college football’s next echelon."

Kliavkoff never said that SDSU had to be on par with the top of the conference academically and the PAC knows that TV numbers are not relevant when comparing the MWC and PAC. The Boise State-SDSU game last season on CBS got 1.95 million viewers. That was an encouraging sign. But most MWC games are on at night on FS1 or CBSSN, and the TV ratings are just not good for those games. In San Diego, SDSU would own the TV market for college football.

Boise State's ratings against UCF, BYU, Oklahoma State and San Diego State that drew more than a million Boise State is clearly the top runner to the P5. Their viewership was better than Arizona, California, Oregon State and Colorado, and close to Arizona State. Move them in the PAC 12? They could easily past Arizona State and Washington State.

Academically Boise is now "ok" because of their co-flagship status in Idaho.

Something Fresno and Gonzaga can't even get close to touching.

That has no value.

USNWR isn't great, but just for illustration, Fresno is #213 and Boise is in the "also rans," #s 299-391. Washington St. is the bottom of the Pac at #179.

They seriously rank that far in UNSWR nowadays? I remember when they ranked at most 200 schools, and possibly only 150 or 175.

(07-30-2022 02:21 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:14 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

That boils down to two out of SDSU, Colorado State and SMU, since there's No Way in Hades that Cal and Stanford agree to Boise State.

It doesn't matter as Oregon, Stanford, Cal and Washington are perhaps 2 years out the door for a 20+ team B1G soon.

You dream.

(07-30-2022 02:49 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  Pac 12 = San Diego & SMU
Pac 14 = San Diego, SMU,
#13 = One of: Houston, Baylor, BYU, Memphis, CSU, Boise State
#14 = Air Force for football & Gonzaga for basketball

First time I have seen Air Force paired with Gonzaga. Nice. I can see the potential for that. Not sure where AF parks their olympics but don't actually care.

Whatever they do, just drop number and go by the PAC (Pacific Athletic Conference)

(07-30-2022 02:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 01:57 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Good article here by Mark Zeigler of the San Diego Union-Tribune on SDSU and Pac-12 expansion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sandieg...f_amp=true

Zeigler did not quite get it right:
"We will look at media value, athletic strength, academic and cultural fit, and geography from a recruiting and student-athlete experience standpoint," said Kiavkoff.

Zeigler: "He outlined four criteria: media rights value, competitive strength, academic fit and geography. He declined to discuss specific expansion targets, but he didn’t have to. San Diego State doesn’t check all four boxes — its TV numbers aren’t eye-popping and its academics, though improving, are not yet on par with the top of the conference — but it checks enough of them to clearly separate from college football’s next echelon."

Kliavkoff never said that SDSU had to be on par with the top of the conference academically and the PAC knows that TV numbers are not relevant when comparing the MWC and PAC. The Boise State-SDSU game last season on CBS got 1.95 million viewers. That was an encouraging sign. But most MWC games are on at night on FS1 or CBSSN, and the TV ratings are just not good for those games. In San Diego, SDSU would own the TV market for college football.