Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A theory on Pac-12 expansion
Author Message
e-parade Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,123
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 124
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #41
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-04-2022 02:45 PM)Jericho Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 10:29 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 10:24 AM)Jericho Wrote:  
(08-03-2022 08:01 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  
(08-03-2022 07:59 PM)Realigned Wrote:  Why do that? You are essentially saying that adding new members doesn’t increase the size of the pie.
They don't. That's the point. You would add them to get into SoCal and Texas.

And what does getting into SoCal and Texas get the PAC? Anything? A toaster?

Recruiting.

You say that word, though I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Is the PAC really hurting for SoCal recruits or Texas recruits as is? If the PAC suddenly had 1/12 of the conference in some other location, is that really going to move the needle? If SMU joins, will PAC Texas (at least for non-SMU schools) recruits jump by 400%? Or will it increase by like 5 people. Total. And for the low, low cost of what's likely millions of dollars per school (as they basically have to now give SMU 1/12 of their pie). I'd like see some realistic projections on this, but I'm guessing the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I didn't say it would be ALL of their recruiting, but even 5 recruits a year is more than a toaster (obviously a joke on your part).

The Arizona schools have stressed the importance of the Southern California market to them. On ASU's current roster, there are 23 students originally from Southern California (link) Also, recruiting is about more than just athletes - per this article, ASU employs 3 full time recruiters in California, but 2 of them being in SoCal (Orange County and San Diego). Having a football/basketball presence in the area helps with recruiting, even if it is just one game a year.

So I'm not saying they'll gain a bunch of recruits (and students in general) by having a SoCal presence, just that there's a risk of losing it that might not be worth it.
08-04-2022 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,216
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 70
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #42
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-04-2022 09:07 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The best pac move would be adding San Diego state, BYU, Kansas and Texas Tech. If BYU can’t get past the cal types than either Houston, New Mexico or even Kansas State which might help bring Kansas which than could help bring Texas tech. Maybe the best move is start with combo of Kansas and Kansas state to get to 12, than the combo of San Diego state and Texas tech to get to 14. The last combo could be BYU and Hawaii football

16 is too many. If they really needed 16 it'd have to be amenable to a 4 pod setup. TTech could feasibly go in the Zona pod. Then add OSU, TCU, Baylor, KU for the East pod. SDSU would be last in over Houston. I think Baylor/TCU together is slightly better than TCU/Houston. OSU and KU is a must for football and BBall performance. Don't be surprised if the Big 12 increases their exit fee anticipating this possibility.

You would instantly make the PAC16 one of the best BBall conferences. Honestly this is more realistic than the corner 4 joining the Big 12, although it won't happen this cycle.

SWC and old Big 8 rivals are broken once again. ACC can grab WVU UC Houston UCF in the event they are raided.

KSU and ISU odd men out. 16 team American at that point with Navy moving East. MWC backfills SDSU with UTEP.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2022 03:15 PM by RUScarlets.)
08-04-2022 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Realigned Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 98
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Big 12
Location: Houston
Post: #43
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-04-2022 03:12 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 09:07 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The best pac move would be adding San Diego state, BYU, Kansas and Texas Tech. If BYU can’t get past the cal types than either Houston, New Mexico or even Kansas State which might help bring Kansas which than could help bring Texas tech. Maybe the best move is start with combo of Kansas and Kansas state to get to 12, than the combo of San Diego state and Texas tech to get to 14. The last combo could be BYU and Hawaii football

16 is too many. If they really needed 16 it'd have to be amenable to a 4 pod setup. TTech could feasibly go in the Zona pod. Then add OSU, TCU, Baylor, KU for the East pod. SDSU would be last in over Houston. I think Baylor/TCU together is slightly better than TCU/Houston. OSU and KU is a must for football and BBall performance. Don't be surprised if the Big 12 increases their exit fee anticipating this possibility.

You would instantly make the PAC16 one of the best BBall conferences. Honestly this is more realistic than the corner 4 joining the Big 12, although it won't happen this cycle.

SWC and old Big 8 rivals are broken once again. ACC can grab WVU UC Houston UCF in the event they are raided.

KSU and ISU odd men out. 16 team American at that point with Navy moving East. MWC backfills SDSU with UTEP.

The Big 12 exit fee is prohibitive enough to prevent a jump to the PAC 12. The Big 12 schools being targeted in this thread are the one that will be the leaders of the future Big 12 which gives them some power and influence they wouldn’t have if they moved.

And, I have seen no projections that indicate the media rights will be significantly different in either conference, so it doesn’t make financial sense.

What I assume is going to happen will be disappointing to many here who expect a massive reshuffle. I don’t see any near future movement between the Power 5 conferences. I don’t see the Big 12 adding any G5 schools and there may a higher possibility (but still low probability) the PAC 12 adds some G5 schools.

It has and always will come down to money. Conference are not going to take less per team and the media partners are not charity organizations.
08-04-2022 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,216
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 70
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #44
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
The PAC poaching the Big 12 will depend on 1) obviously no additional defections from within the PAC 2) the Big 12 making significant strides academically on athletically, with the leaders becoming national powers that win expanded playoff games. Then and only then will the Big12 schools be attractive to the PAC in the next cycle. These things don't happen overnight of course.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2022 03:59 PM by RUScarlets.)
08-04-2022 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,876
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 238
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #45
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
I think some people are using very old data on certain schools which we know Fresno State being ahead of R1 schools and schools that have more research like Boise State is the wrong ones to look at.
2nd:The number of households is way off for Boise, Memphis and other G5 schools. It seems that these network execs are using old data from like 2010. It is close to 1 million people in the Boise metro, and the broadcast media for cable subscribers go further out than that into the other states around them. Northern Idaho is the Spokane tv market, but they seemed to be die hard Boise State fans. Eastern Washington pasrt of the state is also Boise State. They have eaten into the PAC 12 terroritory big time. So, the total broadcast or state of Boise State is actually close to 3 million. If you divide 4 from the 3 million? That would be close to 777,777 K households, or round it up to 777,780 as a better number. They do the same with Memphis, San Diego State, Fresno State, UNR and many other cities. I think they do the exact same thing to Fargo for NDSU.

Now, any of these G5 schools that have good product should be getting like Boise State. PAC 12 needs the MWC schools as well since they do have eating away their fanbase a bit when they are winning while the PAC 12 are losing.
08-04-2022 04:50 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Comet Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,127
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 106
I Root For: SMU and GT
Location:
Post: #46
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-04-2022 10:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 06:28 AM)Comet Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 12:04 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  
(08-03-2022 08:01 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  They don't. That's the point. You would add them to get into SoCal and Texas.

SMU is 5th or 6th in the DFW pecking order.

Who all is above SMU on the DFW pecking order???
It doesn’t even matter who all is above SMU since they’re not going to feasibly leave their conferences for a shaky PAC

lol---no way. SMU would take that Pac12 offer before it hit the table. Worse case is the Pac12 falls apart over the next few years--with the Big10 taking Stanford, Oregon, Washington, and California. The Big12 takes the 4-corners schools. Then SMU, SDSU, Washington St, and Oregon St would simply rebuild the Pac12 using the best G5 parts available from the MW, Texas/Oklahoma area. Boise, Fresno, Air Force, Wyoming---there are your first 4 additions. From there you can add a couple of Texas teams--maybe even Memphis--plus either New Mexico or Colorado St to get to 12. Talk to Gonzaga and Wichita about becoming non-football members and the Pac12 lives on as the premier G5 conference---but with better bowls, great basketball, and not anchored to a 12 year TV deal. So, even in a worst case scenario----SMU would be P5 for a while---and then after the implosion----its still a step up....or SMU can keep playing Charlotte and FAU.
I feel bad you wrote all of that when we agree. I meant no one in the BIG XII would be leaving for the PAC anytime soon. SMU has verbally agreed to their nonexistent offer to the PAC haha
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2022 05:44 PM by Comet.)
08-04-2022 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 862
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #47
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-04-2022 03:58 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The PAC poaching the Big 12 will depend on 1) obviously no additional defections from within the PAC 2) the Big 12 making significant strides academically on athletically, with the leaders becoming national powers that win expanded playoff games. Then and only then will the Big12 schools be attractive to the PAC in the next cycle. These things don't happen overnight of course.

There is no scenario in which the PAC will poach any conference other than the Mountain West.

It is nothing against the PAC, but going east-to-west is just not going to happen. PAC programs gain value going east, value is lost in programs going west. And the there are just more critical mass of programs in the east
08-04-2022 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jericho Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 239
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 32
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #48
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-04-2022 03:12 PM)e-parade Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 02:45 PM)Jericho Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 10:29 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 10:24 AM)Jericho Wrote:  
(08-03-2022 08:01 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  They don't. That's the point. You would add them to get into SoCal and Texas.

And what does getting into SoCal and Texas get the PAC? Anything? A toaster?

Recruiting.

You say that word, though I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Is the PAC really hurting for SoCal recruits or Texas recruits as is? If the PAC suddenly had 1/12 of the conference in some other location, is that really going to move the needle? If SMU joins, will PAC Texas (at least for non-SMU schools) recruits jump by 400%? Or will it increase by like 5 people. Total. And for the low, low cost of what's likely millions of dollars per school (as they basically have to now give SMU 1/12 of their pie). I'd like see some realistic projections on this, but I'm guessing the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I didn't say it would be ALL of their recruiting, but even 5 recruits a year is more than a toaster (obviously a joke on your part).

The Arizona schools have stressed the importance of the Southern California market to them. On ASU's current roster, there are 23 students originally from Southern California (link) Also, recruiting is about more than just athletes - per this article, ASU employs 3 full time recruiters in California, but 2 of them being in SoCal (Orange County and San Diego). Having a football/basketball presence in the area helps with recruiting, even if it is just one game a year.

So I'm not saying they'll gain a bunch of recruits (and students in general) by having a SoCal presence, just that there's a risk of losing it that might not be worth it.

I didn't claim to say you meant ALL their recruiting either. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. And I didn't mean 5 recruits per year per school. I meant 5. Total. For the entire conference. And to be a clear, I mean a net gain of 5 guys. As there's already recruiting going on in those areas.

As you pointed out, Arizona State already recruits SoCal. Are you suggesting those players all suddenly are going to go elsewhere? And, if so, to where? I get the idea that having a PAC game in the "area" might help recruiting. But you're talking about 1 game a year in what's a pretty large area of land. I'm simply putting it out there that the idea of impact of recruiting is probably greatly inflated by many on these boards. Is a SoCal kid suddenly going to go to Rutgers instead of Arizona State because USC is now in the Big 10? But if somehow the PAC added San Diego State, now that same recruit is going to go back to Arizona State because he lives 200 miles from San Diego in Santa Barbara and Arizona state might play there every two years?

I can't predict the choices of every recruit, but I don't think the location of a school is going to move the needle that much.
08-04-2022 10:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 40,203
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2259
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #49
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-04-2022 05:43 PM)Comet Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 10:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 06:28 AM)Comet Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 12:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 12:04 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  SMU is 5th or 6th in the DFW pecking order.

Who all is above SMU on the DFW pecking order???
It doesn’t even matter who all is above SMU since they’re not going to feasibly leave their conferences for a shaky PAC

lol---no way. SMU would take that Pac12 offer before it hit the table. Worse case is the Pac12 falls apart over the next few years--with the Big10 taking Stanford, Oregon, Washington, and California. The Big12 takes the 4-corners schools. Then SMU, SDSU, Washington St, and Oregon St would simply rebuild the Pac12 using the best G5 parts available from the MW, Texas/Oklahoma area. Boise, Fresno, Air Force, Wyoming---there are your first 4 additions. From there you can add a couple of Texas teams--maybe even Memphis--plus either New Mexico or Colorado St to get to 12. Talk to Gonzaga and Wichita about becoming non-football members and the Pac12 lives on as the premier G5 conference---but with better bowls, great basketball, and not anchored to a 12 year TV deal. So, even in a worst case scenario----SMU would be P5 for a while---and then after the implosion----its still a step up....or SMU can keep playing Charlotte and FAU.
I feel bad you wrote all of that when we agree. I meant no one in the BIG XII would be leaving for the PAC anytime soon. SMU has verbally agreed to their nonexistent offer to the PAC haha

lol---clearly way too much time on my hands. FWIW I hope things work out well for SMU---either the P12 or B12 would be good fits. Frankly, I was raised in the old SWC---so the closer the Big12 gets to the old SWC the better as far as Im concerned. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2022 10:59 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-04-2022 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,070
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 182
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #50
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-03-2022 07:31 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Assuming no likely moves involving the other P5 leagues (which at this point I would think is the slight betting favorite), could the Pac-12 expand using the following criteria?

Pay both new members and OSU and WSU half shares for the next six-year contract, three-quarter shares for the one following, and full shares for the contract 12 or so years down the road.

For example, if the Pac-12 gets 300 million to disperse, 30 million could go to each of the eight schools not named OSU and WSU, and 15 million to OSU, WSU, SDSU, and SMU.

Considering that OSU and WSU are the weakest brands and should be the biggest proponents of expansion especially if the Pac-12 is raided in the future, could this be possible?

Why would you screw your current members out of their rightful full shares. Partial shares for new expansion members are not uncommon though. 07-coffee3
08-04-2022 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 716
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #51
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
I think we can look to the Big12's Texas years, post the NE/TAMU/MO/CO exodus, as a model.

The PAC is going to stay at 10. Unless/until there is a big10 invite.

Nearly everyone is waiting/hoping for that Big10 invite.

And more members = more uncontrolled votes, which also affects the voting ratios.

Also more mouths to feed.

And really, none of their current expansion options are slam dunks.

Geography is just working against them here.

So I expect it'll be the PAC-10 unless/until the Big10 acts.

But I could be wrong - Maybe San Diego State and a friend, "could" win the realignment lottery. Or maybe a Gonzaga combination with AF or Hawaii for football-only. Or, they could swallow their pride and invite BYU and/or Boise state. Or they could try to raid the B12.

But those likelihoods seems to dwindle every day.
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2022 02:50 AM by Skyhawk.)
08-05-2022 02:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,623
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 418
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #52
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
The theory is wrong.

I think short term value will win out for the remaining Pac-12 schools. They didn't want to pull in Houston, TCU, Oklahoma State and Kansas when they had the chance. Now those schools are likely off the table. Baylor and BYU two really strong possible adds were not even considered due to their honor codes and missions. Now the exit fee of the Big 12 is greater than any material advantage of moving to the Pac-12, and the questions of long term stability. None is likely to move. (Same for the Pac-12 to the Big 12.)

The question really revolves around the priorities of the remaining 10 schools. Kliavkoff wanted to improve the strategic position of the Pac-12 with expansion last year, but the priorities of the school leadership and ADs did not align, as they were more focused on return. Ultimately the valuation examination led USC to call the Big Ten, and now we are where we are.

But the same question applies today. The priority of Stanford, Oregon and Washington, maybe even Cal, is to get to the Big Ten by the next contract window (sooner if possible). They want to be as unencumbered as possible. They have to ask does expansion free them more or bind them more? And does it pinch their bottom line too much as the pour extra money in the program to try make a mark the next five years. Are the four corner schools also thinking about an escape plan as well? It does seem at least Arizona is uneasy. They will be asking the same questions.

Every idiot and media pundit (am I being redundant?) seems to think San Diego State is logical choice. But as Wilner points out the issue of not being able to issue PhDs and not having R1 status are seen as major problems. The small budget and media weakness of the school in LA are unstated but obvious issues. But getting as close as possible to LA and the counties surrounding it seem to be so imperative that it could override. That the Big 12 (info leaking like a sieve from there) is said to have interest in SDSU and Arizona as a pair suggests at least one Pac-12 school would be in favor of the Aztecs. Texas seems to be the consensus second target, with Houston, if they can wiggle out of their Big 12 commit, would be the top choice, with SMU emerging as the alternative.

The target list gets pretty scruffy after that. Schools in the MWC with similar or worse valuation as San Diego State, generally worse academics and far less attractive markets. Since it takes the votes of the Presidents, who only like sure things, you can effectively sink all of these. Note, Colorado State and Air Force actually hit most of the Presidential requirements, but like SMU and the Big 12, they are located in a market the Pac-12 already has with a better brand.

I sort of talked myself in going through this that logically UW, Stanford and Oregon may switch in favor on the thinking that more schools in the Pac-12 makes their exit in 4, 7 or 8 years more palatable, as the conference will survive. Once they are certain they are not going anywhere this cycle, they'll resign themselves to a GOR for the length of a short contract, and accept an exit fee. The exit fee part might be harder for Arizona and other four corners to accept, as it would not stop any of the coastal schools from joining the Big Ten, but it could make it expensive for them to jump to the Big 12. But Arizona, like the west coast schools, could well decide expansion is in their interest should they get a chance to move down the road. They could jump anyway simply because they expect a future raid, and in the grand scheme, 6 years keeping local rivals pales against decades of being adrift in a MWC+ type conference. Wazzu and Oregon State might be persuaded to expand because they have few choices. So controlling the quality of schools coming in by getting them now is in their long term best interest.

So I think 6 of the schools could easily be persuaded. CU, Utah, ASU and Cal are a little more difficult to read as far as priorities. But if two can be persuaded to back expansion then it's possible, provided it's no significant revenue hit. But if it's even $1M less per school then it's dead.
08-05-2022 02:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,216
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 70
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #53
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-04-2022 09:37 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 03:58 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The PAC poaching the Big 12 will depend on 1) obviously no additional defections from within the PAC 2) the Big 12 making significant strides academically on athletically, with the leaders becoming national powers that win expanded playoff games. Then and only then will the Big12 schools be attractive to the PAC in the next cycle. These things don't happen overnight of course.

There is no scenario in which the PAC will poach any conference other than the Mountain West.

It is nothing against the PAC, but going east-to-west is just not going to happen. PAC programs gain value going east, value is lost in programs going west. And the there are just more critical mass of programs in the east

They'd already be poached if they were better in the classrooms or more of a fit culturally. Another AAU school in Texas is all it would take for them to have made that move. I'm sorry you are in denial. If Stanford goes things get a bit more precarious, but with those 10 they are still viable relative to the Big 12.
08-05-2022 02:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,070
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 182
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #54
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-05-2022 02:49 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think we can look to the Big12's Texas years, post the NE/TAMU/MO/CO exodus, as a model.

The PAC is going to stay at 10. Unless/until there is a big10 invite.

Nearly everyone is waiting/hoping for that Big10 invite.

And more members = more uncontrolled votes, which also affects the voting ratios.

Also more mouths to feed.

And really, none of their current expansion options are slam dunks.

Geography is just working against them here.

So I expect it'll be the PAC-10 unless/until the Big10 acts.

But I could be wrong - Maybe San Diego State and a friend, "could" win the realignment lottery. Or maybe a Gonzaga combination with AF or Hawaii for football-only. Or, they could swallow their pride and invite BYU and/or Boise state. Or they could try to raid the B12.

But those likelihoods seems to dwindle every day.

Lot of agreement here. No one is leaving the B12 until the GOR's is over. If Texas and Oklahoma aren't paying the high early exit fees, the remaining schools are not paying them either. After Texas and Oklahoma leave the remaining schools will hang out for their exit fees if the TV contract is high enough. The PAC will remain intact while the B10 brass ring is hanging out there. It may consider SDSU to re-intrench itself in the LA area and can stop at 11 with the new Championship Play off rules to go division less to keep the payouts up. However, the PAC can remain at 10 for a while if it follows its plan to move some games to LA for neutral site games to have some market share there while schools like Oregon, Washington, and Stanford wait for their B10 call. If they get the call Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado move to the B12. The PAC then backfills with the best of the MWC and possibly the AAC schools if it wants to get into the central Texas time zone. 07-coffee3

The ideal move for the PAC if it stays intact would be an expansion move with 7 B-12 schools into the central time zone and SDSU in for a Southern California marketing and recruiting share, for survival and a decent TV contract. Doubt the conference has the ability to pull that off down the road though with Baylor, TT, TCU, Kansas, KSU, Iowa St., and OK St. Unfortunately, the PAC appears to be the least stable of those 2 conferences and is headed to G5/6 status down the road after it potentially gets gutted by the B10 and B12. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2022 08:44 AM by panite.)
08-05-2022 08:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,123
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 124
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #55
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-04-2022 10:47 PM)Jericho Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 03:12 PM)e-parade Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 02:45 PM)Jericho Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 10:29 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 10:24 AM)Jericho Wrote:  And what does getting into SoCal and Texas get the PAC? Anything? A toaster?

Recruiting.

You say that word, though I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Is the PAC really hurting for SoCal recruits or Texas recruits as is? If the PAC suddenly had 1/12 of the conference in some other location, is that really going to move the needle? If SMU joins, will PAC Texas (at least for non-SMU schools) recruits jump by 400%? Or will it increase by like 5 people. Total. And for the low, low cost of what's likely millions of dollars per school (as they basically have to now give SMU 1/12 of their pie). I'd like see some realistic projections on this, but I'm guessing the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I didn't say it would be ALL of their recruiting, but even 5 recruits a year is more than a toaster (obviously a joke on your part).

The Arizona schools have stressed the importance of the Southern California market to them. On ASU's current roster, there are 23 students originally from Southern California (link) Also, recruiting is about more than just athletes - per this article, ASU employs 3 full time recruiters in California, but 2 of them being in SoCal (Orange County and San Diego). Having a football/basketball presence in the area helps with recruiting, even if it is just one game a year.

So I'm not saying they'll gain a bunch of recruits (and students in general) by having a SoCal presence, just that there's a risk of losing it that might not be worth it.

I didn't claim to say you meant ALL their recruiting either. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. And I didn't mean 5 recruits per year per school. I meant 5. Total. For the entire conference. And to be a clear, I mean a net gain of 5 guys. As there's already recruiting going on in those areas.

As you pointed out, Arizona State already recruits SoCal. Are you suggesting those players all suddenly are going to go elsewhere? And, if so, to where? I get the idea that having a PAC game in the "area" might help recruiting. But you're talking about 1 game a year in what's a pretty large area of land. I'm simply putting it out there that the idea of impact of recruiting is probably greatly inflated by many on these boards. Is a SoCal kid suddenly going to go to Rutgers instead of Arizona State because USC is now in the Big 10? But if somehow the PAC added San Diego State, now that same recruit is going to go back to Arizona State because he lives 200 miles from San Diego in Santa Barbara and Arizona state might play there every two years?

I can't predict the choices of every recruit, but I don't think the location of a school is going to move the needle that much.

All? No. But certainly some of them. What I'm posing is that there's a risk involved with no longer having any presence in Southern California. ASU alone has 23 students from the area, and some of the recruiting activities were likely taking place on trips for games there. Will those students now go to Rutgers? Not necessarily, but there is a chance they will now be more heavily recruited by Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and Wisconsin. Now there's a chance those schools would win the recruiting battles anyway, but by backing completely out of the region you're giving them a much higher likelihood of winning them over without a fight.

And again, I'm not predicting they'll no longer get any recruits. The risk of losing those recruits without a fight to the B1G programs is on their mind. If they determine that risk is worth inviting an SDSU to the conference, then that's what they'll go with. Their determination is worth far more than your opinion and mine put together, and as of right now we don't know what that is.

When I said "recruiting" this is what I was referring to. So yes, it does mean exactly what I thought it meant, in contrast to what your accusation said. I'm just thinking about this in a different way than you are.
08-05-2022 09:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 12,450
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 596
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #56
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-05-2022 09:24 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 10:47 PM)Jericho Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 03:12 PM)e-parade Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 02:45 PM)Jericho Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 10:29 AM)e-parade Wrote:  Recruiting.

You say that word, though I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Is the PAC really hurting for SoCal recruits or Texas recruits as is? If the PAC suddenly had 1/12 of the conference in some other location, is that really going to move the needle? If SMU joins, will PAC Texas (at least for non-SMU schools) recruits jump by 400%? Or will it increase by like 5 people. Total. And for the low, low cost of what's likely millions of dollars per school (as they basically have to now give SMU 1/12 of their pie). I'd like see some realistic projections on this, but I'm guessing the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I didn't say it would be ALL of their recruiting, but even 5 recruits a year is more than a toaster (obviously a joke on your part).

The Arizona schools have stressed the importance of the Southern California market to them. On ASU's current roster, there are 23 students originally from Southern California (link) Also, recruiting is about more than just athletes - per this article, ASU employs 3 full time recruiters in California, but 2 of them being in SoCal (Orange County and San Diego). Having a football/basketball presence in the area helps with recruiting, even if it is just one game a year.

So I'm not saying they'll gain a bunch of recruits (and students in general) by having a SoCal presence, just that there's a risk of losing it that might not be worth it.

I didn't claim to say you meant ALL their recruiting either. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. And I didn't mean 5 recruits per year per school. I meant 5. Total. For the entire conference. And to be a clear, I mean a net gain of 5 guys. As there's already recruiting going on in those areas.

As you pointed out, Arizona State already recruits SoCal. Are you suggesting those players all suddenly are going to go elsewhere? And, if so, to where? I get the idea that having a PAC game in the "area" might help recruiting. But you're talking about 1 game a year in what's a pretty large area of land. I'm simply putting it out there that the idea of impact of recruiting is probably greatly inflated by many on these boards. Is a SoCal kid suddenly going to go to Rutgers instead of Arizona State because USC is now in the Big 10? But if somehow the PAC added San Diego State, now that same recruit is going to go back to Arizona State because he lives 200 miles from San Diego in Santa Barbara and Arizona state might play there every two years?

I can't predict the choices of every recruit, but I don't think the location of a school is going to move the needle that much.

All? No. But certainly some of them. What I'm posing is that there's a risk involved with no longer having any presence in Southern California. ASU alone has 23 students from the area, and some of the recruiting activities were likely taking place on trips for games there. Will those students now go to Rutgers? Not necessarily, but there is a chance they will now be more heavily recruited by Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and Wisconsin. Now there's a chance those schools would win the recruiting battles anyway, but by backing completely out of the region you're giving them a much higher likelihood of winning them over without a fight.

And again, I'm not predicting they'll no longer get any recruits. The risk of losing those recruits without a fight to the B1G programs is on their mind. If they determine that risk is worth inviting an SDSU to the conference, then that's what they'll go with. Their determination is worth far more than your opinion and mine put together, and as of right now we don't know what that is.

When I said "recruiting" this is what I was referring to. So yes, it does mean exactly what I thought it meant, in contrast to what your accusation said. I'm just thinking about this in a different way than you are.

But on the other other hand, Aztec Stadium or whatever its going to be isn't the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum.

Does SDSU really move the needle, or is it just dating a girl who sorta looks like your ex but not as good looking or fun?
08-05-2022 09:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,123
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 124
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #57
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-05-2022 09:38 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 09:24 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 10:47 PM)Jericho Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 03:12 PM)e-parade Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 02:45 PM)Jericho Wrote:  You say that word, though I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Is the PAC really hurting for SoCal recruits or Texas recruits as is? If the PAC suddenly had 1/12 of the conference in some other location, is that really going to move the needle? If SMU joins, will PAC Texas (at least for non-SMU schools) recruits jump by 400%? Or will it increase by like 5 people. Total. And for the low, low cost of what's likely millions of dollars per school (as they basically have to now give SMU 1/12 of their pie). I'd like see some realistic projections on this, but I'm guessing the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I didn't say it would be ALL of their recruiting, but even 5 recruits a year is more than a toaster (obviously a joke on your part).

The Arizona schools have stressed the importance of the Southern California market to them. On ASU's current roster, there are 23 students originally from Southern California (link) Also, recruiting is about more than just athletes - per this article, ASU employs 3 full time recruiters in California, but 2 of them being in SoCal (Orange County and San Diego). Having a football/basketball presence in the area helps with recruiting, even if it is just one game a year.

So I'm not saying they'll gain a bunch of recruits (and students in general) by having a SoCal presence, just that there's a risk of losing it that might not be worth it.

I didn't claim to say you meant ALL their recruiting either. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. And I didn't mean 5 recruits per year per school. I meant 5. Total. For the entire conference. And to be a clear, I mean a net gain of 5 guys. As there's already recruiting going on in those areas.

As you pointed out, Arizona State already recruits SoCal. Are you suggesting those players all suddenly are going to go elsewhere? And, if so, to where? I get the idea that having a PAC game in the "area" might help recruiting. But you're talking about 1 game a year in what's a pretty large area of land. I'm simply putting it out there that the idea of impact of recruiting is probably greatly inflated by many on these boards. Is a SoCal kid suddenly going to go to Rutgers instead of Arizona State because USC is now in the Big 10? But if somehow the PAC added San Diego State, now that same recruit is going to go back to Arizona State because he lives 200 miles from San Diego in Santa Barbara and Arizona state might play there every two years?

I can't predict the choices of every recruit, but I don't think the location of a school is going to move the needle that much.

All? No. But certainly some of them. What I'm posing is that there's a risk involved with no longer having any presence in Southern California. ASU alone has 23 students from the area, and some of the recruiting activities were likely taking place on trips for games there. Will those students now go to Rutgers? Not necessarily, but there is a chance they will now be more heavily recruited by Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and Wisconsin. Now there's a chance those schools would win the recruiting battles anyway, but by backing completely out of the region you're giving them a much higher likelihood of winning them over without a fight.

And again, I'm not predicting they'll no longer get any recruits. The risk of losing those recruits without a fight to the B1G programs is on their mind. If they determine that risk is worth inviting an SDSU to the conference, then that's what they'll go with. Their determination is worth far more than your opinion and mine put together, and as of right now we don't know what that is.

When I said "recruiting" this is what I was referring to. So yes, it does mean exactly what I thought it meant, in contrast to what your accusation said. I'm just thinking about this in a different way than you are.

But on the other other hand, Aztec Stadium or whatever its going to be isn't the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum.

Does SDSU really move the needle, or is it just dating a girl who sorta looks like your ex but not as good looking or fun?

Does it move the needle at all? Yeah, almost certainly.

Does it move it enough? This is what I'm saying is the question on their minds. I'm not saying it one way or another, I'm saying the concept of recruiting the region is on their mind, and if they determine SDSU is enough to keep them relevant in the area, then they will be more likely to move on them regardless of what sort of monetary component they bring to the media deal.


I'm not sure how much more clear I can make this: I'm not saying the recruiting that potentially comes with SDSU is worth it. I'm saying the remaining PAC members are considering the recruiting in SoCal factor as a key one, and they will determine whether or not it's worth it.



Also your analogy would be more accurate as: your girlfriend (Los Angeles) broke up with you and you're making a decision on whether to date someone similar but not quite the same (San Diego) or to not date anyone for the time being.
08-05-2022 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ARSTATEFAN1986 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 972
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #58
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
I also believe the PAC 10 will stay pat unless there are more teams poached.
08-05-2022 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,216
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 70
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #59
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
A Rice type of school with SMU athletics would be perfect, but maybe that kind of school would have already been poached. Even a Hawaii or CSU school in Texas would have been ideal. It's just a matter of one of those AAC west programs stepping up in all facets.
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2022 10:02 AM by RUScarlets.)
08-05-2022 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 716
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #60
RE: A theory on Pac-12 expansion
(08-05-2022 08:41 AM)panite Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 02:49 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think we can look to the Big12's Texas years, post the NE/TAMU/MO/CO exodus, as a model.

The PAC is going to stay at 10. Unless/until there is a big10 invite.

Nearly everyone is waiting/hoping for that Big10 invite.

And more members = more uncontrolled votes, which also affects the voting ratios.

Also more mouths to feed.

And really, none of their current expansion options are slam dunks.

Geography is just working against them here.

So I expect it'll be the PAC-10 unless/until the Big10 acts.

But I could be wrong - Maybe San Diego State and a friend, "could" win the realignment lottery. Or maybe a Gonzaga combination with AF or Hawaii for football-only. Or, they could swallow their pride and invite BYU and/or Boise state. Or they could try to raid the B12.

But those likelihoods seems to dwindle every day.

Lot of agreement here. No one is leaving the B12 until the GOR's is over. If Texas and Oklahoma aren't paying the high early exit fees, the remaining schools are not paying them either. After Texas and Oklahoma leave the remaining schools will hang out for their exit fees if the TV contract is high enough. The PAC will remain intact while the B10 brass ring is hanging out there. It may consider SDSU to re-intrench itself in the LA area and can stop at 11 with the new Championship Play off rules to go division less to keep the payouts up. However, the PAC can remain at 10 for a while if it follows its plan to move some games to LA for neutral site games to have some market share there while schools like Oregon, Washington, and Stanford wait for their B10 call. If they get the call Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado move to the B12. The PAC then backfills with the best of the MWC and possibly the AAC schools if it wants to get into the central Texas time zone. 07-coffee3

The ideal move for the PAC if it stays intact would be an expansion move with 7 B-12 schools into the central time zone and SDSU in for a Southern California marketing and recruiting share, for survival and a decent TV contract. Doubt the conference has the ability to pull that off down the road though with Baylor, TT, TCU, Kansas, KSU, Iowa St., and OK St. Unfortunately, the PAC appears to be the least stable of those 2 conferences and is headed to G5/6 status down the road after it potentially gets gutted by the B10 and B12. 07-coffee3

I still think the rumor about the B10 telling Kansas to wait til the situation with TX and OK is resolved, is quite possibly true.

So I agree, I don't think anyone in the B12 is moving anywhere on the short term.

And what helps the B12 over the PAC, actually, is geography. Being centrally located means they can expand east or west. The PAC is already west. It'll take a bit to try to expand east, especially with others grabbing up the next likely choices.
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2022 10:06 AM by Skyhawk.)
08-05-2022 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2022 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.