(11-17-2022 12:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 09:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In any event, I'm recoiling at the weird reaction that Gonzaga going to the Big 12 would somehow be... weird. (This isn't directed at you, but rather the tone that a lot of this thread has taken.) Why on Earth would it be a strange fit, particularly when "strange fit" shouldn't be applicable to a league that has Kansas, West Virginia, UCF and BYU? We have people unironically suggesting that schools like UTSA would be a Pac-12 candidate in the near future in other threads, yet I'm just perplexed that there's even 1% pushback at the thought of the Big 12 adding Gonzaga. This is a pretty obvious positive move to me if it happens. The Big 12 might be finally getting over their delusion of thinking that they can get any Pac-12 schools to move without the Big Ten acting first (or at least the league has gotten over that delusion even if their fans haven't done so), so Gonzaga is the best available sports brand out there.

This is from another thread, but it is more properly discussed in this thread. It seems Frank is unimpressed with the idea of UTSA as a PAC-12 candidate. Indeed, it is probably a bridge too far, especially given the myopia of PAC-12 presidents. But to suggest that their candidacy is a bad joke by posters on this board overlooks the many positives that UTSA has to offer including a major TV market without direct P5 or NFL competition; Texas recruiting; positive growth in competitiveness; long-term commitment from a well-known Texas coach; and a growing fan base in a football-crazy state. UTSA is a startup just like a new tech company. Does the PAC-12 want to invest now and grow the product as quickly as possible, or do they want to wait and see what happens while the product develops slower without the same level of resources.

The reality is that the PAC-12 is in a bad place in terms of viewership and market relevance. Football is on the decline on the West Coast - viewership, attendance, and participation in youth/HS football are down. There's a void in the nation's #2 market, which the PAC-12 can't fill and that market now has two NFL teams and two teams playing in one of the premier conferences. So the PAC-12, like Billy Beane in Moneyball, can't just replace Jason Giambi - they have to figure out a way to recreate what they've lost.

The way to solve the PAC-12's market problem is to invest in programs that can deliver viewers and on-field results if given a P5 platform. They can't replace Los Angeles, but they can try to "recreate" it by bringing in large markets where they could be relevant. San Antonio is the #31 market. The only larger market where the PAC-12 can add a team that is the only P5 team directly located in that market is San Diego (#27). Please note that Las Vegas is only #40. This isn't to argue that UTSA can dominate UT and A&M in San Antonio, but it may come to be the leader in the market over time. UCF is now the #1 team in Orlando, but that wasn't the case even just 10 years ago. Just as UCF accomplished this over time in a G5 conference, so can UTSA -- but UTSA can advance their timeline significantly with the PAC-12 platform and resources, which ultimately serves to strengthen the PAC-12.

For the record, I think the PAC-12 should add 4 teams: SMU, UTSA, SDSU. On the 4th, I'm undecided. But those three should be slam dunks if the PAC-12 is serious about remaining a relevant P5 football conference.

So, is UTSA highly unlikely given how the PAC-12 operates? Absolutely. But is the case for UTSA laughable? I hope this post has shown that it ought not be. It's up to the PAC-12 to decide if they want to get in at the venture capital stage or wait for the IPO in 10 years.

I can get to the UTSA main campus in 12 minutes from my front door. I remember reading about it and talking to friends when they first announced that they were going to come out with football. I've seen that program grow from the ground floor up to now being a borderline top 25 consistently, and I have a ton of respect for both them and SA as a sports town. But they're a long way away from a Pac invite today. Maybe in 20 years, assuming they turn into a consistent threat to make the 12 team playoff and maybe do some damage when they're in it.

(11-17-2022 12:40 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-16-2022 04:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-16-2022 03:27 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-16-2022 12:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  PAC with USC and UCLA and PAC without USC and UCLA are not really the same conference.

I don't see the point in rehashing the moves the Pac-12 could have made over a decade ago. Texas and Texa A&M were not coming, so it just did not make any sense. USC wanted a bigger share? Obviously USC would want it to be market based, not performance based, since they spent the past 13 years tripping over themselves.

There are almost 24 million people in Southern California. That is more people than any state other than Texas. Southern California has 3 FBS schools, one FCS school, no D2 football programs, and seven D3 football programs. Actually now there are six. Whittier College announced yesterday that they are dropping football after 115 years. There are not a lot of college football programs in Southern California.

If you have an FBS football program in Southern California, that program has value. The SC market brings a lot of value to USC and UCLA. When they decided to leave for the Big Ten, that immediately enhanced the value of San Diego State to the Pac-12. It helps that SDSU has been to 13 straight bowl games, had 17 straight winning seasons in basketball and is currently ranked #17 in the AP basketball poll. Their six appearances in the NCAA baseball tournament since 2009 and the fact that they are an associate member of the Pac-12 in couple of sports does not hurt either. The primary reason they were a G5 school was because they were not needed in the Pac-12 due to USC and UCLA. That has changed.

The Pac-12 will not be the same withhout USC and UCLA. No doubt about it. The Big 12 has lost six football programs since 2010. The Big 12 will not be the same, either. You make the best of it and move forward.

Both the Big 12 and the PAC-10 (original PAC 10 before Colorado and Utah) based unequal sharing on TV viewership.

USC when they go 0-12 will get more viewers than Washington State when they go 12-0. That's what the people who talk about equal sharing reducing risk don't seem to realize. It will forever be unknown if unequal sharing would have kept USC in the PAC.


Anyway, if you want to focus the conversation entirely on the present day, I think that adding SDSU to the PAC would be beyond stupid. Talking about past PAC moves just provides a context in which inviting SDSU seems even stupider.

You seem to have really dug in your heels on this. Why? Others talk about 24m people in the market, strong athletics, strong athletics spending, the chance to bring them in at a big discount and you just say..."NO I'VE MADE UP MY MIND", with maybe a few insults thrown in at others for not reaching the same conclusion (without evidence b/c you have none). What's your beef, did SDSU steal your wife and dog?

Unequal sharing is unacceptable in the long run but understandable for the the short term. Why do you think the Rolling Stones have lasted longer than almost any other band - they all get the same amount of money!

The plan is that the Pac signs their new deal, then they look at expansion. So they bring in SDSU and/or any other new schools at a reduced rate for the newly-signed contract, then they get full shares starting with the next contract (likely 2030 or so).

(11-17-2022 12:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:40 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-16-2022 04:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-16-2022 03:27 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I don't see the point in rehashing the moves the Pac-12 could have made over a decade ago. Texas and Texa A&M were not coming, so it just did not make any sense. USC wanted a bigger share? Obviously USC would want it to be market based, not performance based, since they spent the past 13 years tripping over themselves.

There are almost 24 million people in Southern California. That is more people than any state other than Texas. Southern California has 3 FBS schools, one FCS school, no D2 football programs, and seven D3 football programs. Actually now there are six. Whittier College announced yesterday that they are dropping football after 115 years. There are not a lot of college football programs in Southern California.

If you have an FBS football program in Southern California, that program has value. The SC market brings a lot of value to USC and UCLA. When they decided to leave for the Big Ten, that immediately enhanced the value of San Diego State to the Pac-12. It helps that SDSU has been to 13 straight bowl games, had 17 straight winning seasons in basketball and is currently ranked #17 in the AP basketball poll. Their six appearances in the NCAA baseball tournament since 2009 and the fact that they are an associate member of the Pac-12 in couple of sports does not hurt either. The primary reason they were a G5 school was because they were not needed in the Pac-12 due to USC and UCLA. That has changed.

The Pac-12 will not be the same withhout USC and UCLA. No doubt about it. The Big 12 has lost six football programs since 2010. The Big 12 will not be the same, either. You make the best of it and move forward.

Both the Big 12 and the PAC-10 (original PAC 10 before Colorado and Utah) based unequal sharing on TV viewership.

USC when they go 0-12 will get more viewers than Washington State when they go 12-0. That's what the people who talk about equal sharing reducing risk don't seem to realize. It will forever be unknown if unequal sharing would have kept USC in the PAC.


Anyway, if you want to focus the conversation entirely on the present day, I think that adding SDSU to the PAC would be beyond stupid. Talking about past PAC moves just provides a context in which inviting SDSU seems even stupider.

You seem to have really dug in your heels on this. Why? Others talk about 24m people in the market, strong athletics, strong athletics spending, the chance to bring them in at a big discount and you just say..."NO I'VE MADE UP MY MIND", with maybe a few insults thrown in at others for not reaching the same conclusion (without evidence b/c you have none). What's your beef, did SDSU steal your wife and dog?

Unequal sharing is unacceptable in the long run but understandable for the the short term. Why do you think the Rolling Stones have lasted longer than almost any other band - they all get the same amount of money!

The plan is that the Pac signs their new deal, then they look at expansion. So they bring in SDSU and/or any other new schools at a reduced rate for the newly-signed contract, then they get full shares starting with the next contract (likely 2030 or so).

YEP - makes sense!

Things will start falling into place once the UCLA issue gets resolved.

Right now, the Pac 12 is not 100% sure if UCLA is leaving its TV inventory. And so it cannot sign a deal. Or finalize expansion plans.

So:

1. UCLA issue resolved before Thanksgiving.
2. TV contract finalized December or January.
3. Expansion finalized by summer.

(11-17-2022 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 09:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In any event, I'm recoiling at the weird reaction that Gonzaga going to the Big 12 would somehow be... weird. (This isn't directed at you, but rather the tone that a lot of this thread has taken.) Why on Earth would it be a strange fit, particularly when "strange fit" shouldn't be applicable to a league that has Kansas, West Virginia, UCF and BYU? We have people unironically suggesting that schools like UTSA would be a Pac-12 candidate in the near future in other threads, yet I'm just perplexed that there's even 1% pushback at the thought of the Big 12 adding Gonzaga. This is a pretty obvious positive move to me if it happens. The Big 12 might be finally getting over their delusion of thinking that they can get any Pac-12 schools to move without the Big Ten acting first (or at least the league has gotten over that delusion even if their fans haven't done so), so Gonzaga is the best available sports brand out there.

This is from another thread, but it is more properly discussed in this thread. It seems Frank is unimpressed with the idea of UTSA as a PAC-12 candidate. Indeed, it is probably a bridge too far, especially given the myopia of PAC-12 presidents. But to suggest that their candidacy is a bad joke by posters on this board overlooks the many positives that UTSA has to offer including a major TV market without direct P5 or NFL competition; Texas recruiting; positive growth in competitiveness; long-term commitment from a well-known Texas coach; and a growing fan base in a football-crazy state. UTSA is a startup just like a new tech company. Does the PAC-12 want to invest now and grow the product as quickly as possible, or do they want to wait and see what happens while the product develops slower without the same level of resources.

The reality is that the PAC-12 is in a bad place in terms of viewership and market relevance. Football is on the decline on the West Coast - viewership, attendance, and participation in youth/HS football are down. There's a void in the nation's #2 market, which the PAC-12 can't fill and that market now has two NFL teams and two teams playing in one of the premier conferences. So the PAC-12, like Billy Beane in Moneyball, can't just replace Jason Giambi - they have to figure out a way to recreate what they've lost.

The way to solve the PAC-12's market problem is to invest in programs that can deliver viewers and on-field results if given a P5 platform. They can't replace Los Angeles, but they can try to "recreate" it by bringing in large markets where they could be relevant. San Antonio is the #31 market. The only larger market where the PAC-12 can add a team that is the only P5 team directly located in that market is San Diego (#27). Please note that Las Vegas is only #40. This isn't to argue that UTSA can dominate UT and A&M in San Antonio, but it may come to be the leader in the market over time. UCF is now the #1 team in Orlando, but that wasn't the case even just 10 years ago. Just as UCF accomplished this over time in a G5 conference, so can UTSA -- but UTSA can advance their timeline significantly with the PAC-12 platform and resources, which ultimately serves to strengthen the PAC-12.

For the record, I think the PAC-12 should add 4 teams: SMU, UTSA, SDSU. On the 4th, I'm undecided. But those three should be slam dunks if the PAC-12 is serious about remaining a relevant P5 football conference.

So, is UTSA highly unlikely given how the PAC-12 operates? Absolutely. But is the case for UTSA laughable? I hope this post has shown that it ought not be. It's up to the PAC-12 to decide if they want to get in at the venture capital stage or wait for the IPO in 10 years.

I can get to the UTSA main campus in 12 minutes from my front door. I remember reading about it and talking to friends when they first announced that they were going to come out with football. I've seen that program grow from the ground floor up to now being a borderline top 25 consistently, and I have a ton of respect for both them and SA as a sports town. But they're a long way away from a Pac invite today. Maybe in 20 years, assuming they turn into a consistent threat to make the 12 team playoff and maybe do some damage when they're in it.

This is the exact point I'm making. The PAC-12 can wait around for UTSA to eventually develop in a G5 with limited financial resources (wait for the IPO), or they can go in now as venture capitalists who see something that can be valuable and help it get there for the PAC-12's own benefit.

Rice and Tulane may have been around a long-time, but they don't bring any more viewers than UTSA right now, and they have far lower ceilings and lower floors. Would you rather buy stock in old, mediocre firms that can barely compete or get in on the ground floor of what can be the next big thing? Go back fifteen years, would you have invested in K-Mart instead of Amazon? No guarantee that UTSA becomes Amazon, but there's a guarantee that whatever it becomes, it's never worth less than K-Mart. UTSA has the highest ceiling of any PAC-12 candidate, SMU is probably second given their financial resources. SDSU is probably third because the environment in California is already unfavorable toward football, so SDSU doesn't have tremendous growth potential just by being in a P5 finally.

(11-17-2022 12:59 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 09:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In any event, I'm recoiling at the weird reaction that Gonzaga going to the Big 12 would somehow be... weird. (This isn't directed at you, but rather the tone that a lot of this thread has taken.) Why on Earth would it be a strange fit, particularly when "strange fit" shouldn't be applicable to a league that has Kansas, West Virginia, UCF and BYU? We have people unironically suggesting that schools like UTSA would be a Pac-12 candidate in the near future in other threads, yet I'm just perplexed that there's even 1% pushback at the thought of the Big 12 adding Gonzaga. This is a pretty obvious positive move to me if it happens. The Big 12 might be finally getting over their delusion of thinking that they can get any Pac-12 schools to move without the Big Ten acting first (or at least the league has gotten over that delusion even if their fans haven't done so), so Gonzaga is the best available sports brand out there.

This is from another thread, but it is more properly discussed in this thread. It seems Frank is unimpressed with the idea of UTSA as a PAC-12 candidate. Indeed, it is probably a bridge too far, especially given the myopia of PAC-12 presidents. But to suggest that their candidacy is a bad joke by posters on this board overlooks the many positives that UTSA has to offer including a major TV market without direct P5 or NFL competition; Texas recruiting; positive growth in competitiveness; long-term commitment from a well-known Texas coach; and a growing fan base in a football-crazy state. UTSA is a startup just like a new tech company. Does the PAC-12 want to invest now and grow the product as quickly as possible, or do they want to wait and see what happens while the product develops slower without the same level of resources.

The reality is that the PAC-12 is in a bad place in terms of viewership and market relevance. Football is on the decline on the West Coast - viewership, attendance, and participation in youth/HS football are down. There's a void in the nation's #2 market, which the PAC-12 can't fill and that market now has two NFL teams and two teams playing in one of the premier conferences. So the PAC-12, like Billy Beane in Moneyball, can't just replace Jason Giambi - they have to figure out a way to recreate what they've lost.

The way to solve the PAC-12's market problem is to invest in programs that can deliver viewers and on-field results if given a P5 platform. They can't replace Los Angeles, but they can try to "recreate" it by bringing in large markets where they could be relevant. San Antonio is the #31 market. The only larger market where the PAC-12 can add a team that is the only P5 team directly located in that market is San Diego (#27). Please note that Las Vegas is only #40. This isn't to argue that UTSA can dominate UT and A&M in San Antonio, but it may come to be the leader in the market over time. UCF is now the #1 team in Orlando, but that wasn't the case even just 10 years ago. Just as UCF accomplished this over time in a G5 conference, so can UTSA -- but UTSA can advance their timeline significantly with the PAC-12 platform and resources, which ultimately serves to strengthen the PAC-12.

For the record, I think the PAC-12 should add 4 teams: SMU, UTSA, SDSU. On the 4th, I'm undecided. But those three should be slam dunks if the PAC-12 is serious about remaining a relevant P5 football conference.

So, is UTSA highly unlikely given how the PAC-12 operates? Absolutely. But is the case for UTSA laughable? I hope this post has shown that it ought not be. It's up to the PAC-12 to decide if they want to get in at the venture capital stage or wait for the IPO in 10 years.

I can get to the UTSA main campus in 12 minutes from my front door. I remember reading about it and talking to friends when they first announced that they were going to come out with football. I've seen that program grow from the ground floor up to now being a borderline top 25 consistently, and I have a ton of respect for both them and SA as a sports town. But they're a long way away from a Pac invite today. Maybe in 20 years, assuming they turn into a consistent threat to make the 12 team playoff and maybe do some damage when they're in it.

This is the exact point I'm making. The PAC-12 can wait around for UTSA to eventually develop in a G5 with limited financial resources (wait for the IPO), or they can go in now as venture capitalists who see something that can be valuable and help it get there for the PAC-12's own benefit.

Rice and Tulane may have been around a long-time, but they don't bring any more viewers than UTSA right now, and they have far lower ceilings and lower floors. Would you rather buy stock in old, mediocre firms that can barely compete or get in on the ground floor of what can be the next big thing? Go back fifteen years, would you have invested in K-Mart instead of Amazon? No guarantee that UTSA becomes Amazon, but there's a guarantee that whatever it becomes, it's never worth less than K-Mart.

But even if UTSA climbs the ladder like UCF has, who would want them? The P2 are out, and they're worth less to the big 12 b/c they already have Texas blanketed with 4 old SWC schools. The ACC doesn't even want any current big 12 schools. So the Pac has no reason to dilute their own revenues for 20 years while they wait for UTSA to (hopefully) develop into a great anchor school for their Texas Division, they can instead just wait and see how things go and pick up UTSA when/if they develop into a P5 program.

(11-17-2022 01:05 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:59 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 09:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In any event, I'm recoiling at the weird reaction that Gonzaga going to the Big 12 would somehow be... weird. (This isn't directed at you, but rather the tone that a lot of this thread has taken.) Why on Earth would it be a strange fit, particularly when "strange fit" shouldn't be applicable to a league that has Kansas, West Virginia, UCF and BYU? We have people unironically suggesting that schools like UTSA would be a Pac-12 candidate in the near future in other threads, yet I'm just perplexed that there's even 1% pushback at the thought of the Big 12 adding Gonzaga. This is a pretty obvious positive move to me if it happens. The Big 12 might be finally getting over their delusion of thinking that they can get any Pac-12 schools to move without the Big Ten acting first (or at least the league has gotten over that delusion even if their fans haven't done so), so Gonzaga is the best available sports brand out there.

This is from another thread, but it is more properly discussed in this thread. It seems Frank is unimpressed with the idea of UTSA as a PAC-12 candidate. Indeed, it is probably a bridge too far, especially given the myopia of PAC-12 presidents. But to suggest that their candidacy is a bad joke by posters on this board overlooks the many positives that UTSA has to offer including a major TV market without direct P5 or NFL competition; Texas recruiting; positive growth in competitiveness; long-term commitment from a well-known Texas coach; and a growing fan base in a football-crazy state. UTSA is a startup just like a new tech company. Does the PAC-12 want to invest now and grow the product as quickly as possible, or do they want to wait and see what happens while the product develops slower without the same level of resources.

The reality is that the PAC-12 is in a bad place in terms of viewership and market relevance. Football is on the decline on the West Coast - viewership, attendance, and participation in youth/HS football are down. There's a void in the nation's #2 market, which the PAC-12 can't fill and that market now has two NFL teams and two teams playing in one of the premier conferences. So the PAC-12, like Billy Beane in Moneyball, can't just replace Jason Giambi - they have to figure out a way to recreate what they've lost.

The way to solve the PAC-12's market problem is to invest in programs that can deliver viewers and on-field results if given a P5 platform. They can't replace Los Angeles, but they can try to "recreate" it by bringing in large markets where they could be relevant. San Antonio is the #31 market. The only larger market where the PAC-12 can add a team that is the only P5 team directly located in that market is San Diego (#27). Please note that Las Vegas is only #40. This isn't to argue that UTSA can dominate UT and A&M in San Antonio, but it may come to be the leader in the market over time. UCF is now the #1 team in Orlando, but that wasn't the case even just 10 years ago. Just as UCF accomplished this over time in a G5 conference, so can UTSA -- but UTSA can advance their timeline significantly with the PAC-12 platform and resources, which ultimately serves to strengthen the PAC-12.

For the record, I think the PAC-12 should add 4 teams: SMU, UTSA, SDSU. On the 4th, I'm undecided. But those three should be slam dunks if the PAC-12 is serious about remaining a relevant P5 football conference.

So, is UTSA highly unlikely given how the PAC-12 operates? Absolutely. But is the case for UTSA laughable? I hope this post has shown that it ought not be. It's up to the PAC-12 to decide if they want to get in at the venture capital stage or wait for the IPO in 10 years.

I can get to the UTSA main campus in 12 minutes from my front door. I remember reading about it and talking to friends when they first announced that they were going to come out with football. I've seen that program grow from the ground floor up to now being a borderline top 25 consistently, and I have a ton of respect for both them and SA as a sports town. But they're a long way away from a Pac invite today. Maybe in 20 years, assuming they turn into a consistent threat to make the 12 team playoff and maybe do some damage when they're in it.

This is the exact point I'm making. The PAC-12 can wait around for UTSA to eventually develop in a G5 with limited financial resources (wait for the IPO), or they can go in now as venture capitalists who see something that can be valuable and help it get there for the PAC-12's own benefit.

Rice and Tulane may have been around a long-time, but they don't bring any more viewers than UTSA right now, and they have far lower ceilings and lower floors. Would you rather buy stock in old, mediocre firms that can barely compete or get in on the ground floor of what can be the next big thing? Go back fifteen years, would you have invested in K-Mart instead of Amazon? No guarantee that UTSA becomes Amazon, but there's a guarantee that whatever it becomes, it's never worth less than K-Mart.

But even if UTSA climbs the ladder like UCF has, who would want them? The P2 are out, and they're worth less to the big 12 b/c they already have Texas blanketed with 4 old SWC schools. The ACC doesn't even want any current big 12 schools. So the Pac has no reason to dilute their own revenues for 20 years while they wait for UTSA to (hopefully) develop into a great anchor school for their Texas Division, they can instead just wait and see how things go and pick up UTSA when/if they develop into a P5 program.

It's not going to take 20 years if they're in a P5 with those financial resources. And while UTSA may have nowhere to go, things are probably going downhill for the PAC given the decline in football generally on the west coast. So establishing themselves in a major market in a football-rich state has value now. And it will be value that the PAC-12 recognizes sooner rather than waiting until they're a distant 5th to the other conferences. If you add a team now, in 10 years, that's a P5 team, not a G5 that you just added in desperation mode.

(11-17-2022 02:01 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 01:05 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:59 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  This is from another thread, but it is more properly discussed in this thread. It seems Frank is unimpressed with the idea of UTSA as a PAC-12 candidate. Indeed, it is probably a bridge too far, especially given the myopia of PAC-12 presidents. But to suggest that their candidacy is a bad joke by posters on this board overlooks the many positives that UTSA has to offer including a major TV market without direct P5 or NFL competition; Texas recruiting; positive growth in competitiveness; long-term commitment from a well-known Texas coach; and a growing fan base in a football-crazy state. UTSA is a startup just like a new tech company. Does the PAC-12 want to invest now and grow the product as quickly as possible, or do they want to wait and see what happens while the product develops slower without the same level of resources.

The reality is that the PAC-12 is in a bad place in terms of viewership and market relevance. Football is on the decline on the West Coast - viewership, attendance, and participation in youth/HS football are down. There's a void in the nation's #2 market, which the PAC-12 can't fill and that market now has two NFL teams and two teams playing in one of the premier conferences. So the PAC-12, like Billy Beane in Moneyball, can't just replace Jason Giambi - they have to figure out a way to recreate what they've lost.

The way to solve the PAC-12's market problem is to invest in programs that can deliver viewers and on-field results if given a P5 platform. They can't replace Los Angeles, but they can try to "recreate" it by bringing in large markets where they could be relevant. San Antonio is the #31 market. The only larger market where the PAC-12 can add a team that is the only P5 team directly located in that market is San Diego (#27). Please note that Las Vegas is only #40. This isn't to argue that UTSA can dominate UT and A&M in San Antonio, but it may come to be the leader in the market over time. UCF is now the #1 team in Orlando, but that wasn't the case even just 10 years ago. Just as UCF accomplished this over time in a G5 conference, so can UTSA -- but UTSA can advance their timeline significantly with the PAC-12 platform and resources, which ultimately serves to strengthen the PAC-12.

For the record, I think the PAC-12 should add 4 teams: SMU, UTSA, SDSU. On the 4th, I'm undecided. But those three should be slam dunks if the PAC-12 is serious about remaining a relevant P5 football conference.

So, is UTSA highly unlikely given how the PAC-12 operates? Absolutely. But is the case for UTSA laughable? I hope this post has shown that it ought not be. It's up to the PAC-12 to decide if they want to get in at the venture capital stage or wait for the IPO in 10 years.

I can get to the UTSA main campus in 12 minutes from my front door. I remember reading about it and talking to friends when they first announced that they were going to come out with football. I've seen that program grow from the ground floor up to now being a borderline top 25 consistently, and I have a ton of respect for both them and SA as a sports town. But they're a long way away from a Pac invite today. Maybe in 20 years, assuming they turn into a consistent threat to make the 12 team playoff and maybe do some damage when they're in it.

This is the exact point I'm making. The PAC-12 can wait around for UTSA to eventually develop in a G5 with limited financial resources (wait for the IPO), or they can go in now as venture capitalists who see something that can be valuable and help it get there for the PAC-12's own benefit.

Rice and Tulane may have been around a long-time, but they don't bring any more viewers than UTSA right now, and they have far lower ceilings and lower floors. Would you rather buy stock in old, mediocre firms that can barely compete or get in on the ground floor of what can be the next big thing? Go back fifteen years, would you have invested in K-Mart instead of Amazon? No guarantee that UTSA becomes Amazon, but there's a guarantee that whatever it becomes, it's never worth less than K-Mart.

But even if UTSA climbs the ladder like UCF has, who would want them? The P2 are out, and they're worth less to the big 12 b/c they already have Texas blanketed with 4 old SWC schools. The ACC doesn't even want any current big 12 schools. So the Pac has no reason to dilute their own revenues for 20 years while they wait for UTSA to (hopefully) develop into a great anchor school for their Texas Division, they can instead just wait and see how things go and pick up UTSA when/if they develop into a P5 program.

It's not going to take 20 years if they're in a P5 with those financial resources. And while UTSA may have nowhere to go, things are probably going downhill for the PAC given the decline in football generally on the west coast. So establishing themselves in a major market in a football-rich state has value now. And it will be value that the PAC-12 recognizes sooner rather than waiting until they're a distant 5th to the other conferences. If you add a team now, in 10 years, that's a P5 team, not a G5 that you just added in desperation mode.

...here's a link to an article (duh ) regarding the decline of youth/HS football participation in California...

California declining in youth football

(11-17-2022 12:59 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  This is the exact point I'm making. The PAC-12 can wait around for UTSA to eventually develop in a G5 with limited financial resources (wait for the IPO), or they can go in now as venture capitalists who see something that can be valuable and help it get there for the PAC-12's own benefit.

If the argument for a realignment move actually requires the conference involved to act like a venture capitalist, it's as good as saying the move isn't going to happen.

There's a reason that venture capitalists don't organize their funds around requiring a super-majority of ten full partners to agree to the investments.

(11-17-2022 02:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:59 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  This is the exact point I'm making. The PAC-12 can wait around for UTSA to eventually develop in a G5 with limited financial resources (wait for the IPO), or they can go in now as venture capitalists who see something that can be valuable and help it get there for the PAC-12's own benefit.

If the argument for a realignment move actually requires the conference involved to act like a venture capitalist, it's as good as saying the move isn't going to happen.

There's a reason that venture capitalists don't organize their funds around requiring a super-majority of ten full partners to agree to the investments.

I opened the argument by noting that I didn't think the PAC-12 had the leadership to make this move. That's a different discussion from whether UTSA is a quality candidate.

(11-17-2022 02:20 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 02:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 12:59 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  This is the exact point I'm making. The PAC-12 can wait around for UTSA to eventually develop in a G5 with limited financial resources (wait for the IPO), or they can go in now as venture capitalists who see something that can be valuable and help it get there for the PAC-12's own benefit.

If the argument for a realignment move actually requires the conference involved to act like a venture capitalist, it's as good as saying the move isn't going to happen.

There's a reason that venture capitalists don't organize their funds around requiring a super-majority of ten full partners to agree to the investments.

I opened the argument by noting that I didn't think the PAC-12 had the leadership to make this move. That's a different discussion from whether UTSA is a quality candidate.

Framing it as "leadership" suggests that "with better leadership" it's feasible.

But if a move requires "venture capitalist" reasoning, what it requires is a conference organized like a privately managed closely held corporation, rather than organized like a conference. It's not about "leadership", it's about the fact that conferences are effectively cooperatives, and not privately managed, closely held corporations.

If a school is in a position where the imaginary venture-capitalist conference might be able build it to the point where a real world version of the conference would take them, then in the real world it's up to that school to see if they can raise themselves up to that point.

UCLA to the B1G is now in doubt.

SDSU and SMU are now passe'.

If the UCLA move falters, does the B1G knock on Notre Dame's door again and again and again?

(11-17-2022 04:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  UCLA to the B1G is now in doubt.

SDSU and SMU are now passe'.

If the UCLA move falters, does the B1G knock on Notre Dame's door again and again and again?

It's not in doubt.

UCLA will be in the Big Ten. It's a matter of whether the UC Regents let sleeping dogs lie with just a USC/UCLA expansion or the Big Ten has to move up its timetable for taking a larger set of Pac-12 schools (including UCLA and Cal). Notre Dame isn't coming. The UC Regents blocking UCLA would be the *worst* thing for the Pac-12 overall (although maybe good for Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal).

It's bad for Cal too Frank.

Cal and UCLA are under the same regents and same Governor and Lieutenant Governor and President of the Board of Regents. Same travel and athlete's quality of experience issues apply for Cal as for UCLA.

What it means is Stanford steps in as replacement and the Big Ten maybe moves up the timetable for Oregon and Washington. The Big 12 will suddenly have Arizona formally applying, probably Utah and Washington State also applying, likely Arizona State following suit. (Colorado seems lost, Oregon State resigned to it's ultimate fate, Cal and UCLA tied to the UC regents).

I just don't see how UC regents intervening does anything positive for Cal.