(11-10-2022 03:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:13 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:08 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:06 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 02:29 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  ... there's a 40 percent chance of the Pac-12 expanding to 12 and a 40 percent chance the conference remains at 10.

The other 20%? Implosion*.


*the four corners don't like the PAC TV deal and go for the Big XII pro rata.

The other 20% was 11.

Based on the tweet alone he's predicting the PAC to survive for the time being. 100% odds across staying at 10, expanding to 11, or expanding to 12.

Wilner is guessing. So am I.

I'm guessing there is a better than 50% chance the Pac doesn't exist in 2026.

I would take that bet. Everyone thought the big 12 was toast last year after losing 6 great schools over a 15 year period, now they're in a great position. The Pac lost a whole lot less than the big 12. They'll be fine, certainly until after 2026 anyway.

(11-10-2022 03:36 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:25 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 02:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 02:56 PM)Poster Wrote:  Why would the league go to 11? That's a really hellish number to deal with. The Big Ten only went to 11 because Penn State was the addition, and they were hoping Notre Dame would be #12. And actually the Big Ten barely voted in favor of PSU's inclusion.

Because the options after SDSU are pretty bleak. I'd guess that's the reason that 11 is on the table.

I honestly think that SDSU is a bleak option itself. It's just that the options after them are even bleaker.



I see no reason for any conference to go to 11 unless you get an add like Penn State.

If the PAC wasn't so snobbish and had added SDSU and BYU back in the day they probably wouldn't be in this predicament. San Diego has more people than 21 states and the county has produced more Heisman winners than just about any other in the country. SDSU was drawing more fans than the Chargers at one point, but the conference the school has been associated with has been in decline ever since BYU/Utah/TCU left over a decade ago. Once SDSU's in the PAC you will see a sea change with their support, that's just the nature of left coast fandom, unfortunately.

Which predicament? Adding those two years ago wouldnt have prevented USC and UCLA from wanting to leave, sooner or later.

They may not even need to add anyone now.

The Pac needed to add half the big 12 back in 2010 to avoid the USCLA escape.

Speaking of which, does anybody know what they weren't trying to bring in Nebraska back in 2010? Were they even approached, or did everyone just assume that they were going to big 10?

Well its pretty easy to figure out. Start with academic standards:
Good
Hawaii
Colorado St.
Rice
SMU
Air Force

Adequate
San Diego St.
New Mexico
Wyoming
Utah St.

Barely tolerable
UNLV
UTSA
UNT

Then who has the budget
Good
SMU

Adequate
San Diego St.
Colorado St.
UNLV
Fresno

Barely tolerable
Rice
Air Force
Hawaii
Boise St.
Utah St.
UNT

That brings you down to 9 schools that even make both lists. SMU, Rice, Hawaii, Air Force, Colorado St. and SDSU are the only ones who even average adequate. Utah St. is adequate and then low budget and duplicates Utah. UNT is low on both and duplicates SMU. UNLV is low and then adequate on budget plus their football team is awful as is fan support.

Colorado St. duplicates CU and its football team and viewership are awful. Air Force just can't compete long term in the P5. Rice has poor fan support and a weak football team. Hawaii has an adequate budget but their athletic department is struggling financially and they don't yet have their stadium rebuilt.

So you only have SDSU and SMU, neither of whom are more than ok in attendance and viewership.

(11-10-2022 09:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well its pretty easy to figure out. Start with academic standards:
Good
Hawaii
Colorado St.
Rice
SMU
Air Force

Adequate
San Diego St.
New Mexico
Wyoming
Utah St.

Barely tolerable
UNLV
UTSA
UNT

Then who has the budget
Good
SMU

Adequate
San Diego St.
Colorado St.
UNLV
Fresno

Barely tolerable
Rice
Air Force
Hawaii
Boise St.
Utah St.
UNT

That brings you down to 9 schools that even make both lists. SMU, Rice, Hawaii, Air Force, Colorado St. and SDSU are the only ones who even average adequate. Utah St. is adequate and then low budget and duplicates Utah. UNT is low on both and duplicates SMU. UNLV is low and then adequate on budget plus their football team is awful as is fan support.

Colorado St. duplicates CU and its football team and viewership are awful. Air Force just can't compete long term in the P5. Rice has poor fan support and a weak football team. Hawaii has an adequate budget but their athletic department is struggling financially and they don't yet have their stadium rebuilt.

So you only have SDSU and SMU, neither of whom are more than ok in attendance and viewership.

You are missing Tulane in that first bucket, and think if they ever added 4 tulane would be in that mix to pair with SMU

If you ignore academic snobbery, then Fresno and Boise would have a chance. But as long as Stanford and Cal are in the conference, the chance of ignoring academic snobbery is immeasurably small.

(11-10-2022 09:29 PM)SirSaint09 Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 09:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well its pretty easy to figure out. Start with academic standards:
Good
Hawaii
Colorado St.
Rice
SMU
Air Force

Adequate
San Diego St.
New Mexico
Wyoming
Utah St.

Barely tolerable
UNLV
UTSA
UNT

Then who has the budget
Good
SMU

Adequate
San Diego St.
Colorado St.
UNLV
Fresno

Barely tolerable
Rice
Air Force
Hawaii
Boise St.
Utah St.
UNT

That brings you down to 9 schools that even make both lists. SMU, Rice, Hawaii, Air Force, Colorado St. and SDSU are the only ones who even average adequate. Utah St. is adequate and then low budget and duplicates Utah. UNT is low on both and duplicates SMU. UNLV is low and then adequate on budget plus their football team is awful as is fan support.

Colorado St. duplicates CU and its football team and viewership are awful. Air Force just can't compete long term in the P5. Rice has poor fan support and a weak football team. Hawaii has an adequate budget but their athletic department is struggling financially and they don't yet have their stadium rebuilt.

So you only have SDSU and SMU, neither of whom are more than ok in attendance and viewership.

You are missing Tulane in that first bucket, and think if they ever added 4 tulane would be in that mix to pair with SMU

I didn't go east of Texas. But Tulane's budget is last in the AAC. Don't think they pass on that category.

(11-10-2022 09:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 09:29 PM)SirSaint09 Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 09:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well its pretty easy to figure out. Start with academic standards:
Good
Hawaii
Colorado St.
Rice
SMU
Air Force

Adequate
San Diego St.
New Mexico
Wyoming
Utah St.

Barely tolerable
UNLV
UTSA
UNT

Then who has the budget
Good
SMU

Adequate
San Diego St.
Colorado St.
UNLV
Fresno

Barely tolerable
Rice
Air Force
Hawaii
Boise St.
Utah St.
UNT

That brings you down to 9 schools that even make both lists. SMU, Rice, Hawaii, Air Force, Colorado St. and SDSU are the only ones who even average adequate. Utah St. is adequate and then low budget and duplicates Utah. UNT is low on both and duplicates SMU. UNLV is low and then adequate on budget plus their football team is awful as is fan support.

Colorado St. duplicates CU and its football team and viewership are awful. Air Force just can't compete long term in the P5. Rice has poor fan support and a weak football team. Hawaii has an adequate budget but their athletic department is struggling financially and they don't yet have their stadium rebuilt.

So you only have SDSU and SMU, neither of whom are more than ok in attendance and viewership.

You are missing Tulane in that first bucket, and think if they ever added 4 tulane would be in that mix to pair with SMU

I didn't go east of Texas. But Tulane's budget is last in the AAC. Don't think they pass on that category.

Actually, Tulane’s athletic budget is 50 million per year, which is on par with Cincy, Houston, UCF per Ross Dellenger today actually

Quote:Tulane’s athletic budget has grown substantially to around $50 million, on par with the three AAC teams heading to the Big 12.

Link to SI Ross Dellenger

(11-10-2022 03:25 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 02:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 02:56 PM)Poster Wrote:  Why would the league go to 11? That's a really hellish number to deal with. The Big Ten only went to 11 because Penn State was the addition, and they were hoping Notre Dame would be #12. And actually the Big Ten barely voted in favor of PSU's inclusion.

Because the options after SDSU are pretty bleak. I'd guess that's the reason that 11 is on the table.

I honestly think that SDSU is a bleak option itself. It's just that the options after them are even bleaker.



I see no reason for any conference to go to 11 unless you get an add like Penn State.

If the PAC wasn't so snobbish and had added SDSU and BYU back in the day they probably wouldn't be in this predicament. San Diego has more people than 21 states and the county has produced more Heisman winners than just about any other in the country. SDSU was drawing more fans than the Chargers at one point, but the conference the school has been associated with has been in decline ever since BYU/Utah/TCU left over a decade ago. Once SDSU's in the PAC you will see a sea change with their support, that's just the nature of left coast fandom, unfortunately.

Thank Stanford and friends for that one, AztecEmpire. And we still don't know if Stanford will stay or go. Hey 'Ferd either do your business or get off the pot!!! Other folks got use the toilet too, you know.

(11-10-2022 09:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:36 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:25 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 02:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Because the options after SDSU are pretty bleak. I'd guess that's the reason that 11 is on the table.

I honestly think that SDSU is a bleak option itself. It's just that the options after them are even bleaker.



I see no reason for any conference to go to 11 unless you get an add like Penn State.

If the PAC wasn't so snobbish and had added SDSU and BYU back in the day they probably wouldn't be in this predicament. San Diego has more people than 21 states and the county has produced more Heisman winners than just about any other in the country. SDSU was drawing more fans than the Chargers at one point, but the conference the school has been associated with has been in decline ever since BYU/Utah/TCU left over a decade ago. Once SDSU's in the PAC you will see a sea change with their support, that's just the nature of left coast fandom, unfortunately.

Which predicament? Adding those two years ago wouldnt have prevented USC and UCLA from wanting to leave, sooner or later.

They may not even need to add anyone now.

The Pac needed to add half the big 12 back in 2010 to avoid the USCLA escape.

Speaking of which, does anybody know what they weren't trying to bring in Nebraska back in 2010? Were they even approached, or did everyone just assume that they were going to big 10?

I’ve wondered myself why the PAC didn’t seem to give Nebraska the slightest consideration for the PAC-16.


It couldn’t have been because Nebraska was considered a lock for the Big 10. The first Big 12 team to flirt with the Big 10 was Missouri, not Nebraska. Nebraska showed no interest in the Big 10 until the PAC-16 talk really picked up in about April 2010. Due in part to their late interest in the Big 10, the Big 10 just barely picked them over Missouri.

(11-10-2022 09:39 PM)SirSaint09 Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 09:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 09:29 PM)SirSaint09 Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 09:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well its pretty easy to figure out. Start with academic standards:
Good
Hawaii
Colorado St.
Rice
SMU
Air Force

Adequate
San Diego St.
New Mexico
Wyoming
Utah St.

Barely tolerable
UNLV
UTSA
UNT

Then who has the budget
Good
SMU

Adequate
San Diego St.
Colorado St.
UNLV
Fresno

Barely tolerable
Rice
Air Force
Hawaii
Boise St.
Utah St.
UNT

That brings you down to 9 schools that even make both lists. SMU, Rice, Hawaii, Air Force, Colorado St. and SDSU are the only ones who even average adequate. Utah St. is adequate and then low budget and duplicates Utah. UNT is low on both and duplicates SMU. UNLV is low and then adequate on budget plus their football team is awful as is fan support.

Colorado St. duplicates CU and its football team and viewership are awful. Air Force just can't compete long term in the P5. Rice has poor fan support and a weak football team. Hawaii has an adequate budget but their athletic department is struggling financially and they don't yet have their stadium rebuilt.

So you only have SDSU and SMU, neither of whom are more than ok in attendance and viewership.

You are missing Tulane in that first bucket, and think if they ever added 4 tulane would be in that mix to pair with SMU

I didn't go east of Texas. But Tulane's budget is last in the AAC. Don't think they pass on that category.

Actually, Tulane’s athletic budget is 50 million per year, which is on par with Cincy, Houston, UCF per Ross Dellenger today actually

Quote:Tulane’s athletic budget has grown substantially to around $50 million, on par with the three AAC teams heading to the Big 12.

Link to SI Ross Dellenger

That's recent. It was only $31 million in the pinned link on this website.

(11-10-2022 06:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 05:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The smart move is no additions but you can’t count on the PAC 10 to do the smart thing.

Smart in what way and for which parties?

As a pure short-term revenue maximization exercise, the short-term move may be no additions.

However, that's assuming the Pac-12 is totally safe as-is, which doesn't appear to be the case.

Washington State and Oregon State are going to think about this quite differently than everyone else - they can't be left in a rump league where they're the only 2 schools left if there's a total implosion. It would be shocking to me if they weren't screaming for expansion in every scenario.

Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal are often mentioned as Big Ten targets, but what if the Big Ten only invites two of them? What if the Big Ten only invites one of them? What if the Big Ten invites three of them and one of them is left out? No one in that group can feel *totally* confident in what's going to happen.

Similarly, I think there are simply a lot of reasons (which I've stated before) why the Four Corners schools are going to want to avoid going to the Big 12 if at all possible. Even if any schools leave for the Big Ten, the Four Corners schools at least want *options* to stay in a Pac-12 that they control as opposed to feeling like they have no other choice (even if they ultimately decide the Big 12 is a better option).

At the end of the day, the Pac-12 could likely get revenue concessions from any expansion candidate, so I doubt it will be about the money. Protection in numbers is real thing for the Pac-12 going forward in a way that it hasn't been the case for other leagues.

Protection in numbers is a real thing, but I don't see a majority of the league staying if there are 2+ defections, unless certain schools want to continue leaving themselves open to B1G/SEC expansion, which does not help overall stability. The valuation is barely there now. If they lose 2 more, they will probably be under the B12 in money, and there will be whispers within the conference until B1G absorbs what they want in 2036. There will be massive 2012 level B12 instability in the PAC if 2-4 defect. If you are the 4C, I don't see how you are okay with that, especially when the B12 will have a door wide open for you. If you wait too long, you might not join the party in a scenario where the B12 and ACC merge, or the B12 adds ACC teams. The idea that the B12 will always be there for the 4C, to me, is a fallacy.

But, of course, all of this is a moot point whenever the PAC signs a GoR.

(11-10-2022 09:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:36 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:25 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 02:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Because the options after SDSU are pretty bleak. I'd guess that's the reason that 11 is on the table.

I honestly think that SDSU is a bleak option itself. It's just that the options after them are even bleaker.



I see no reason for any conference to go to 11 unless you get an add like Penn State.

If the PAC wasn't so snobbish and had added SDSU and BYU back in the day they probably wouldn't be in this predicament. San Diego has more people than 21 states and the county has produced more Heisman winners than just about any other in the country. SDSU was drawing more fans than the Chargers at one point, but the conference the school has been associated with has been in decline ever since BYU/Utah/TCU left over a decade ago. Once SDSU's in the PAC you will see a sea change with their support, that's just the nature of left coast fandom, unfortunately.

Which predicament? Adding those two years ago wouldnt have prevented USC and UCLA from wanting to leave, sooner or later.

They may not even need to add anyone now.

The Pac needed to add half the big 12 back in 2010 to avoid the USCLA escape.

Speaking of which, does anybody know what they weren't trying to bring in Nebraska back in 2010? Were they even approached, or did everyone just assume that they were going to big 10?

If they had joined, Texas and OU would have left before USC and UCLA. Meaning those two leave anyways.
Nebraska was never going to follow Texas. They couldnt wait to get away from them.

(11-10-2022 09:50 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 09:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:36 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:25 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  I honestly think that SDSU is a bleak option itself. It's just that the options after them are even bleaker.



I see no reason for any conference to go to 11 unless you get an add like Penn State.

If the PAC wasn't so snobbish and had added SDSU and BYU back in the day they probably wouldn't be in this predicament. San Diego has more people than 21 states and the county has produced more Heisman winners than just about any other in the country. SDSU was drawing more fans than the Chargers at one point, but the conference the school has been associated with has been in decline ever since BYU/Utah/TCU left over a decade ago. Once SDSU's in the PAC you will see a sea change with their support, that's just the nature of left coast fandom, unfortunately.

Which predicament? Adding those two years ago wouldnt have prevented USC and UCLA from wanting to leave, sooner or later.

They may not even need to add anyone now.

The Pac needed to add half the big 12 back in 2010 to avoid the USCLA escape.

Speaking of which, does anybody know what they weren't trying to bring in Nebraska back in 2010? Were they even approached, or did everyone just assume that they were going to big 10?

I’ve wondered myself why the PAC didn’t seem to give Nebraska the slightest consideration for the PAC-16.


It couldn’t have been because Nebraska was considered a lock for the Big 10. The first Big 12 team to flirt with the Big 10 was Missouri, not Nebraska. Nebraska showed no interest in the Big 10 until the PAC-16 talk really picked up in about April 2010. Due in part to their late interest in the Big 10, the Big 10 just barely picked them over Missouri.

I followed this as closely as anyone back then: the Nebraska interest in the Big Ten was VERY heavy and VERY early on and vice versa. This wasn’t a last second thing due to the Pac-16 and wasn’t a close call at all. Mizzou was always far down the list for the Big Ten - they are always looked at by fans as as a fit for the B1G but they’ve just never been a priority for the league. They are the equivalent of West Virginia in the ACC - fans always think they’re next to be invited and then the league picks someone else.

(11-10-2022 04:56 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  ACC should have grabbed Houston and SMU when they had the chance. Still would love SMU in the ACC, just don't know who would make a good travel partner.

SMU + Memphis probably assuming ACC doesn’t take a Big 12 school.

Boise State is a better round quality athletics and academics are growing faster than San Diego State.

Re 'duplication'...

(11-10-2022 09:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  ....
Utah St. is adequate and then low budget and duplicates Utah. UNT is low on both and duplicates SMU. UNLV is low and then adequate on budget plus their football team is awful as is fan support.

Colorado St. duplicates CU and its football team and viewership are awful.
....

I'd be wary of writing off possibilities simply because they 'duplicate' somebody. Use the eyes in your head. The SEC just 'duplicated' Texas A&M with Texas. And with one move the B1G just 'duplicated' membership in a single city.

'We don't want to duplicate' is a cable-era habit of thought. That's over. In a streaming world the question is not 'Do we already have a team in Colorado/Utah?' It is now 'Will people watch Colorado/Utah State play Colorado/Utah?' If the answer is yes, a compelling argument exists for adding a school. If the move enables convenient travel, all the more reason.

This is especially the case in Mountain and Pacific time zones where distances are great. The PAC as a conference has a long history of going two-by-two and being very happy with that approach. Again, using the eyes in your head:

2 schools in Washington
2 schools in Oregon
2 schools in northern California
2 schools in southern California
2 schools in Arizona

Where is this allergy to 'duplication' of which you speak?

Going forward, individual schools all still need to balance their recruiting turf priorities with their travel priorities. But FBS schools in the Rockies simply don't face the same level of claustrophobia their counterparts do east of the Mississippi.

The PAC situation, in both geography and medium, favors the longstanding two-by-two approach. Other reasons exist for why the PAC might opt out of adding this or that school right now, but 'duplication' isn't a big worry.

We'll see what happens.

(11-10-2022 06:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 06:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the PAC does take SMU and SDSU (a dumb move IMO but if), that strikes a deep blow at both the AAC and MW.

The SBC might be strengthened as a result. Heck, I am not sure any SBC schools would be interested in joining either. CUSA might be the loser again.

I don't know that the AAC or MWC would have any interest in the small market Sun Belt schools.

I agree they may not, and IMO that would be to their detriment. IMO the AAC made a mistake by expanding with "market" CUSA schools last year instead of with small market SBC schools that have a modicum of football history and established culture. They may well repeat that again this year, if it comes to that.

(11-10-2022 03:01 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  In other words... Wilner's guessing.

Or, connecting the dots, Kliavkoff's throwing '"stuff" against the wall, hoping something (anything) sticks

July 2022:
Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff: "With respect to the Big 12 being open for business, I appreciate that. We haven't decided if we're going shopping there yet or not."

November 2022
Wilzano on potential Pac-12 expansion: SDSU and SMU are the clear favorites

circa 2023
Post mortem: The Big 12's prices were too high so George was left to shop at the Mountain West store and Mike Aresco's discount bin of misfit toys

(11-10-2022 11:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 09:50 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 09:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:36 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 03:25 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  If the PAC wasn't so snobbish and had added SDSU and BYU back in the day they probably wouldn't be in this predicament. San Diego has more people than 21 states and the county has produced more Heisman winners than just about any other in the country. SDSU was drawing more fans than the Chargers at one point, but the conference the school has been associated with has been in decline ever since BYU/Utah/TCU left over a decade ago. Once SDSU's in the PAC you will see a sea change with their support, that's just the nature of left coast fandom, unfortunately.

Which predicament? Adding those two years ago wouldnt have prevented USC and UCLA from wanting to leave, sooner or later.

They may not even need to add anyone now.

The Pac needed to add half the big 12 back in 2010 to avoid the USCLA escape.

Speaking of which, does anybody know what they weren't trying to bring in Nebraska back in 2010? Were they even approached, or did everyone just assume that they were going to big 10?

I’ve wondered myself why the PAC didn’t seem to give Nebraska the slightest consideration for the PAC-16.


It couldn’t have been because Nebraska was considered a lock for the Big 10. The first Big 12 team to flirt with the Big 10 was Missouri, not Nebraska. Nebraska showed no interest in the Big 10 until the PAC-16 talk really picked up in about April 2010. Due in part to their late interest in the Big 10, the Big 10 just barely picked them over Missouri.

I followed this as closely as anyone back then: the Nebraska interest in the Big Ten was VERY heavy and VERY early on and vice versa. This wasn’t a last second thing due to the Pac-16 and wasn’t a close call at all. Mizzou was always far down the list for the Big Ten - they are always looked at by fans as as a fit for the B1G but they’ve just never been a priority for the league. They are the equivalent of West Virginia in the ACC - fans always think they’re next to be invited and then the league picks someone else.

That's my recollection as well - UNL was keen on the B1G from the git.

IMO, Nebraska had been chafing under what it viewed as the Texas Takeover of the Big 12 for a while, well before the issue of the PAC acquiring B12 teams emerged, and so the B1G was viewed as an obvious place to exit to.