World Wide Swag
Banned
Posts: 435
Joined: Jun 2017
I Root For: $MU and Vols
Location: Big D
|
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-21-2023 12:58 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote: (01-21-2023 12:08 PM)XLance Wrote: (01-19-2023 03:37 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote: (01-19-2023 02:13 PM)XLance Wrote: (01-19-2023 12:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Exactly.
There's no viable Pac-12 expansion option for football (assuming that they're limited to G5 options) that "owns" a market of any real value besides maybe San Diego State and UNLV (and even those are stretching it and more based on the lack of direct in-market competition than strong fandom). All of the other options have glaring flaws - the ones with the best fan bases (such as Fresno State and Boise State) don't have attractive markets and may not meet the Pac-12's academic standards, the ones in the larger markets don't have as great of fan bases, etc.
However, I also strongly believe the Pac-12 needs to expand because this is a rare situation where the actual membership numbers do truly matter. No one in the league can feel 100% confident that they're getting into the Big Ten if/when the Big Ten ever expands again, so they really do need some CYA members in the event of future defections. Washington and Oregon can't get it in their heads that the Pac-12 shouldn't expand because they think they'll eventually be in the Big Ten, anyway... because it's quite possible that Stanford and Cal end up in the Big Ten instead of UW and UO and then the Pacific Northwest schools are *really* screwed and are faced with either a crumbling/dissolving Pac-12 or having to take a bad deal from the Big 12 or somewhere else. Worrying about a couple of million dollars less per year in TV money per school for the next few years is just not as material as a situation where the league could completely dissolve if just 2 other schools end up leaving in the current setup. This also shouldn't be about the Pac-12 Network because the reality is that the Pac-12 Network is likely going to disappear (if not in this TV contract cycle, then likely by the end of the decade).
To me, the comparisons between SMU and TCU or other Texas-based schools are really irrelevant for the purposes of Pac-12 expansion. The Pac-12 isn't choosing between SMU and TCU (at least as far as I know), but rather SMU and the rest of the MWC/AAC/G5 options. On that front, SMU is very favorable compared to such other options - it has high undergrad academic rankings, a solid brand name, and is *directly* located in a massive TV and recruiting market.
I think some people are just thinking too hard. When the Big 12 was looking to regroup in 2021 with expansion, I wrote that BYU and Cincinnati were obvious additions and Houston and UCF as the next most obvious with their various combinations of fan bases, markets and athletic performance history. We had lots and lots of debates on who the Big 12 should add on this board at the time to the point where (a) we were digging into the weeds on tons of schools that ended up being far from any consideration and (b) there were LOTS of arguments that the Big 12 should just have the bare minimum (e.g. only adding 2 schools to get back to 10 or only one school to have 9) or even no expansion (e.g. staying at 8) in order to preserve a higher per school revenue share. Ultimately, though, the Big 12 made the right call and were aggressive in expansion and they chose the "obvious" schools (at least to me from the get go).
The Big 12 didn't let the worry about short-term pieces of the revenue pie prevail over what was best for the membership long-term.
To me, SDSU and SMU are the obvious choices for the Pac-12 in this case for football. If the Pac-12 wants to entertain a non-football member, then certainly Gonzaga is an obvious choice there. All of those schools have flaws at some level, but the issue is that every other viable option has much more glaring flaws by comparison and the Pac-12 is in a position (IMHO) where they HAVE to expand for their long-term protection regardless of any short-term per school revenue hit.
All of the "BIG" football brands are now members of the P2 with the exception of Notre Dame.
Several second tier schools remain (Florida State, Miami, Clemson), and a couple of has been's (Washington, Colorado) and that's about it. Everything else ...... just fill-ins.
Geography does not favor dividing those four (Notre Dame, FSU, Miami and Clemson) between the P2.
If the PAC were smart they would go after SDSU and BYU (regardless of politics/religion). If all of the Big 12 teams are "off of the market" (including BYU) and why wouldn't they be (especially for the PAC) since they already have a split media deal with FOX and ESPN lined up at a fixed price, then SMU is about as good as they could hope for. The PAC had better pray that SMU hasn't already had conversations with the ACC as a possible expansion team or perhaps a fill-in if one or more teams were to depart. The ACC's list of possibilities is longer than the PAC's (USF, Tulane, Navy, SMU, and of course Notre Dame are all academically acceptable to the ACC)
FSU isn't a 2nd-tier grab. Unless you're being extremely elite with your current top tier (UGA, Bama, Mich, OSU?). You're talking about a school that has 35% market share of the hyper-competitive State of FL for starters. And that's while being in conference for decades that doesn't focus on football or attract the big crowds.
Face it G&B Florida State is not a true blue-blood football program like Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Southern Cal or Notre Dame. They just don't have the long history like some of those other programs.
That's not to say that Florida State isn't the #1 Tier 2 team in the country.
Notre Dame is the ONLY blue-blood program that is not in a P2. The ACC, Big 12 and PAC are the best of the rest, with some of their members hoping for a chance to move up to the big time. I imagine that it is frustrating for a school like FSU, Washington or Miami to be on the outside looking in while schools like Vanderbilt, Mississippi State and Purdue are collecting "the big bucks".
Keep up hope, however, when the pressure on Vanderbilt or MSU, gets great enough where they are asked to upgrade facilities or enlarge their stadiums beyond what they are comfortable with, they may decide to drop down where the cost of competition is not as great and it may create an opportunity for the 'Noles or the Hurricanes because the SEC does need a second school in the State of Florida.
As you correctly noted, there are only a few true "blue-bloods". However, both the SEC and the B1G have 9 schools that form an enviable upper crust:
Alabama, Georgia, Florida, A&M, LSU, Texas, OU, Auburn, Tennessee
tOSU, Michigan, MSU, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, PSU, USC, UCLA
And that leaves out basketball blue bloods like Kentucky and Indiana, and doesn't mention that Mississippi St or South Carolina can jump up and compete in any given year, too. Heck, if Leach was still around those 2 might be favored to be top 4 in the SEC next year.
FSU comfortably fits into that upper crust in either of the P2, calling them a 2nd tier school is insulting and shows that you should probably stick to basketball.
The way I see it right now, there are 18 programs that have the resources and capability to recruit at the level necessary to consistently compete for championships in football. They are:
ACC (3) - FSU, Clemson, Miami
Big Ten (4) - Michigan, OSU, PSU, USC
Big 12 (0)
Independent (1) - Notre Dame
Pac 12 (1) - Oregon
SEC (9) - Bama, Auburn, UGA, Texas, A&M, OU, LSU, Tennessee, Florida
That list could change slightly over time (20 years ago, Clemson wouldn't have been on it and Nebraska would have), but most of those are mainstays and it's a tough club to break into.
|
|
/
Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
