Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: What will the Pac-12 do?
Stay at 10.
Add Gonzaga.
Add SDSU and SMU.
Add Gonzaga, SDSU, and SMU.
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
Author Message
Milwaukee Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,787
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 212
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #81
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-10-2023 11:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 11:05 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  Add SDSU and UNLV or don’t do anything at all.

I fail to see what, if any, appeal SMU has to the existing PAC members.

SMU can offer a few things:
1. Being in the DFW market would not be a bad thing. It is the 5th largest TV market. Getting into an SEC/Big 12 market could be interesting.

2. It might help for football recruiting in Texas. Oregon has signed five four-star football recruits from Texas in the 2023 class. Other Pac-12 schools are recruiting the area, but not with the degree of success that Oregon has had. SMU in the Pac-12 might help.

3. In the 2022 season, SMU played two home games in the 12:00pm EST time slot. One was on ESPN and the other on ESPNU. They could help the Pac-12 get into that noon time slot.

4. They are strong academically. They are not AAU, but they should be acceptable to the conference.

True, SMU has certain things to offer the PAC, but do they have enough to offer to offset the geographical disadvantages?

If I were a PAC fan, I'd rather add SDSU and Fresno State (or Boise State), or Gonzaga and Hawaii or Air Force FB.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2023 11:49 PM by Milwaukee.)
01-10-2023 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pony94 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 25,650
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 1177
I Root For: SMU
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Post: #82
Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-10-2023 11:46 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 11:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 11:05 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  Add SDSU and UNLV or don’t do anything at all.

I fail to see what, if any, appeal SMU has to the existing PAC members.

SMU can offer a few things:
1. Being in the DFW market would not be a bad thing. It is the 5th largest TV market. Getting into an SEC/Big 12 market could be interesting.

2. It might help for football recruiting in Texas. Oregon has signed five four-star football recruits from Texas in the 2023 class. Other Pac-12 schools are recruiting the area, but not with the degree of success that Oregon has had. SMU in the Pac-12 might help.

3. In the 2022 season, SMU played two home games in the 12:00pm EST time slot. One was on ESPN and the other on ESPNU. They could help the Pac-12 get into that noon time slot.

4. They are strong academically. They are not AAU, but they should be acceptable to the conference.

True, SMU has certain things to offer the PAC, but do they have enough to offer to offset the geographical disadvantages?

If I were a PAC fan, I'd rather add SDSU and Fresno State (or Boise State), or Gonzaga and Hawaii or Air Force FB.


Luckily you have no say and those that do have chosen.
01-10-2023 11:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sicembear11 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 774
Joined: Jul 2020
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #83
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-10-2023 11:46 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 11:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 11:05 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  Add SDSU and UNLV or don’t do anything at all.

I fail to see what, if any, appeal SMU has to the existing PAC members.

SMU can offer a few things:
1. Being in the DFW market would not be a bad thing. It is the 5th largest TV market. Getting into an SEC/Big 12 market could be interesting.

2. It might help for football recruiting in Texas. Oregon has signed five four-star football recruits from Texas in the 2023 class. Other Pac-12 schools are recruiting the area, but not with the degree of success that Oregon has had. SMU in the Pac-12 might help.

3. In the 2022 season, SMU played two home games in the 12:00pm EST time slot. One was on ESPN and the other on ESPNU. They could help the Pac-12 get into that noon time slot.

4. They are strong academically. They are not AAU, but they should be acceptable to the conference.

True, SMU has certain things to offer the PAC, but do they have enough to offer to offset the geographical disadvantages?

If I were a PAC fan, I'd rather add SDSU and Fresno State (or Boise State), or Gonzaga and Hawaii or Air Force FB.

SMU’s main challenge is that they don’t really draw and audience or carry their market. SMU has some regional interest but would people across Texas, or even Dallas, start tuning in more because SMU is play Arizona/Colorado/etc? Probably not. The PAC will have a hard time grabbing CST eyeballs with JUST SMU. The PAC would need to grab more Eastern teams to create interest.

Not to mention that going to 12 cuts down on the number of opportunities that teams have to play Oregon and Washington. In a 10 team setup, everyone plays everybody every year. Adding SDSU and SMU would mean dropping a game a year against either Oregon or Washington.

Finally, there is the issue of ego, which seems to make all the Big 12 teams untouchables as of last year, but somehow SMU is immune? They aren’t even an R1 university. A small school in Dallas, without the academic credentials that were used to reject a number of Big 12 programs, without an active following, with little support from the local area, far from the core of the PAC 12, and without any historical or cultural ties to the PAC.

I think SMU works well as a #2, I would pick them myself. But there is some hypocrisy going on if SMU is passing muster in 2023 when Baylor and others were not in 2021. I think the PAC staying at 10 makes more sense, I could even see going to 11 and holding firm as a viable path if SoCal is important.
01-11-2023 12:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pony94 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 25,650
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 1177
I Root For: SMU
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Post: #84
Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-11-2023 12:00 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 11:46 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 11:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 11:05 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  Add SDSU and UNLV or don’t do anything at all.

I fail to see what, if any, appeal SMU has to the existing PAC members.

SMU can offer a few things:
1. Being in the DFW market would not be a bad thing. It is the 5th largest TV market. Getting into an SEC/Big 12 market could be interesting.

2. It might help for football recruiting in Texas. Oregon has signed five four-star football recruits from Texas in the 2023 class. Other Pac-12 schools are recruiting the area, but not with the degree of success that Oregon has had. SMU in the Pac-12 might help.

3. In the 2022 season, SMU played two home games in the 12:00pm EST time slot. One was on ESPN and the other on ESPNU. They could help the Pac-12 get into that noon time slot.

4. They are strong academically. They are not AAU, but they should be acceptable to the conference.

True, SMU has certain things to offer the PAC, but do they have enough to offer to offset the geographical disadvantages?

If I were a PAC fan, I'd rather add SDSU and Fresno State (or Boise State), or Gonzaga and Hawaii or Air Force FB.

SMU’s main challenge is that they don’t really draw and audience or carry their market. SMU has some regional interest but would people across Texas, or even Dallas, start tuning in more because SMU is play Arizona/Colorado/etc? Probably not. The PAC will have a hard time grabbing CST eyeballs with JUST SMU. The PAC would need to grab more Eastern teams to create interest.

Not to mention that going to 12 cuts down on the number of opportunities that teams have to play Oregon and Washington. In a 10 team setup, everyone plays everybody every year. Adding SDSU and SMU would mean dropping a game a year against either Oregon or Washington.

Finally, there is the issue of ego, which seems to make all the Big 12 teams untouchables as of last year, but somehow SMU is immune? They aren’t even an R1 university. A small school in Dallas, without the academic credentials that were used to reject a number of Big 12 programs, without an active following, with little support from the local area, far from the core of the PAC 12, and without any historical or cultural ties to the PAC.

I think SMU works well as a #2, I would pick them myself. But there is some hypocrisy going on if SMU is passing muster in 2023 when Baylor and others were not in 2021. I think the PAC staying at 10 makes more sense, I could even see going to 11 and holding firm as a viable path if SoCal is important.


Baylor prays the Big12 stays together. Nobody wants you. Ann Richards is long gone
01-11-2023 12:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #85
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-10-2023 11:04 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 09:37 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-08-2023 06:36 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Putting Gonzaga first is just laughable. If the PAC expands, SDSU will be their first choice. Gonzaga would have to be paired with Hawaii or Air Force to get a look.

The PAC can't "stand pat." If they don't add SDSU they lose the SD market which they already claim via USC and UCLA. Standing Pat at 10 means they lose that market and gift it to the B12 which will take SDSU in a New York minute, likely Fresno as well.

Agree - the PAC can't stand pat with 10 teams when the other P5 conferences have an average of 14+ teams. They would have too much of a viewership deficit, and a lack of content for their broadcasters, so their value would decline.

There really isn't much of a drop-off in talent, if any, between the middle of the PAC and the high-end MWC teams. Fresno State proved that when they walloped WASU in their recent bowl game.


There is a difference in talent between any PAC school and any MWC school. Fresno State lost to USC and Oregon State during the 2022 season. In the LA Bowl, Washington State was without three of their top four wide receivers. Two went into the transfer portal, one was injured. The WSU offensive coordinator had left for the head coaching job at Texas State. Hopefully he can turn that around. The top defensive player opted-out for the NFL and two other defensive starters had already hit the transfer portal. The starting free safety missed the game with an injury.

Fresno State played well in the game, but it was not a regular season game where you have your best players on the field. I would not read anything into that result.

Regular season only Fresno versus the PAC last 10 years
Oregon State 32-35
@USC 17-45
@UCLA 40-37
@Oregon 24-31
@USC 23-31
@UCLA 38-14
Utah 24-45
@USC 13-52
@Oregon 25-42
Colorado 69-14

All time record versus Pac Schools. Most of these games are at the Pac 12 school with Pac-12 refs. Very few teams come to Fresno with the exception of Oregon State who is 1-5 at Fresno.

Fresno v Opponent

UCLA 4-6 0 at home Fresno won last 4
Cal 2-1 1 at home
Oregon State 6-4 6 at home
Washington State 2-3 0 at home Fresno won last 1
Arizona State 1-3 Fresno won last 1
Colorado 2-4 Fresno last 2
Arizona 2-1 0 at home

Stanford and Fresno have never played, Utah has more games as WAC teams and is skewed.

Oregon 2-7 3 home
USC 1-4 0 home
Washington 1-3 0 home

The bulk of Fresno losses are to these teams 4 -14. Only 3 of 18 have been played at home and none without PAC-12 refs.
01-11-2023 12:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Alanda Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,535
Joined: May 2019
Reputation: 484
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #86
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-10-2023 09:39 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 09:07 PM)Alanda Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 11:51 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 09:11 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I think it's going to be SDSU and SMU. I just wonder if they go for four instead of two.
I've been wondering the same. It's a move that would mimic the B12, the only difference is the P12 would become the P14. SDSU, UNLV, SMU, Tulane

Sent from my LM-G820 using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-10-2023 03:51 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 09:11 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I think it's going to be SDSU and SMU. I just wonder if they go for four instead of two.

I think you may very well be right about more than 2.

It occurred to me earlier today to look at the conference if one of the 3 top targets was gone. ie looking at the PAC without WA, or instead without Stanford.

Changes the "feel" of the conference a bit.

So if at least 1 or 2 schools are likely leaving, adding 3 or 4 seems smart.

Add SDSU, Fresno state, UNLV, and BSU.

If all 3 (WA, OR, Stanford) leave, also try for BYU.

Let's presume Colorado also leaves, and add Gonzaga and Hawaii.

That package is a nice regional conference, which should be enough to get a decent media deal.

PAC
WSU, OSU, BSU, BYU, Utah, Gonzaga / Hawaii


Cal, Fresno state, SDSU, AZ, AZ state, UNLV


In response to both of you it does feel like that's been the direction some of these conferences have been going for the sake of backfilling. Big 12 lost two, added four. AAC lost three, added six. Obviously that doesn't confirm they will add four, but right now I'm starting to think four is more likely than zero. And like you mention Skyhawk it could help them in having some preparation for more teams leaving.

Agree, the PAC should add four (SDSU, Fresno, 2 others (Boise & Utah St?).

If four does happen my guess would be in order:

1. SDSU
2. SMU
3. Fresno State/UNLV
5. Gonzaga
6. Boise State

I put those two as a tie for third because while Fresno State's football is way better than UNLV's, UNLV is already R1 and Las Vegas continues to grow rather fast. Obviously more than that would go into determining what schools to add, but that's a quick summary for my view. The ones that are R2 maybe expected to focus on reaching R1. If I read other posts correctly there have been or will be changes that help California State Universities in that regard.

(01-11-2023 12:00 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  SMU’s main challenge is that they don’t really draw and audience or carry their market. SMU has some regional interest but would people across Texas, or even Dallas, start tuning in more because SMU is play Arizona/Colorado/etc? Probably not. The PAC will have a hard time grabbing CST eyeballs with JUST SMU. The PAC would need to grab more Eastern teams to create interest.

Not to mention that going to 12 cuts down on the number of opportunities that teams have to play Oregon and Washington. In a 10 team setup, everyone plays everybody every year. Adding SDSU and SMU would mean dropping a game a year against either Oregon or Washington.

Finally, there is the issue of ego, which seems to make all the Big 12 teams untouchables as of last year, but somehow SMU is immune? They aren’t even an R1 university. A small school in Dallas, without the academic credentials that were used to reject a number of Big 12 programs, without an active following, with little support from the local area, far from the core of the PAC 12, and without any historical or cultural ties to the PAC.

I think SMU works well as a #2, I would pick them myself. But there is some hypocrisy going on if SMU is passing muster in 2023 when Baylor and others were not in 2021. I think the PAC staying at 10 makes more sense, I could even see going to 11 and holding firm as a viable path if SoCal is important.

With the last part I think the difference is USC being out of the way. We saw that USC was the driver against expansion and then ended up leaving themselves. How would things have turned out if USCLA and OUT announced they were leaving around the same time? Would the remaining PAC teams be more willing to add some Big 12 teams? Would there be a full-on merger? I think things would be different compared to how they are now.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2023 01:48 AM by Alanda.)
01-11-2023 12:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,899
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #87
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
If 4:
1) San Diego St
2) SMU
3) Fresno St
4) UNLV

I’m starting to think the PAC should target the State of California. If 2-4 leave for the B1G, the MWC/AAC schools can backfill. If more leave for the XII, there’s more MWC/AAC schools. Eventually, you get enough under the PAC banner that the conferences lives.

Let’s say the B1G take 4 (California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington) and the XII takes 4 (Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Utah), the PAC could look like this:

Central: Memphis, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa
Mountain: Air Force*, Colorado St, Utah St, Wyoming
Pacific: Fresno St, Hawaii*, San Diego St, UNLV
Western: Boise St, Nevada, Oregon St, Washington St
* Football-Only
^ Non-Football: Gonzaga, Wichita St
- Air Force > Summit
- Hawaii > Big West

Trickle:
AAC adds Louisiana Tech, Middle Tennessee St, UTEP, and Western Kentucky for 14.
San Jose St joins CUSA as a football-only with all other sports in the Big West.
CUSA now at 7 in football, 6 in basketball adds from the FCS ranks.
01-11-2023 01:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,635
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 550
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #88
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-11-2023 12:57 AM)Alanda Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 09:39 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 09:07 PM)Alanda Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 11:51 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 09:11 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I think it's going to be SDSU and SMU. I just wonder if they go for four instead of two.
I've been wondering the same. It's a move that would mimic the B12, the only difference is the P12 would become the P14. SDSU, UNLV, SMU, Tulane

Sent from my LM-G820 using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-10-2023 03:51 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 09:11 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I think it's going to be SDSU and SMU. I just wonder if they go for four instead of two.

I think you may very well be right about more than 2.

It occurred to me earlier today to look at the conference if one of the 3 top targets was gone. ie looking at the PAC without WA, or instead without Stanford.

Changes the "feel" of the conference a bit.

So if at least 1 or 2 schools are likely leaving, adding 3 or 4 seems smart.

Add SDSU, Fresno state, UNLV, and BSU.

If all 3 (WA, OR, Stanford) leave, also try for BYU.

Let's presume Colorado also leaves, and add Gonzaga and Hawaii.

That package is a nice regional conference, which should be enough to get a decent media deal.

PAC
WSU, OSU, BSU, BYU, Utah, Gonzaga / Hawaii


Cal, Fresno state, SDSU, AZ, AZ state, UNLV

In response to both of you it does feel like that's been the direction some of these conferences have been going for the sake of backfilling. Big 12 lost two, added four. AAC lost three, added six. Obviously that doesn't confirm they will add four, but right now I'm starting to think four is more likely than zero. And like you mention Skyhawk it could help them in having some preparation for more teams leaving.

Agree, the PAC should add four (SDSU, Fresno, 2 others (Boise & Utah St?).

If four does happen my guess would be in order:

1. SDSU
2. SMU
3. Fresno State/UNLV
5. Gonzaga
6. Boise State

I put those two as a tie for third because while Fresno State's football is way better than UNLV's, UNLV is already R1 and Las Vegas continues to grow rather fast. Obviously more than that would go into determining what schools to add, but that's a quick summary for my view. The ones that are R2 maybe expected to focus on reaching R1. If I read other posts correctly there have been or will be changes that help California State Universities in that regard.

remove SMU from the list (for reasons I've already noted), and the PAC could add all 5.
01-11-2023 06:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,142
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 176
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #89
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
FSU versus UNLV is interesting. I'd need a heavy analytics guy to draw up the report on both schools. Or maybe an abbreviated poster presentation. I think the academics are not a vast difference, but you are talking about a brand versus a market with slim but possible growth potential.

Either school going would be a huge blow to the MWC long term. You could see a new G5 conference with BSU merging with the likes of NDSU and SDSU in the long term, assuming schools like CSU and AFA get antsy and bolt for the American.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2023 10:21 AM by RUScarlets.)
01-11-2023 09:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,216
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 221
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #90
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
PAC stands PAT. 04-jawdrop 01-ncaabbs 04-rock 04-bow 05-stirthepot

The California schools and the 4 corner schools wait to see if Oregon and Washington get their coveted B-10 invite. If they do get the invite, the remaining core of 6 dissolves the remaining PAC taking their share of the college credits and exit fees, and leaves Washington State and Oregon State high and dry, while they head off to the B-12 without paying exit fees themselves. 02-13-banana 02-13-banana 03-shhhh COGS COGS

If the PAC remains at 10 because Oregon and Washinton can't get into the B-10, the conference still has a solid core with a guaranteed seat in the College Playoffs. So, it is still sitting pretty good as a P5 conference without taking on any G5 schools which would not add enough value to justify another mouth to feed. 04-cheers
01-11-2023 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #91
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-11-2023 09:20 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  FSU versus UNLV is interesting. I'd need a heavy analytics guy to draw up the report on both schools. Or maybe an abbreviated poster presentation. I think the academics are not a vast difference, but you are talking about a brand versus a market with slim but possible growth potential.

Either school going would be a huge blow to the MWC long term. You could see a new G5 conference with BSU merging with the likes of NDSU and SDSU in the long term, assuming schools like CSU and AFA get antsy and bolt for the American.

UNLV sits in a big market. They don't have anything else going for them. No fan support, no success, poor TV ratings. I would be really surprised if UNLV is added.

I don't expect them to add anyone, but staying at 10, SDSU to get to 11 or SDSU and SMU to get to 12 are the only realistic options. I just don't see the Pac 12 getting rid of enough academic snobbery to add Boise St. or Fresno St. Nobody else makes any sense economically.
01-11-2023 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bryanw1995 Offline
+12 Hackmaster
*

Posts: 12,802
Joined: Jul 2022
Reputation: 1305
I Root For: A&M
Location: San Antonio
Post: #92
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-10-2023 11:46 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 11:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 11:05 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  Add SDSU and UNLV or don’t do anything at all.

I fail to see what, if any, appeal SMU has to the existing PAC members.

SMU can offer a few things:
1. Being in the DFW market would not be a bad thing. It is the 5th largest TV market. Getting into an SEC/Big 12 market could be interesting.

2. It might help for football recruiting in Texas. Oregon has signed five four-star football recruits from Texas in the 2023 class. Other Pac-12 schools are recruiting the area, but not with the degree of success that Oregon has had. SMU in the Pac-12 might help.

3. In the 2022 season, SMU played two home games in the 12:00pm EST time slot. One was on ESPN and the other on ESPNU. They could help the Pac-12 get into that noon time slot.

4. They are strong academically. They are not AAU, but they should be acceptable to the conference.

True, SMU has certain things to offer the PAC, but do they have enough to offer to offset the geographical disadvantages?

If I were a PAC fan, I'd rather add SDSU and Fresno State (or Boise State), or Gonzaga and Hawaii or Air Force FB.

Air Force FB? I can see the clear geographical advantages of Fresno or Boise, but SMU is, what, an extra 60-90 min flight time? And you can practically fly to SMU's stadium, Southwest's HQ is Love Field, so the actual total difference in travel time for the average Pac school is more like 30-45 min. Air Force would only be interesting if the Pac added Gonzaga and felt an urgent need to be at 12 in both football and basketball, which is unlikely but admittedly possible. Well, and they'd be the perfect travel partner for CU, though that would require admitting them for all sports rather than just football.
01-11-2023 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bryanw1995 Offline
+12 Hackmaster
*

Posts: 12,802
Joined: Jul 2022
Reputation: 1305
I Root For: A&M
Location: San Antonio
Post: #93
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-11-2023 12:00 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 11:46 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 11:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 11:05 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  Add SDSU and UNLV or don’t do anything at all.

I fail to see what, if any, appeal SMU has to the existing PAC members.

SMU can offer a few things:
1. Being in the DFW market would not be a bad thing. It is the 5th largest TV market. Getting into an SEC/Big 12 market could be interesting.

2. It might help for football recruiting in Texas. Oregon has signed five four-star football recruits from Texas in the 2023 class. Other Pac-12 schools are recruiting the area, but not with the degree of success that Oregon has had. SMU in the Pac-12 might help.

3. In the 2022 season, SMU played two home games in the 12:00pm EST time slot. One was on ESPN and the other on ESPNU. They could help the Pac-12 get into that noon time slot.

4. They are strong academically. They are not AAU, but they should be acceptable to the conference.

True, SMU has certain things to offer the PAC, but do they have enough to offer to offset the geographical disadvantages?

If I were a PAC fan, I'd rather add SDSU and Fresno State (or Boise State), or Gonzaga and Hawaii or Air Force FB.

SMU’s main challenge is that they don’t really draw and audience or carry their market. SMU has some regional interest but would people across Texas, or even Dallas, start tuning in more because SMU is play Arizona/Colorado/etc? Probably not. The PAC will have a hard time grabbing CST eyeballs with JUST SMU. The PAC would need to grab more Eastern teams to create interest.

Not to mention that going to 12 cuts down on the number of opportunities that teams have to play Oregon and Washington. In a 10 team setup, everyone plays everybody every year. Adding SDSU and SMU would mean dropping a game a year against either Oregon or Washington.

Finally, there is the issue of ego, which seems to make all the Big 12 teams untouchables as of last year, but somehow SMU is immune? They aren’t even an R1 university. A small school in Dallas, without the academic credentials that were used to reject a number of Big 12 programs, without an active following, with little support from the local area, far from the core of the PAC 12, and without any historical or cultural ties to the PAC.

I think SMU works well as a #2, I would pick them myself. But there is some hypocrisy going on if SMU is passing muster in 2023 when Baylor and others were not in 2021. I think the PAC staying at 10 makes more sense, I could even see going to 11 and holding firm as a viable path if SoCal is important.

The Pac was in a fundamentally different position in 2021, and no doubt USCLA were some of the biggest naysayers to adding big 12 teams. Just like the big 12 was not desperate enough to ignore BYU's checkered past in 2016, but in 2021 they completely forgot about it and welcomed them with open arms. Things change. Did the Pac as a group drop the ball? Absolutely. Just like they have for 30 years' worth of expansion opportunities. But a lot of them were probably worried about a USCLA defection, and adding any of the left behind big 12 programs in 2021 would not have done anything to stop that (and might have hastened their departure if anything).

You guys would be wise to not hold a grudge against the Pac when the time is right. Learn from the Pac's mistakes, and make your conference stronger becuause of it. I'd take all of them if I were you, even OSU and WSU. A hypothetical Big/Pac with 18-20 teams could dominate everything west of Austin and Omaha, and be competitive all over Texas, Ohio, Florida and WV, too. It's probably no threat to the P2, but it would be a strong #3 Conference with the ability for every school to be competitive in every single sport.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2023 01:29 PM by bryanw1995.)
01-11-2023 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bryanw1995 Offline
+12 Hackmaster
*

Posts: 12,802
Joined: Jul 2022
Reputation: 1305
I Root For: A&M
Location: San Antonio
Post: #94
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-11-2023 12:57 AM)Alanda Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 09:39 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-10-2023 09:07 PM)Alanda Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 11:51 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 09:11 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I think it's going to be SDSU and SMU. I just wonder if they go for four instead of two.
I've been wondering the same. It's a move that would mimic the B12, the only difference is the P12 would become the P14. SDSU, UNLV, SMU, Tulane

Sent from my LM-G820 using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-10-2023 03:51 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-09-2023 09:11 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I think it's going to be SDSU and SMU. I just wonder if they go for four instead of two.

I think you may very well be right about more than 2.

It occurred to me earlier today to look at the conference if one of the 3 top targets was gone. ie looking at the PAC without WA, or instead without Stanford.

Changes the "feel" of the conference a bit.

So if at least 1 or 2 schools are likely leaving, adding 3 or 4 seems smart.

Add SDSU, Fresno state, UNLV, and BSU.

If all 3 (WA, OR, Stanford) leave, also try for BYU.

Let's presume Colorado also leaves, and add Gonzaga and Hawaii.

That package is a nice regional conference, which should be enough to get a decent media deal.

PAC
WSU, OSU, BSU, BYU, Utah, Gonzaga / Hawaii


Cal, Fresno state, SDSU, AZ, AZ state, UNLV


In response to both of you it does feel like that's been the direction some of these conferences have been going for the sake of backfilling. Big 12 lost two, added four. AAC lost three, added six. Obviously that doesn't confirm they will add four, but right now I'm starting to think four is more likely than zero. And like you mention Skyhawk it could help them in having some preparation for more teams leaving.

Agree, the PAC should add four (SDSU, Fresno, 2 others (Boise & Utah St?).

If four does happen my guess would be in order:

1. SDSU
2. SMU
3. Fresno State/UNLV
5. Gonzaga
6. Boise State

I put those two as a tie for third because while Fresno State's football is way better than UNLV's, UNLV is already R1 and Las Vegas continues to grow rather fast. Obviously more than that would go into determining what schools to add, but that's a quick summary for my view. The ones that are R2 maybe expected to focus on reaching R1. If I read other posts correctly there have been or will be changes that help California State Universities in that regard.

(01-11-2023 12:00 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  SMU’s main challenge is that they don’t really draw and audience or carry their market. SMU has some regional interest but would people across Texas, or even Dallas, start tuning in more because SMU is play Arizona/Colorado/etc? Probably not. The PAC will have a hard time grabbing CST eyeballs with JUST SMU. The PAC would need to grab more Eastern teams to create interest.

Not to mention that going to 12 cuts down on the number of opportunities that teams have to play Oregon and Washington. In a 10 team setup, everyone plays everybody every year. Adding SDSU and SMU would mean dropping a game a year against either Oregon or Washington.

Finally, there is the issue of ego, which seems to make all the Big 12 teams untouchables as of last year, but somehow SMU is immune? They aren’t even an R1 university. A small school in Dallas, without the academic credentials that were used to reject a number of Big 12 programs, without an active following, with little support from the local area, far from the core of the PAC 12, and without any historical or cultural ties to the PAC.

I think SMU works well as a #2, I would pick them myself. But there is some hypocrisy going on if SMU is passing muster in 2023 when Baylor and others were not in 2021. I think the PAC staying at 10 makes more sense, I could even see going to 11 and holding firm as a viable path if SoCal is important.

With the last part I think the difference is USC being out of the way. We saw that USC was the driver against expansion and then ended up leaving themselves. How would things have turned out if USCLA and OUT announced they were leaving around the same time? Would the remaining PAC teams be more willing to add some Big 12 teams? Would there be a full-on merger? I think things would be different compared to how they are now.

There would be an 18 team big/pac right now, but without the 4 g5 schools the big 12 added.

Here's a more interesting hypothetical: what if USCLA leaves a year before OUT? How much more appealing is the big 12 to the Pac with OUT still in? I'm not sure that USCLA wouldn't have spurred OUT to also consider leaving, but if they had their pick of the juiciest Pac schools, say the PN4, I could see OUT sticking around for another cycle. Maybe bring back CU and get ASU, too, for a really strong 18 team big 12. What does that conference get in average media rights negotiations? I'd guess $55-65m, probably about the same as the SEC without OUT.
01-11-2023 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,175
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #95
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
Pac-12 will probably stay at 10. Washington and Oregon want a max share, and won't sign a meaningful GOR, so will be against expansion. Colorado AD Rick George is very likely also a no vote, as he feels fewer teams increases the chances of CU making the CFP; He expects realistically the Pac-12 (and Big 12 as well, based on his comments) will mostly be a single bid conference in the 12 team 6+6 playoff format. Arizona (who want a SoCal presence) and Utah (Kyle Whittingham has been vocal about how important trips to LA are for recruiting) might like San Diego State, but with three likely no votes lined up means they have an uphill battle to reach the 75% threshold (need 8 votes). You also have to wonder if either Cal or Stanford could accept a CSU school? Maybe reluctantly and only if a really strong case is made about how it helps the Pac-12 in the short term (i.e., this contract) as well as long term. The belief, likely correct, is SDSU will be there in five years should the Pac-12 need them for survival. Other MWC schools are much less attractive; the only reason SDSU is even in consideration is southern California recruiting and market presence. No other MWC provides anything like that.

Gonzaga has no doubt inquired, but what's the Pac-12 interest? Is there a compelling reason to add them? I suspect the interest is maybe stronger in the Big 12, where I see a more compelling case in building a basketball brand.

SMU has been thrown out by writers on the west coast as the most logical. But this has a DavidSt sort of feel to it, mostly based on looking at the map. There hasn't been a single report of any contact, or any name dropping of SMU. If anything comments by some ADs to Wilner and Canzano that the Pac-12 should be looking at Big 12 schools, suggests that there is some remorse at passing on Houston, who really did bring something to the table for recruiting, performance and fan base, a year and a half ago when Kliavkoff was pushing for expansion. SMU for the Pac-12 has a replacement feel to it similar to the AAC grabbing FAU and UNT to replace Houston and UCF.

All these points lead me to think the Pac-12 will sit at 10 this cycle. But they will court San Diego State some, signalling that they are on deck. That the consensus is the TV/media contract is coming first then expansion, says expansion is less likely. All the expansion we have seen this cycle was prior to the media contracts being signed. After the deals are in place, most Presidents and ADs cool off to expansion. I expect the same in the Pac-12.
01-11-2023 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bryanw1995 Offline
+12 Hackmaster
*

Posts: 12,802
Joined: Jul 2022
Reputation: 1305
I Root For: A&M
Location: San Antonio
Post: #96
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-11-2023 01:49 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Pac-12 will probably stay at 10. Washington and Oregon want a max share, and won't sign a meaningful GOR, so will be against expansion. Colorado AD Rick George is very likely also a no vote, as he feels fewer teams increases the chances of CU making the CFP; He expects realistically the Pac-12 (and Big 12 as well, based on his comments) will mostly be a single bid conference in the 12 team 6+6 playoff format. Arizona (who want a SoCal presence) and Utah (Kyle Whittingham has been vocal about how important trips to LA are for recruiting) might like San Diego State, but with three likely no votes lined up means they have an uphill battle to reach the 75% threshold (need 8 votes). You also have to wonder if either Cal or Stanford could accept a CSU school? Maybe reluctantly and only if a really strong case is made about how it helps the Pac-12 in the short term (i.e., this contract) as well as long term. The belief, likely correct, is SDSU will be there in five years should the Pac-12 need them for survival. Other MWC schools are much less attractive; the only reason SDSU is even in consideration is southern California recruiting and market presence. No other MWC provides anything like that.

Gonzaga has no doubt inquired, but what's the Pac-12 interest? Is there a compelling reason to add them? I suspect the interest is maybe stronger in the Big 12, where I see a more compelling case in building a basketball brand.

SMU has been thrown out by writers on the west coast as the most logical. But this has a DavidSt sort of feel to it, mostly based on looking at the map. There hasn't been a single report of any contact, or any name dropping of SMU. If anything comments by some ADs to Wilner and Canzano that the Pac-12 should be looking at Big 12 schools, suggests that there is some remorse at passing on Houston, who really did bring something to the table for recruiting, performance and fan base, a year and a half ago when Kliavkoff was pushing for expansion. SMU for the Pac-12 has a replacement feel to it similar to the AAC grabbing FAU and UNT to replace Houston and UCF.

All these points lead me to think the Pac-12 will sit at 10 this cycle. But they will court San Diego State some, signalling that they are on deck. That the consensus is the TV/media contract is coming first then expansion, says expansion is less likely. All the expansion we have seen this cycle was prior to the media contracts being signed. After the deals are in place, most Presidents and ADs cool off to expansion. I expect the same in the Pac-12.

That's funny, as both would have had 2 this year (and UW would have been 1st out, just bumped by Tulane). So, 5 of the top 13 schools were in the big 12 or Pac, and they still would have gotten 4 schools with USCLA and OUT gone b/c USC would have lost 5 games in the B1G this year.

SMU is the Dallas version of UH, but with a more Pac-like snobby feel to it. And they did show that, when they were winning big in the '80's, they can really bring the Dallas market and much of North Texas. Back when UH was winning big, nobody cared about them. If SMU hadn't gotten the death penalty then they probably would have been more appealing than Baylor or perhaps even Tech to the original Big 12.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2023 02:08 PM by bryanw1995.)
01-11-2023 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aztecgolfer Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,457
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 187
I Root For: San Diego State
Location: San Diego
Post: #97
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-11-2023 01:49 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Pac-12 will probably stay at 10. Washington and Oregon want a max share, and won't sign a meaningful GOR, so will be against expansion. Colorado AD Rick George is very likely also a no vote, as he feels fewer teams increases the chances of CU making the CFP; He expects realistically the Pac-12 (and Big 12 as well, based on his comments) will mostly be a single bid conference in the 12 team 6+6 playoff format. Arizona (who want a SoCal presence) and Utah (Kyle Whittingham has been vocal about how important trips to LA are for recruiting) might like San Diego State, but with three likely no votes lined up means they have an uphill battle to reach the 75% threshold (need 8 votes). You also have to wonder if either Cal or Stanford could accept a CSU school? Maybe reluctantly and only if a really strong case is made about how it helps the Pac-12 in the short term (i.e., this contract) as well as long term. The belief, likely correct, is SDSU will be there in five years should the Pac-12 need them for survival. Other MWC schools are much less attractive; the only reason SDSU is even in consideration is southern California recruiting and market presence. No other MWC provides anything like that.

Gonzaga has no doubt inquired, but what's the Pac-12 interest? Is there a compelling reason to add them? I suspect the interest is maybe stronger in the Big 12, where I see a more compelling case in building a basketball brand.

SMU has been thrown out by writers on the west coast as the most logical. But this has a DavidSt sort of feel to it, mostly based on looking at the map. There hasn't been a single report of any contact, or any name dropping of SMU. If anything comments by some ADs to Wilner and Canzano that the Pac-12 should be looking at Big 12 schools, suggests that there is some remorse at passing on Houston, who really did bring something to the table for recruiting, performance and fan base, a year and a half ago when Kliavkoff was pushing for expansion. SMU for the Pac-12 has a replacement feel to it similar to the AAC grabbing FAU and UNT to replace Houston and UCF.

All these points lead me to think the Pac-12 will sit at 10 this cycle. But they will court San Diego State some, signalling that they are on deck. That the consensus is the TV/media contract is coming first then expansion, says expansion is less likely. All the expansion we have seen this cycle was prior to the media contracts being signed. After the deals are in place, most Presidents and ADs cool off to expansion. I expect the same in the Pac-12.

And what if SDSU isn't available in 5 years?
01-11-2023 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big Foote Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 266
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 11
I Root For: SMU
Location:
Post: #98
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-11-2023 03:56 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  
(01-11-2023 01:49 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Pac-12 will probably stay at 10. Washington and Oregon want a max share, and won't sign a meaningful GOR, so will be against expansion. Colorado AD Rick George is very likely also a no vote, as he feels fewer teams increases the chances of CU making the CFP; He expects realistically the Pac-12 (and Big 12 as well, based on his comments) will mostly be a single bid conference in the 12 team 6+6 playoff format. Arizona (who want a SoCal presence) and Utah (Kyle Whittingham has been vocal about how important trips to LA are for recruiting) might like San Diego State, but with three likely no votes lined up means they have an uphill battle to reach the 75% threshold (need 8 votes). You also have to wonder if either Cal or Stanford could accept a CSU school? Maybe reluctantly and only if a really strong case is made about how it helps the Pac-12 in the short term (i.e., this contract) as well as long term. The belief, likely correct, is SDSU will be there in five years should the Pac-12 need them for survival. Other MWC schools are much less attractive; the only reason SDSU is even in consideration is southern California recruiting and market presence. No other MWC provides anything like that.

Gonzaga has no doubt inquired, but what's the Pac-12 interest? Is there a compelling reason to add them? I suspect the interest is maybe stronger in the Big 12, where I see a more compelling case in building a basketball brand.

SMU has been thrown out by writers on the west coast as the most logical. But this has a DavidSt sort of feel to it, mostly based on looking at the map. There hasn't been a single report of any contact, or any name dropping of SMU. If anything comments by some ADs to Wilner and Canzano that the Pac-12 should be looking at Big 12 schools, suggests that there is some remorse at passing on Houston, who really did bring something to the table for recruiting, performance and fan base, a year and a half ago when Kliavkoff was pushing for expansion. SMU for the Pac-12 has a replacement feel to it similar to the AAC grabbing FAU and UNT to replace Houston and UCF.

All these points lead me to think the Pac-12 will sit at 10 this cycle. But they will court San Diego State some, signalling that they are on deck. That the consensus is the TV/media contract is coming first then expansion, says expansion is less likely. All the expansion we have seen this cycle was prior to the media contracts being signed. After the deals are in place, most Presidents and ADs cool off to expansion. I expect the same in the Pac-12.

And what if SDSU isn't available in 5 years?

Sit at 10 and you are gone!
01-11-2023 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,175
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #99
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
bryanw1995 ,

CU's AD believes what he believes. And he is projecting forward to a post USC and UCLA Pac-12 of only 10 teams. Even if you get a 2nd bid, after the B1G and SEC take their expected 4 or 5 at-large (historical average of the schools after expansion over the last decade; not recency bias) with 10 schools he still thinks the odds are better.

No, SMU is not Houston for DFW. A much smaller alumni base, and the second private in DFW after TCU. It's more like Rice on steroids, but without quite the same level of . It's got small penetration in the market. It's a pretty desperate "map" add.

Most important on SMU is a complete lack of buzz. Unlike SDSU there are no known interactions with or mentions by Pac-12 ADs or Presidents. So I am not at all convinced they are under any consideration. The Pac-12 is not past debating San Diego State. There are potentially as many as 5 lean no votes for San Diego State right no, never mind SMU or anyone else further down the list. I'm certain the prospects of anyone else are much worse.

To add schools, you have to have a desperate need (the Pac-12 may have that with no schools in the SoCal market that can't be mitigated effectively even with a few games in SoFi) and a media provider willing to pay for it. ESPN was willing to fund Texas and OU to the SEC and throw a bit more in; FOX and ESPN agreed to pay same rate for BYU, Houston, UCF and Cincinnati; ESPN was willing to pay the same rate or more to the SBC adding Marshall, ODU, JMU and USM; Fox, NBC and CBS were willing to pay even more for USC and UCLA. But when we look at ESPN's reluctance to pay any premium for the Pac-12, and Fox's low interest in even the existing schools in the Pac-12 (they bowed out of the exclusive window, and didn't push the B1G to add Oregon and Washington, the two biggest properties), it's hard to see where the extra money will come from. Thompson estimated SDSU was maybe worth potentially as much as $15M for the Pac-12 (market access mostly), but nobody else in G5 is worth more than half that (he put Boise State at $6-8M, and it goes down from there for anyone else). Everyone is husbanding their money for the next CFP bid, and even more importantly budgeting for the rate hikes in the NFL. I'm not convinced Amazon is throwing any magic money for expansion either.

Would the Pac-12 schools be willing to eat $1M each to add San Diego State for the SoCal market access? Eh, that's hard. Or would they be willing to bring them on at a half share for this media cycle? Maybe. But even at half share rate, a second school (note, I agree SMU is probably the best realistic choice) won't bring additional revenue, so everyone will have to eat at least $1M a year to bring them in. That's not going to sit well with schools like Cal who are reeling in their stadium debt plan from losing the additional $10M a year keeping USC and UCLA in the Pac-12 would have brought, nor with Oregon and Washington who want larger shares.

When I look at expansion pressures, I consider the internal forces. Kliavkoff has a punters chance bringing SDSU in at a half share rate, but that second school looks damn near impossible to overcome the internal pressures against. That lack of a clear second hurts SDSU's chances as well. If it's hard now, it'll be harder once the schools have a media contract in hand. Hence, I stand on my "no expansion" lean.
01-11-2023 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,142
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 176
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #100
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
If you can get Zaga, I don't see how you don't add a Hawaii/AFA depending on the TV windows. You could even get a few 11pm-1am ET kick off games for Tier 3 with Hawaii. It's clear they'd be hesitant on UNLV and FSU, but Zaga is too good to pass up for a short term deal. The 12th football school doesn't matter all that much. While they wouldn't be able to get SMU football only, AFA could be the next best thing.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2023 05:07 PM by RUScarlets.)
01-11-2023 05:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.