The Monty Show:The PAC 12 Has A Money Problem...Is San Diego State The Solution?

The PAC 12 Conference is in the middle of a scandal that allegedly saw them keep $50 million dollars in over-payments from Comcast. How bad is this for the PAC 12 Networks? What are the long term ramifications for the PAC 12 Conference in it's efforts to get a new TV deal?




Link
https://youtu.be/yHIJ1RA2Kyg

I still think that the PAC will pull a Big XII and stay at 10. The only way they will go to 12 is if they can pull 'two XII schools' or 'one XII school plus SDSU'.

I'm going to assume that no one from the XII is going to jump to the PAC. So if the PAC ever loses two more schools and gets down to 8 (like the XII just did), then they will expand to 12 again by adding four G5 schools; probably SDSU, Boise, UNLV, and SMU. BYU could be possible too.

I think the reason they haven’t expanded yet is that they may have a better TV deal than the Big 12 coming. It would not stun me if their TV deal for all three tiers was 40-45 million. If that is the case, even with a 80 million exit fee, Kansas and Texas Tech are in play. Kansas hates the Big 12 and wants to be associated with other flagships. Texas Tech is effectively the flagship of West Texas. Both would much rather be associated with the Pac-12 institutions if the money is right.

(01-27-2023 09:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 08:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 07:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 07:12 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 06:05 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  When A&M joined the SEC, our state of Texas recruiting got a nice boost. But so did the rest of the SEC's state of Texas recruiting. I've thought since day 1 that the biggest reason Texas/OU decided to join the SEC (rather than staying put or joining a different conference) was that they feared being forever at a disadvantage to A&M, and even other SEC schools, on top notch state of Texas recruits.

So, for Pac schools, their loss is not just USCLA, but now the other 14 B1G schools are going to come in and recruit SoCal, HARD. SDSU doesn't replace all of USCLA, but it does help.

From a recruiting perspective, seems like it would make sense for the Big 12 to go all in after SDSU so as to be the only conference with a foot in each of Texas, Florida, and California. If the Big Ten and Big 12 were to lock the PAC out of Southern California, seems like that would push at least Arizona and Colorado into the Big 12. Seems like lots of synergy with a BYU-Arizona-Colorado-SDSU western arm.

I'm not sure about that. It's one thing when you already have a strong presence in Texas and a brand new presence in Florida to go after SoCal, too, that's kind of a luxury, while for the Pac it could be more existential. They don't have any quality recruiting grounds outside of SoCal at all. That's why SDSU is so valuable to the Pac, while perhaps interesting but not urgently so to the big 12. Same thing with SMU, the big 12 doesn't need them, they have Texas covered, but with SDSU and SMU added the Pac would instantly get into 2 great recruiting hotbeds.

I'm not so sure how valuable SMU would be for nPAC recruiting. If you are Washington or Cal or Arizona or whoever in the nPAC, and you want to recruit kids in the Dallas area, you're going to say if you come to our school, you will get to play a game in your home city of Dallas vs SMU once every two years. I'm just not sure that is going to sway many kids. Is there some other angle to this appeal I am missing?

Like I am not sure the nB12 schools are going to make inroads in to Florida just because UCF is there.

But maybe the PAC will make those moves and we'll see, and w/respect to nB12 recruiting in Florida as well.

Its not so much that the kids get to play at home, but the team gets exposure in the area. So HS recruits notice them.

To me, that is kind of a tenuous linkage. I am a football player in the Dallas area, and I see that SMU is now playing PAC schools in California and Arizona and the Pacific Northwest and there is more coverage of them I might notice that ... but I just don't see a train of thought there that leads to a greater likelihood of signing with those schools as compared to if they weren't playing SMU and getting more coverage in DFW. To me, good high school recruits, likely look more to national media for coverage, and everyone, all the top conferences, get covered nationally on ESPN, FOX etc. These kids are IMO likely well-aware of the A5 schools just from national media coverage throughout their lives.

But again, time might tell, and we are going to get kind of an experiment with UCF, if nB12 schools think they have a better chance to recruit Florida now that they are in the league.

I also wonder, was WV able to recruit more talent out of Texas the last 10 years thanks to WV joining the B12? I really don't know. If they have, then that is evidence against my view. Even then though, there are costs to recruiting in one area rather than another (even Alabama only has so many assistants to send out on trips, LOL) and I am not sure that WV has more talent on their roster than they did in the Big East days, despite moving to a better conference.

(01-27-2023 11:28 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  National undergrad rankings per US News

1. Stanford: 3rd
2. Cal: 20th
3. Washington: 55th

4. SMU: 72nd

5. Colorado: 97th
6. Oregon: 105th (tied)
7. Arizona: 105th (tied)
8. ASU: 121st
9. Utah: 105th (tied)
10. Oregon State: 151st (tied)
11. Wash St.: 212th

Other expansion candidates:

Tulane: 44th
SDSU: 151st (tied)
Fresno State: 250th
UNLV: 285th
Boise State: Somewhere between 331st-440th. Schools that low don't even get their own ranking

It’s graduate level rankings they care about R1, R2 etc…. So maybe the PAC should invite CalTech and call it a day.
1) Actually in LA
2) AAU

Poor football? Who cares! We are rubbing elbows with the right kind of people…

Yup, if you look at SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, Boise, The Pac 12 doesnt want to rub elbows with any of those kinds of schools but they will be forced to take at least one of them. Kinda like how the ACC was forced to take Louisville because it was the best program available even though you know the ACC snobs there werent too happy about it.

(01-28-2023 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 09:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 08:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 07:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 07:12 PM)YNot Wrote:  From a recruiting perspective, seems like it would make sense for the Big 12 to go all in after SDSU so as to be the only conference with a foot in each of Texas, Florida, and California. If the Big Ten and Big 12 were to lock the PAC out of Southern California, seems like that would push at least Arizona and Colorado into the Big 12. Seems like lots of synergy with a BYU-Arizona-Colorado-SDSU western arm.

I'm not sure about that. It's one thing when you already have a strong presence in Texas and a brand new presence in Florida to go after SoCal, too, that's kind of a luxury, while for the Pac it could be more existential. They don't have any quality recruiting grounds outside of SoCal at all. That's why SDSU is so valuable to the Pac, while perhaps interesting but not urgently so to the big 12. Same thing with SMU, the big 12 doesn't need them, they have Texas covered, but with SDSU and SMU added the Pac would instantly get into 2 great recruiting hotbeds.

I'm not so sure how valuable SMU would be for nPAC recruiting. If you are Washington or Cal or Arizona or whoever in the nPAC, and you want to recruit kids in the Dallas area, you're going to say if you come to our school, you will get to play a game in your home city of Dallas vs SMU once every two years. I'm just not sure that is going to sway many kids. Is there some other angle to this appeal I am missing?

Like I am not sure the nB12 schools are going to make inroads in to Florida just because UCF is there.

But maybe the PAC will make those moves and we'll see, and w/respect to nB12 recruiting in Florida as well.

Its not so much that the kids get to play at home, but the team gets exposure in the area. So HS recruits notice them.

To me, that is kind of a tenuous linkage. I am a football player in the Dallas area, and I see that SMU is now playing PAC schools in California and Arizona and the Pacific Northwest and there is more coverage of them I might notice that ... but I just don't see a train of thought there that leads to a greater likelihood of signing with those schools as compared to if they weren't playing SMU and getting more coverage in DFW. To me, good high school recruits, likely look more to national media for coverage, and everyone, all the top conferences, get covered nationally on ESPN, FOX etc. These kids are IMO likely well-aware of the A5 schools just from national media coverage throughout their lives.

Good question about West Virginia.

One thing to consider is established relationships with high school coaches.

When I taught in the DFW area with a decent but not great football team, there was a pipeline of a couple of kids a year who would go from Arlen HS to Division III Kansas Baptist University (names changed semi-obviously). The coach at Arlen was a buddy of a coach at Kansas Baptist. I don't know the details, but we can guess.

[spoiler='I started rambling']
The head football coach and freshman science teacher at Arlen HS was college teammates and frat brothers with the coach at KAnsas Baptist. The coaches had a pipeline where the Arlen coach and the KBU coach talked about players, ballpark GPA and SAT estimates, personal recommendations, etc. Kansas Baptist handshake-guaranteed the kids admission, financial aid and a roster spot, Arlen sent a steady supply of tuition-paying students to KBU (mix of families paying the tuition and Uncle Sam cutting financial aid checks). [/spoiler]

IF the defensive backs coach at Oregon STate develops a relationship with the coach at East Dallas Academy, that could be good for a couple of 2 to 3 star players a year. Multiply that by 11 schools, maybe it raises the PAC's overall talent level??

(01-28-2023 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 09:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 08:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 07:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 07:12 PM)YNot Wrote:  From a recruiting perspective, seems like it would make sense for the Big 12 to go all in after SDSU so as to be the only conference with a foot in each of Texas, Florida, and California. If the Big Ten and Big 12 were to lock the PAC out of Southern California, seems like that would push at least Arizona and Colorado into the Big 12. Seems like lots of synergy with a BYU-Arizona-Colorado-SDSU western arm.

I'm not sure about that. It's one thing when you already have a strong presence in Texas and a brand new presence in Florida to go after SoCal, too, that's kind of a luxury, while for the Pac it could be more existential. They don't have any quality recruiting grounds outside of SoCal at all. That's why SDSU is so valuable to the Pac, while perhaps interesting but not urgently so to the big 12. Same thing with SMU, the big 12 doesn't need them, they have Texas covered, but with SDSU and SMU added the Pac would instantly get into 2 great recruiting hotbeds.

I'm not so sure how valuable SMU would be for nPAC recruiting. If you are Washington or Cal or Arizona or whoever in the nPAC, and you want to recruit kids in the Dallas area, you're going to say if you come to our school, you will get to play a game in your home city of Dallas vs SMU once every two years. I'm just not sure that is going to sway many kids. Is there some other angle to this appeal I am missing?

Like I am not sure the nB12 schools are going to make inroads in to Florida just because UCF is there.

But maybe the PAC will make those moves and we'll see, and w/respect to nB12 recruiting in Florida as well.

Its not so much that the kids get to play at home, but the team gets exposure in the area. So HS recruits notice them.

To me, that is kind of a tenuous linkage. I am a football player in the Dallas area, and I see that SMU is now playing PAC schools in California and Arizona and the Pacific Northwest and there is more coverage of them I might notice that ... but I just don't see a train of thought there that leads to a greater likelihood of signing with those schools as compared to if they weren't playing SMU and getting more coverage in DFW. To me, good high school recruits, likely look more to national media for coverage, and everyone, all the top conferences, get covered nationally on ESPN, FOX etc. These kids are IMO likely well-aware of the A5 schools just from national media coverage throughout their lives.

But again, time might tell, and we are going to get kind of an experiment with UCF, if nB12 schools think they have a better chance to recruit Florida now that they are in the league.

I also wonder, was WV able to recruit more talent out of Texas the last 10 years thanks to WV joining the B12? I really don't know. If they have, then that is evidence against my view. Even then though, there are costs to recruiting in one area rather than another (even Alabama only has so many assistants to send out on trips, LOL) and I am not sure that WV has more talent on their roster than they did in the Big East days, despite moving to a better conference.

Don’t know about West Virginia, but every single one of the original big 12 schools other than Colorado dramatically increased their Texas recruiting after the formation of the big 12

Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri have dramatically decreased their Texas recruiting since they left the big 12, even Texas A&M has a lower percentage of Texas recruits although their quality has probably gone up

(01-28-2023 08:33 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Kansas hates the Big 12

No, long ago, with MU, we founded its source. Lots of great teams in the Big XII now and the future.

Now, if the B1G or SEC want to talk, we'd, of course, listen.

(01-28-2023 11:09 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  Yup, if you look at SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, Boise, The Pac 12 doesnt want to rub elbows with any of those kinds of schools but they will be forced to take at least one of them. Kinda like how the ACC was forced to take Louisville because it was the best program available even though you know the ACC snobs there werent too happy about it.

The ACC was forced to take Louisville in order to keep the same number of teams in each division. In theory they could have cancelled either Pitt or Syracuse's invitation, but that would have been ridiculously bad public relations.

A different number of teams in each division is doable (the MAC did this for Temple's 6 or 7 years in the conference) but difficult. Plus IIRC the ACC was planning on going to 9 conference games at that time and ended up cancelling the expansion to 9 games at the last possible second. It's literally mathematically impossible to have an odd number of teams in a conference and have an odd number of conference games.

(01-28-2023 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 09:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 08:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 07:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 07:12 PM)YNot Wrote:  From a recruiting perspective, seems like it would make sense for the Big 12 to go all in after SDSU so as to be the only conference with a foot in each of Texas, Florida, and California. If the Big Ten and Big 12 were to lock the PAC out of Southern California, seems like that would push at least Arizona and Colorado into the Big 12. Seems like lots of synergy with a BYU-Arizona-Colorado-SDSU western arm.

I'm not sure about that. It's one thing when you already have a strong presence in Texas and a brand new presence in Florida to go after SoCal, too, that's kind of a luxury, while for the Pac it could be more existential. They don't have any quality recruiting grounds outside of SoCal at all. That's why SDSU is so valuable to the Pac, while perhaps interesting but not urgently so to the big 12. Same thing with SMU, the big 12 doesn't need them, they have Texas covered, but with SDSU and SMU added the Pac would instantly get into 2 great recruiting hotbeds.

I'm not so sure how valuable SMU would be for nPAC recruiting. If you are Washington or Cal or Arizona or whoever in the nPAC, and you want to recruit kids in the Dallas area, you're going to say if you come to our school, you will get to play a game in your home city of Dallas vs SMU once every two years. I'm just not sure that is going to sway many kids. Is there some other angle to this appeal I am missing?

Like I am not sure the nB12 schools are going to make inroads in to Florida just because UCF is there.

But maybe the PAC will make those moves and we'll see, and w/respect to nB12 recruiting in Florida as well.

Its not so much that the kids get to play at home, but the team gets exposure in the area. So HS recruits notice them.

To me, that is kind of a tenuous linkage. I am a football player in the Dallas area, and I see that SMU is now playing PAC schools in California and Arizona and the Pacific Northwest and there is more coverage of them I might notice that ... but I just don't see a train of thought there that leads to a greater likelihood of signing with those schools as compared to if they weren't playing SMU and getting more coverage in DFW. To me, good high school recruits, likely look more to national media for coverage, and everyone, all the top conferences, get covered nationally on ESPN, FOX etc. These kids are IMO likely well-aware of the A5 schools just from national media coverage throughout their lives.

But again, time might tell, and we are going to get kind of an experiment with UCF, if nB12 schools think they have a better chance to recruit Florida now that they are in the league.

I also wonder, was WV able to recruit more talent out of Texas the last 10 years thanks to WV joining the B12? I really don't know. If they have, then that is evidence against my view. Even then though, there are costs to recruiting in one area rather than another (even Alabama only has so many assistants to send out on trips, LOL) and I am not sure that WV has more talent on their roster than they did in the Big East days, despite moving to a better conference.

You act as if this situation has several answers. The guys who are most affected by the changes in recruiting grounds, the Coaches, all either say nothing or say that it helps to have a school or schools in places like SoCal, Texas or Florida. I'll take their word for it over your speculation.

(01-28-2023 08:33 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  I think the reason they haven’t expanded yet is that they may have a better TV deal than the Big 12 coming. It would not stun me if their TV deal for all three tiers was 40-45 million. If that is the case, even with a 80 million exit fee, Kansas and Texas Tech are in play. Kansas hates the Big 12 and wants to be associated with other flagships. Texas Tech is effectively the flagship of West Texas. Both would much rather be associated with the Pac-12 institutions if the money is right.

If they had a 40M deal, I'm pretty sure that it would be done already.

And I don't think Kansas "hates" anybody.

That said, I think it's been pretty clear that they've been wanting a B10 invite since the last mass exodus around a decade or so ago.

Of course, if the SEC offered Texas Tech and Kansas an invite, I think they'd both accept in a heartbeat...

(01-28-2023 11:09 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  Yup, if you look at SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, Boise, The Pac 12 doesnt want to rub elbows with any of those kinds of schools but they will be forced to take at least one of them. Kinda like how the ACC was forced to take Louisville because it was the best program available even though you know the ACC snobs there werent too happy about it.

If a coach declines to offer a scholarship to a high-school quarterback with a great arm because he's also 5'10", makes questionable decisions, and isn't mobile enough on his feet to fit the team's system well, is the coach a 'snob'?

(01-28-2023 03:34 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 11:09 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  Yup, if you look at SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, Boise, The Pac 12 doesnt want to rub elbows with any of those kinds of schools but they will be forced to take at least one of them. Kinda like how the ACC was forced to take Louisville because it was the best program available even though you know the ACC snobs there werent too happy about it.

If a coach declines to offer a scholarship to a high-school quarterback with a great arm because he's also 5'10", makes questionable decisions, and isn't mobile enough on his feet to fit the team's system well, is the coach a 'snob'?

I dunno. But apparently that coach doesn't believe in player development...

(01-28-2023 12:42 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 11:09 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  Yup, if you look at SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, Boise, The Pac 12 doesnt want to rub elbows with any of those kinds of schools but they will be forced to take at least one of them. Kinda like how the ACC was forced to take Louisville because it was the best program available even though you know the ACC snobs there werent too happy about it.

The ACC was forced to take Louisville in order to keep the same number of teams in each division. ...

They were forced to take somebody. If I recall correctly, Clemson & FSU demanding that the add bring something on the football side of the equation is part of why that somebody ended up being Louisville.

Quote: A different number of teams in each division is doable (the MAC did this for Temple's 6 or 7 years in the conference) but difficult. ...

Certainly the MAC was trying to get out of an odd number of teams all five years that Temple was in the conference, first scouting out another FB-only school to add, and then waiting until they were in their transition to FBS year. The Temple/UMass deal was set up to allow the MAC to avoid a locked in unbalanced number if one of the two left, with the MAC having the option to force the school left behind to choose between being all-in or all-out. However, as part of the transition from FCS to FBS, the MAC guaranteed UMass three years at the outset.

So when Temple left at the same time that UMass joined, it was three more years before the MAC could get back to even numbers.

(01-28-2023 03:46 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 03:34 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 11:09 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  Yup, if you look at SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, Boise, The Pac 12 doesnt want to rub elbows with any of those kinds of schools but they will be forced to take at least one of them. Kinda like how the ACC was forced to take Louisville because it was the best program available even though you know the ACC snobs there werent too happy about it.

If a coach declines to offer a scholarship to a high-school quarterback with a great arm because he's also 5'10", makes questionable decisions, and isn't mobile enough on his feet to fit the team's system well, is the coach a 'snob'?

I dunno. But apparently that coach doesn't believe in player development...

Developed players often move on to perceived greener pastures these days.

(01-28-2023 12:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 09:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 08:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 07:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I'm not sure about that. It's one thing when you already have a strong presence in Texas and a brand new presence in Florida to go after SoCal, too, that's kind of a luxury, while for the Pac it could be more existential. They don't have any quality recruiting grounds outside of SoCal at all. That's why SDSU is so valuable to the Pac, while perhaps interesting but not urgently so to the big 12. Same thing with SMU, the big 12 doesn't need them, they have Texas covered, but with SDSU and SMU added the Pac would instantly get into 2 great recruiting hotbeds.

I'm not so sure how valuable SMU would be for nPAC recruiting. If you are Washington or Cal or Arizona or whoever in the nPAC, and you want to recruit kids in the Dallas area, you're going to say if you come to our school, you will get to play a game in your home city of Dallas vs SMU once every two years. I'm just not sure that is going to sway many kids. Is there some other angle to this appeal I am missing?

Like I am not sure the nB12 schools are going to make inroads in to Florida just because UCF is there.

But maybe the PAC will make those moves and we'll see, and w/respect to nB12 recruiting in Florida as well.

Its not so much that the kids get to play at home, but the team gets exposure in the area. So HS recruits notice them.

To me, that is kind of a tenuous linkage. I am a football player in the Dallas area, and I see that SMU is now playing PAC schools in California and Arizona and the Pacific Northwest and there is more coverage of them I might notice that ... but I just don't see a train of thought there that leads to a greater likelihood of signing with those schools as compared to if they weren't playing SMU and getting more coverage in DFW. To me, good high school recruits, likely look more to national media for coverage, and everyone, all the top conferences, get covered nationally on ESPN, FOX etc. These kids are IMO likely well-aware of the A5 schools just from national media coverage throughout their lives.

But again, time might tell, and we are going to get kind of an experiment with UCF, if nB12 schools think they have a better chance to recruit Florida now that they are in the league.

I also wonder, was WV able to recruit more talent out of Texas the last 10 years thanks to WV joining the B12? I really don't know. If they have, then that is evidence against my view. Even then though, there are costs to recruiting in one area rather than another (even Alabama only has so many assistants to send out on trips, LOL) and I am not sure that WV has more talent on their roster than they did in the Big East days, despite moving to a better conference.

Don’t know about West Virginia, but every single one of the original big 12 schools other than Colorado dramatically increased their Texas recruiting after the formation of the big 12

Good point. But now that you've mentioned that, I think Texas and the B12 is a bit different from SMU and the PAC in two ways. First, with the B8/SWC merger, the B8 schools were joining a league with several Texas schools, and very big name schools in Texas and Texas AM. So that is a whole lot of saturation exposure to Texas. And, most of the B8 schools were culturally and geographically not all that distant from Texas to begin with.

In contrast, SMU is much smaller profile, is just one school, and is farther away. So they are more of an "island" case, I think.

I guess a good "island" test case of the past would be when USF joined the Big East in 2005. We were a low-profile school, the only member in Florida, and on an island in that like SMU would be in the PAC, we were far away from the core of the conference. So I wonder if from 2005 - 2012, schools like UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, UofL, Cincy and Rutgers were able to boost their Florida recruiting thanks to USF? I don't know.

(01-28-2023 10:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 09:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2023 08:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not so sure how valuable SMU would be for nPAC recruiting. If you are Washington or Cal or Arizona or whoever in the nPAC, and you want to recruit kids in the Dallas area, you're going to say if you come to our school, you will get to play a game in your home city of Dallas vs SMU once every two years. I'm just not sure that is going to sway many kids. Is there some other angle to this appeal I am missing?

Like I am not sure the nB12 schools are going to make inroads in to Florida just because UCF is there.

But maybe the PAC will make those moves and we'll see, and w/respect to nB12 recruiting in Florida as well.

Its not so much that the kids get to play at home, but the team gets exposure in the area. So HS recruits notice them.

To me, that is kind of a tenuous linkage. I am a football player in the Dallas area, and I see that SMU is now playing PAC schools in California and Arizona and the Pacific Northwest and there is more coverage of them I might notice that ... but I just don't see a train of thought there that leads to a greater likelihood of signing with those schools as compared to if they weren't playing SMU and getting more coverage in DFW. To me, good high school recruits, likely look more to national media for coverage, and everyone, all the top conferences, get covered nationally on ESPN, FOX etc. These kids are IMO likely well-aware of the A5 schools just from national media coverage throughout their lives.

But again, time might tell, and we are going to get kind of an experiment with UCF, if nB12 schools think they have a better chance to recruit Florida now that they are in the league.

I also wonder, was WV able to recruit more talent out of Texas the last 10 years thanks to WV joining the B12? I really don't know. If they have, then that is evidence against my view. Even then though, there are costs to recruiting in one area rather than another (even Alabama only has so many assistants to send out on trips, LOL) and I am not sure that WV has more talent on their roster than they did in the Big East days, despite moving to a better conference.

Don’t know about West Virginia, but every single one of the original big 12 schools other than Colorado dramatically increased their Texas recruiting after the formation of the big 12

Good point. But now that you've mentioned that, I think Texas and the B12 is a bit different from SMU and the PAC in two ways. First, with the B8/SWC merger, the B8 schools were joining a league with several Texas schools, and very big name schools in Texas and Texas AM. So that is a whole lot of saturation exposure to Texas. And, most of the B8 schools were culturally and geographically not all that distant from Texas to begin with.

In contrast, SMU is much smaller profile, is just one school, and is farther away. So they are more of an "island" case, I think.

I guess a good "island" test case of the past would be when USF joined the Big East in 2005. We were a low-profile school, the only member in Florida, and on an island in that like SMU would be in the PAC, we were far away from the core of the conference. So I wonder if from 2005 - 2012, schools like UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, UofL, Cincy and Rutgers were able to boost their Florida recruiting thanks to USF? I don't know.

Missouri and Texas A&M have increased their recruiting in the SEC states since they moved from the Big 12. There are no more than two SEC schools in any of those states.

In particular, I know that Missouri deliberately started trying to hire people with connections in SEC states as they thought they would need to change where they recruited.

(01-26-2023 08:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Maybe San Diego St’s numbers work out in such a way that they pull their weight financially, but is there a #12 that will as well?

I don’t think SMU, UNLV, or Fresno St do.

Maybe they get a little wild and offer San Diego St a slot and then Hawaii as a fb only. This would lessen the dilutive effect and fb only Hawaii is a lot easier to cut loose, plus it means Hawaii and 8 of the 11 others get to play in week 0.

Gonzaga all sports with Hawaii FB sounds like a decent idea honestly.