(01-30-2023 11:46 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 09:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 09:44 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 08:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)

A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU

If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico

I've been talking about the research ranking aspect of conference realignment for about as long as anyone out there, but the R1 vs. R2 distinction simply isn't very relevant at least when talking about P5 expansion (or at least the Big Ten and Pac-12).

Sure, a perfect Pac-12 profile school would be an AAU institution (which would inherently be an R1 institution) located in the Pacific or Mountain Time Zones and has a long history of FBS football.

The problem is that the number of schools that fit that profile that aren't already in the Pac-12 or now the Big Ten (USC/UCLA) is ZERO.

The fact that the Pac-12 might be considering SMU has nothing to do with the league being fine with *any* R2 institution. In the case of SMU, they are consistently in the top 75 of the US News undergrad rankings, located directly in a major TV and recruiting market, and have a long history of playing FBS football. So, it would be a grave mistake that the Pac-12 thinking that SMU is academically acceptable means that they're going to find Boise State academically acceptable (without even considering the non-academic factors in favor of SMU). SMU is a highly-ranked school for undergrad that's located in a particularly strategic location. Stanford, Cal and Washington are going to have way less of an issue with adding a school like SMU than universities that are *much* lower-ranked for undergrad like Boise State or R1 schools like UTSA.

UNLV is the only interesting case study of whether the Pac-12 will consider a school that's ranked much lower than its current standards solely because of its location and market (similar to the analysis for SDSU).

SDSU is a better school than UNLV though.

Yes, absolutely. SDSU is tied with Oregon State and higher than Washington State in the US News rankings. Considering the Pac-12's other options and how critical Southern California is to the league, my educated guess is that's going to be academically acceptable. UNLV is definitely much lower than everyone else (#285 compared to Wazzu's #212 ranking).

SDSU will achieve R1 status by 2025.

I traveled for some time with an administrator at UC-San Diego and was shocked at the prevailing attitude of UC vs CSU schools.

Hope SDSU is able to overcome what must be some pretty heady winds from Berkeley to get into the P12.

(01-30-2023 02:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:16 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I disagree with you on A and C.

A) SMU is a categorically different type of school than those of the PAC12. The institutional profile of SMU is still a major negative factor. Not because SMU is bad, but it would be more desirable to have an OK school with the correct institutional profile (like a CSU, or USU, or UNM) than an SMU.

Well, I guess we'll just to have to agree to disagree there. I don't think the Washington/Stanford/Cal portion looks at other Cal State schools or schools like USU or UNM as being any closer to their institutional profile than SMU at all. They're ALL "institutional misfits" in the eyes of the Pac-12 or at least what the Pac-12 thought of itself to be up until 7 months ago. So, the question is whether there's an institutional misfit that brings something that the Pac-12 ultimately needs along with not have a totally glaring academic prestige issue, such as SDSU being at least in the academic range of the lower portion of the Pac-12 while bringing its location that the Pac-12 definitely needs. That's probably where our disconnect is here. You're arguing the fact that some other lower-ranked undergrad schools are somehow closer to the Pac-12 institutional profile simply because they're larger research universities, but I just don't see that all. NONE of these schools fit the Pac-12 institutional profile (or at least how it saw its institutional profile up until 7 months ago). That's a given to me here, so I'm looking at it as a "Would you rather have" choice of higher-ranked undergrad school versus a lower-ranked non-AAU/prestige research school. I'm going with the higher-ranked undergrad school on that choice (and once again, this isn't me saying it, but Wilner, too).

Quote:C) SMU’s athletic pedigree is the school that got the death penalty. Nobody cares that it was included in UT’s fiefdom as part of the SWC. It got dropped by the WAC and passed up by the NewBXII. That doesn’t carry any cache. Or it still carries some stink. Take your pick.

I mean, that's one way to look at it. Once again, though, who besides SDSU (a given addition if the Pac-12 expands) or Boise State (unacceptable to the Pac-12 on academic grounds) just one pure sports grounds are you truly thinking has better athletic cache than SMU among the Pac-12's options in the G5? Once again, if you're going to critique SMU, then I want to know who actually delivers the better athletic cache that you're seeking here.

I think where we differ here is that I think these are categorical variables rather than continuous variables.

If you look at them as continuous variables than SMU is stronger athletically than Rice. If you look at them as categorical values along the lines of raise/maintain/lower the conference profile then both athletically lower the athletic and financial profile of the conference while only Rice maintains the academic profile.

School- Fin- Althlet-Acad: | Overall
BYU. = + - | 0
SDSU. - + - | -1
UNLV. - - - | -3
SMU. - - - | -3
Rice. - - + | -1
UCSD. - - +. | -1

Also, I’d be surprised if BYU isn’t the sticking point between the conference and the broadcast distributors.

Ughh. That formats terribly.

(01-30-2023 02:43 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:26 PM)Poster Wrote:  If the PAC really needed content so badly, then why didn’t they expand to 12 with some random low value MWC schools in the 1990s or oughts?


As it was, they basically ended up adding Colorado (a long time major conference team) just to block out Baylor, and then added Utah (one of the top MWC teams) just because they needed a partner for Colorado. It’s not clear the PAC would have added either Colorado or Utah if they had known tge PAC-16 would fall through.

The PAC was already considering the addition of CU and UU as 11/12 before the PAC16 was even a twinkle in Larry Scott’s eye because the revenue of the CCG made it a no-brainer (back when 12 were required to have a CCG). If the waiver for a CCG with 10 had existed in 2010, I’m not sure the PAC would have gone for CU/UU. The CCG revenue was clearly the impetus to consider expansion.

The talk about adding Colorado and Utah was probably just a ploy to destabilize the Big 12 and add Texas. Similar to how the Big 10’s flirtation with Missouri was seemingly just a ploy to destabilize the Big 12 and add Nebraska.

The difference is that since the PAC failed to hit their jackpot, they (basically accidentally) added the teams they were originally talking about adding.

I like how realistically JRJ looks at things. Contrary to what some sports fans imagine, university presidents do not cackle with sadistic malice every time they meet. Doing so could be a very costly indulgence, given the many priorities they must address.

It might be “malicious”, but trying to get teams like Texas or Nebraska into your conference (even through con games) actually is one of the most profitable things a president could do for their university.

It's not malicious for a conference to want Texas, just as there's nothing gained by playing convoluted games to get them. It's pretty simple, really.

Texas was already looking. The B12 was already unstable. The only thing slowing the momentum toward a breakup was the LHN. In the meantime the B12 lost four schools.

Any conference that wanted to court Texas didn't have to go cartwheeling through a season of House of Cards to manipulate the school into a corner. All it took was a phone call. Texas was listening. Any league could make a pitch.

One league closed the sale. At least three others who made pitches did not.

(01-30-2023 03:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  SMU is academically categorically different from PAC12 schools.

Seriously, one has to not understand academia at all to make that statement.

These are SMU’s self-identified peer universities and the consortium it currently belongs to. Not a PAC school or a PAC-like school on the list.

Cohort Peer Universities

These universities are those defined as operationally comparative.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
Waco, Texas

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
Bronx, New York

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
Malibu, California

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Fort Worth, Texas

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
Denver, Colorado

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
Tulsa, Oklahoma

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
Villanova, Pennsylvania


G14

The G14 is a consortium of fourteen universities formed by the Provosts of the universities, and supported by the Institutional Research offices through data exchanges and information sharing.

BOSTON COLLEGE
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

BOSTON UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
Waltham, Massachusetts

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
New York, New York

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Dallas, Texas

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TUFTS UNIVERSITY
Medford, Massachusetts

TULANE UNIVERSITY
New Orleans, Louisiana

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
South Bend, Indiana

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

So SMU is a private university that identifies its peers as other private universities. SMU is focused on undergraduate studies, and lists peers that also focus on undergraduates. Identified peers include a lot of the private, undergrad focused schools the are P5 members (e.g., Notre Dame, Baylor, TCU, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest, etc.). The academic reputation of SMU, and its self-identified peers, is strong.

The dilemma is that you’re equating academics with research and AAU. Yet SMU doesn’t strive to be research/graduate focused like Stanford, Northwestern, Duke or Vanderbilt. Even the B1G (with Nebraska) and ACC (with Louisville) understood that expansion involves more than just academic fit.

Here's an even simpler way of looking at it from my vantage point:

Before June 2022: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 largely matched what was academically acceptable for the Big Ten with large high prestige research institutions that are preferably AAU (or very close to AAU standards).

Now: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 is going to largely match what's academically acceptable for the ACC. There is a mix of high prestige research institutions with higher ranked undergrad-focused private schools, and they'll stomach adding an outlier or two based on pure athletic and/or geographic need.

That's how I see it. The Pac-12's academic standards for expansion going forward are no longer going to be Big Ten-like academic standards, but rather ACC-like academic standards, if only because there's no G5 school out there playing FBS football in the Western-ish half of the US with Big-Ten like standards besides Rice. In contrast, having ACC-like academic standards provide a *little* more flexibility but still doesn't let the floodgates open to the point where it would upset Stanford, Cal and Washington (just as has been the case with high prestige AAU members Duke, UNC and UVA in the ACC).

So, is SMU an institutional fit with the ACC? I would say unequivocally YES and that's evidenced by the list of the SMU peer schools and G14 schools, which both include several ACC members. I think the Pac-12 is saying to itself, "We can't pretend to have Big Ten standards for expansion anymore outside of using it as an excuse to not expand at all, but we can still apply ACC standards." That's exactly how a school like SMU would fit.

(01-30-2023 03:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  SMU is academically categorically different from PAC12 schools.

Seriously, one has to not understand academia at all to make that statement.

These are SMU’s self-identified peer universities and the consortium it currently belongs to. Not a PAC school or a PAC-like school on the list.

Cohort Peer Universities

These universities are those defined as operationally comparative.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
Waco, Texas

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
Bronx, New York

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
Malibu, California

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Fort Worth, Texas

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
Denver, Colorado

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
Tulsa, Oklahoma

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
Villanova, Pennsylvania


G14

The G14 is a consortium of fourteen universities formed by the Provosts of the universities, and supported by the Institutional Research offices through data exchanges and information sharing.

BOSTON COLLEGE
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

BOSTON UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
Waltham, Massachusetts

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
New York, New York

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Dallas, Texas

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TUFTS UNIVERSITY
Medford, Massachusetts

TULANE UNIVERSITY
New Orleans, Louisiana

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
South Bend, Indiana

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

So SMU is a private university that identifies its peers as other private universities. SMU is focused on undergraduate studies, and lists peers that also focus on undergraduates. Identified peers include a lot of the private, undergrad focused schools the are P5 members (e.g., Notre Dame, Baylor, TCU, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest, etc.). The academic reputation of SMU, and its self-identified peers, is strong.

The dilemma is that you’re equating academics with research and AAU. Yet SMU doesn’t strive to be research/graduate focused like Stanford, Northwestern, Duke or Vanderbilt. Even the B1G (with Nebraska) and ACC (with Louisville) understood that expansion involves more than just academic fit.

Now: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 is going to largely match what's academically acceptable for the ACC.

Academics is a combination of
1) the dissemination of knowledge (aka education)
2) the discovery of knowledge (aka research)

The PAC has historically valued schools that undertake the full spectrum of academic activity. That’s what makes them peer institutions moreso than the quality of the pursuit.

SMU is to PAC academics what Gonzaga is to college athletics
They do one thing well (education/basketball) but don’t even compete in the thing that’s a maybe a little more important (research/football).

And I don’t think there’s any basis for a change in this ideal other than Wilner’s speculation which is still speculation.

(01-30-2023 11:47 AM)otown Wrote:  It is not so simple for the Big 12 to grab SDSU to "block" the PAC. remember, the Big 12 has to have the media partners on board and their newest contract threw water on adding any more G5s.

I don't remember anything specific written about that. It was clear the 4C would be welcomed. I don't remember Gs being included or excluded.

(01-30-2023 03:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's an even simpler way of looking at it from my vantage point:

Before June 2022: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 largely matched what was academically acceptable for the Big Ten with large high prestige research institutions that are preferably AAU (or very close to AAU standards).

Now: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 is going to largely match what's academically acceptable for the ACC. There is a mix of high prestige research institutions with higher ranked undergrad-focused private schools, and they'll stomach adding an outlier or two based on pure athletic and/or geographic need.

That's how I see it. The Pac-12's academic standards for expansion going forward are no longer going to be Big Ten-like academic standards, but rather ACC-like academic standards, if only because there's no G5 school out there playing FBS football in the Western-ish half of the US with Big-Ten like standards besides Rice. In contrast, having ACC-like academic standards provide a *little* more flexibility but still doesn't let the floodgates open to the point where it would upset Stanford, Cal and Washington (just as has been the case with high prestige AAU members Duke, UNC and UVA in the ACC).

So, is SMU an institutional fit with the ACC? I would say unequivocally YES and that's evidenced by the list of the SMU peer schools and G14 schools, which both include several ACC members. I think the Pac-12 is saying to itself, "We can't pretend to have Big Ten standards for expansion anymore outside of using it as an excuse to not expand at all, but we can still apply ACC standards." That's exactly how a school like SMU would fit.

Well argued. We'll see if this is the path the league takes.

The big variable with the PAC has always been its unique geography. What's the pool of institutions? What's the competition for those? Is an ACC-style approach as workable on the Pacific Coast as on the Atlantic? Is it workable with modifications? What would those be?

The PAC has several different ways it can go. It will be interesting to see what the group decides.

(01-30-2023 03:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  SMU is academically categorically different from PAC12 schools.

Seriously, one has to not understand academia at all to make that statement.

These are SMU’s self-identified peer universities and the consortium it currently belongs to. Not a PAC school or a PAC-like school on the list.

Cohort Peer Universities

These universities are those defined as operationally comparative.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
Waco, Texas

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
Bronx, New York

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
Malibu, California

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Fort Worth, Texas

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
Denver, Colorado

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
Tulsa, Oklahoma

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
Villanova, Pennsylvania


G14

The G14 is a consortium of fourteen universities formed by the Provosts of the universities, and supported by the Institutional Research offices through data exchanges and information sharing.

BOSTON COLLEGE
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

BOSTON UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
Waltham, Massachusetts

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
New York, New York

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Dallas, Texas

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TUFTS UNIVERSITY
Medford, Massachusetts

TULANE UNIVERSITY
New Orleans, Louisiana

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
South Bend, Indiana

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

So SMU is a private university that identifies its peers as other private universities. SMU is focused on undergraduate studies, and lists peers that also focus on undergraduates. Identified peers include a lot of the private, undergrad focused schools the are P5 members (e.g., Notre Dame, Baylor, TCU, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest, etc.). The academic reputation of SMU, and its self-identified peers, is strong.

The dilemma is that you’re equating academics with research and AAU. Yet SMU doesn’t strive to be research/graduate focused like Stanford, Northwestern, Duke or Vanderbilt. Even the B1G (with Nebraska) and ACC (with Louisville) understood that expansion involves more than just academic fit.

Here's an even simpler way of looking at it from my vantage point:

Before June 2022: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 largely matched what was academically acceptable for the Big Ten with large high prestige research institutions that are preferably AAU (or very close to AAU standards).

Now: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 is going to largely match what's academically acceptable for the ACC. There is a mix of high prestige research institutions with higher ranked undergrad-focused private schools, and they'll stomach adding an outlier or two based on pure athletic and/or geographic need.

That's how I see it. The Pac-12's academic standards for expansion going forward are no longer going to be Big Ten-like academic standards, but rather ACC-like academic standards, if only because there's no G5 school out there playing FBS football in the Western-ish half of the US with Big-Ten like standards besides Rice. In contrast, having ACC-like academic standards provide a *little* more flexibility but still doesn't let the floodgates open to the point where it would upset Stanford, Cal and Washington (just as has been the case with high prestige AAU members Duke, UNC and UVA in the ACC).

So, is SMU an institutional fit with the ACC? I would say unequivocally YES and that's evidenced by the list of the SMU peer schools and G14 schools, which both include several ACC members. I think the Pac-12 is saying to itself, "We can't pretend to have Big Ten standards for expansion anymore outside of using it as an excuse to not expand at all, but we can still apply ACC standards." That's exactly how a school like SMU would fit.

If academics is the sticking point, then taking Rice and Tulane together would seem a workable option.

(01-30-2023 02:33 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:24 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Amazon/ESPN split
Less Exposure
Payout Equal to Big12
Adding SDSU

Sounds about right…

If this guy (who is a known pro-Big 12 Arizona guy) thinks the Pac-12 deal will be solid, that says something.

I think it is fairly obvious that a Pac-12 deal is going to get done, good or bad. The Pac-12 is going to lose exposure? Well, 45% of their football games are on the Pac-12 Network. So how much exposure are they really losing?

(01-30-2023 12:43 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 11:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 09:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, absolutely. SDSU is tied with Oregon State and higher than Washington State in the US News rankings. Considering the Pac-12's other options and how critical Southern California is to the league, my educated guess is that's going to be academically acceptable. UNLV is definitely much lower than everyone else (#285 compared to Wazzu's #212 ranking).

Is that evidence that SDSU belongs in the PAC or evidence that OSU and WSU don’t?

It’s not like any of the 4C4 are huge value adds to the conference, but nobody seems willing to address the issue that we have market redundancy in a region (PNW) that is not valuable to the remainder of the conference and that fills the TV content with more Pacific Time Zone games.

I wouldn’t support divisionless expansion. If the PAC wants to add SDSU and some Texas school, put them in a South division with the 4C4 and lower our exposure to the PNW.

Also, if the PAC wants to add SDSU, the compromise that would make Cal/Furd presidents happy is to add SDSU and UCSD plus Rice FB only.

People don’t seem to see the difference in academic prestige for a low enrollment selective undergrad institution with minimal research (SMU) versus graduate/research oriented institutions. The PAC presidents do not care about SMU’s USNWR ranking.

They do care that SMU is ARWU 701-800! SDSU is 501-600.
Rice is 101-150 (same tier as AZ, ASU, UU). And UCSD is #21.

The way you sell SDSU is with UCSD and Rice.

UCSD is a fine academic institution and had some success athletically at the D2 level. But, they are not PAC worthy at this point athletically nor do you need two schools from San Diego in the PAC.

UCSD will enjoy athletics success eventually. But that will be about two decades down the road and by then, they'll be two decades too late for the PAC

(01-30-2023 02:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  SMU is academically categorically different from PAC12 schools.

Seriously, one has to not understand academia at all to make that statement.

Yes, I agree that SMU is different than the Pac-12 schools as an overall institution.

However, where I strongly disagree with you here is what seems to be your argument that in the context of *today's* Pac-12 options is that SMU is somehow academically unacceptable to the rest of the Pac-12 on being an undergrad-focused private institution. I truly don't believe that's the case (and it's not just me saying that, but people like Wilner who has been referring to SMU in virtually every expansion piece that he's written for several months).

Yes. Notre Dame is not a peer institution to the Big 10. It is much more undergraduate oriented, but it is still a prestigious university and would be welcomed by the Big 10. SMU isn't as prestigious as Notre Dame, but it is still a very good undergraduate university. So it passes the academic hurdle for any conference but the Big 10. Among the non-P5 schools, it would probably be viewed more favorably by academics than anyone but the few AAU schools (Rice, Tulane, Buffalo).

And SMU, because of its SWC history, probably has more "name" acceptability to the P conferences. And its budget is bigger than any G school but UConn, so it has the resources.

The issues are athletic value, where it isn't at the top, but isn't far behind anyone but Boise, and TV value. And it has done pretty well on TV and is comparable or better than anyone but Boise, USF, Memphis and the academies.

(01-30-2023 02:16 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I disagree with you on A and C.

A) SMU is a categorically different type of school than those of the PAC12. The institutional profile of SMU is still a major negative factor. Not because SMU is bad, but it would be more desirable to have an OK school with the correct institutional profile (like a CSU, or USU, or UNM) than an SMU.

C) SMU’s athletic pedigree is the school that got the death penalty. Nobody cares that it was included in UT’s fiefdom as part of the SWC. It got dropped by the WAC and passed up by the NewBXII. That doesn’t carry any cache. Or it still carries some stink. Take your pick.

Wrong on C). They have gotten past that. They are one of the cleaner programs now. And what you mean is that the MWC didn't invite them to join the airport 5, but instead included old rivals.

(01-30-2023 03:26 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  SMU is academically categorically different from PAC12 schools.

Seriously, one has to not understand academia at all to make that statement.

These are SMU’s self-identified peer universities and the consortium it currently belongs to. Not a PAC school or a PAC-like school on the list.

Cohort Peer Universities

These universities are those defined as operationally comparative.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
Waco, Texas

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
Bronx, New York

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
Malibu, California

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Fort Worth, Texas

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
Denver, Colorado

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
Tulsa, Oklahoma

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
Villanova, Pennsylvania


G14

The G14 is a consortium of fourteen universities formed by the Provosts of the universities, and supported by the Institutional Research offices through data exchanges and information sharing.

BOSTON COLLEGE
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

BOSTON UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
Waltham, Massachusetts

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
New York, New York

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Dallas, Texas

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TUFTS UNIVERSITY
Medford, Massachusetts

TULANE UNIVERSITY
New Orleans, Louisiana

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
South Bend, Indiana

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

So SMU is a private university that identifies its peers as other private universities. SMU is focused on undergraduate studies, and lists peers that also focus on undergraduates. Identified peers include a lot of the private, undergrad focused schools the are P5 members (e.g., Notre Dame, Baylor, TCU, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest, etc.). The academic reputation of SMU, and its self-identified peers, is strong.

The dilemma is that you’re equating academics with research and AAU. Yet SMU doesn’t strive to be research/graduate focused like Stanford, Northwestern, Duke or Vanderbilt. Even the B1G (with Nebraska) and ACC (with Louisville) understood that expansion involves more than just academic fit.

Here's an even simpler way of looking at it from my vantage point:

Before June 2022: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 largely matched what was academically acceptable for the Big Ten with large high prestige research institutions that are preferably AAU (or very close to AAU standards).

Now: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 is going to largely match what's academically acceptable for the ACC. There is a mix of high prestige research institutions with higher ranked undergrad-focused private schools, and they'll stomach adding an outlier or two based on pure athletic and/or geographic need.

That's how I see it. The Pac-12's academic standards for expansion going forward are no longer going to be Big Ten-like academic standards, but rather ACC-like academic standards, if only because there's no G5 school out there playing FBS football in the Western-ish half of the US with Big-Ten like standards besides Rice. In contrast, having ACC-like academic standards provide a *little* more flexibility but still doesn't let the floodgates open to the point where it would upset Stanford, Cal and Washington (just as has been the case with high prestige AAU members Duke, UNC and UVA in the ACC).

So, is SMU an institutional fit with the ACC? I would say unequivocally YES and that's evidenced by the list of the SMU peer schools and G14 schools, which both include several ACC members. I think the Pac-12 is saying to itself, "We can't pretend to have Big Ten standards for expansion anymore outside of using it as an excuse to not expand at all, but we can still apply ACC standards." That's exactly how a school like SMU would fit.

If academics is the sticking point, then taking Rice and Tulane together would seem a workable option.

But adherence to the academic litmus test will ruin the athletics. Rice and Tulane fit academically, but those schools have downgraded their athletics to below P5 standards. Neither Rice nor Tulane invest sufficiently in athletics. The PAC wants to maintain their athletic reputation as a P5 conference.

(01-30-2023 02:33 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:22 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:16 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I disagree with you on A and C.

A) SMU is a categorically different type of school than those of the PAC12. The institutional profile of SMU is still a major negative factor. Not because SMU is bad, but it would be more desirable to have an OK school with the correct institutional profile (like a CSU, or USU, or UNM) than an SMU.

C) SMU’s athletic pedigree is the school that got the death penalty. Nobody cares that it was included in UT’s fiefdom as part of the SWC. It got dropped by the WAC and passed up by the NewBXII. That doesn’t carry any cache. Or it still carries some stink. Take your pick.

SMU was never dropped by the WAC.

Getting left out of the MWC=Getting dropped by the WAC.

I agree that there is a generational divide in SWC perception. Your age group is completely ambivalent. A little older has a very negative view of the SWC and SMU in particular. A little older than that views the SWC favorably.

Utah was one of the unreliable conference partners who ran out on a bunch of schools they had just invited. Airport 5 is a very negative name. Of course Utah and BYU soon left the schools they lured out of the WAC and they had to invite the WAC schools back in.

(01-30-2023 03:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:16 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I disagree with you on A and C.

A) SMU is a categorically different type of school than those of the PAC12. The institutional profile of SMU is still a major negative factor. Not because SMU is bad, but it would be more desirable to have an OK school with the correct institutional profile (like a CSU, or USU, or UNM) than an SMU.

Well, I guess we'll just to have to agree to disagree there. I don't think the Washington/Stanford/Cal portion looks at other Cal State schools or schools like USU or UNM as being any closer to their institutional profile than SMU at all. They're ALL "institutional misfits" in the eyes of the Pac-12 or at least what the Pac-12 thought of itself to be up until 7 months ago. So, the question is whether there's an institutional misfit that brings something that the Pac-12 ultimately needs along with not have a totally glaring academic prestige issue, such as SDSU being at least in the academic range of the lower portion of the Pac-12 while bringing its location that the Pac-12 definitely needs. That's probably where our disconnect is here. You're arguing the fact that some other lower-ranked undergrad schools are somehow closer to the Pac-12 institutional profile simply because they're larger research universities, but I just don't see that all. NONE of these schools fit the Pac-12 institutional profile (or at least how it saw its institutional profile up until 7 months ago). That's a given to me here, so I'm looking at it as a "Would you rather have" choice of higher-ranked undergrad school versus a lower-ranked non-AAU/prestige research school. I'm going with the higher-ranked undergrad school on that choice (and once again, this isn't me saying it, but Wilner, too).

Quote:C) SMU’s athletic pedigree is the school that got the death penalty. Nobody cares that it was included in UT’s fiefdom as part of the SWC. It got dropped by the WAC and passed up by the NewBXII. That doesn’t carry any cache. Or it still carries some stink. Take your pick.

I mean, that's one way to look at it. Once again, though, who besides SDSU (a given addition if the Pac-12 expands) or Boise State (unacceptable to the Pac-12 on academic grounds) just one pure sports grounds are you truly thinking has better athletic cache than SMU among the Pac-12's options in the G5? Once again, if you're going to critique SMU, then I want to know who actually delivers the better athletic cache that you're seeking here.

I think where we differ here is that I think these are categorical variables rather than continuous variables.

If you look at them as continuous variables than SMU is stronger athletically than Rice. If you look at them as categorical values along the lines of raise/maintain/lower the conference profile then both athletically lower the athletic and financial profile of the conference while only Rice maintains the academic profile.

School- Fin- Althlet-Acad: | Overall
BYU. = + - | 0
SDSU. - + - | -1
UNLV. - - - | -3
SMU. - - - | -3
Rice. - - + | -1
UCSD. - - +. | -1

Also, I’d be surprised if BYU isn’t the sticking point between the conference and the broadcast distributors.

Ughh. That formats terribly.

Nothing ever comes out like it does when you are typing it here!

(01-30-2023 12:43 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 11:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 09:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, absolutely. SDSU is tied with Oregon State and higher than Washington State in the US News rankings. Considering the Pac-12's other options and how critical Southern California is to the league, my educated guess is that's going to be academically acceptable. UNLV is definitely much lower than everyone else (#285 compared to Wazzu's #212 ranking).

Is that evidence that SDSU belongs in the PAC or evidence that OSU and WSU don’t?

It’s not like any of the 4C4 are huge value adds to the conference, but nobody seems willing to address the issue that we have market redundancy in a region (PNW) that is not valuable to the remainder of the conference and that fills the TV content with more Pacific Time Zone games.

I wouldn’t support divisionless expansion. If the PAC wants to add SDSU and some Texas school, put them in a South division with the 4C4 and lower our exposure to the PNW.

Also, if the PAC wants to add SDSU, the compromise that would make Cal/Furd presidents happy is to add SDSU and UCSD plus Rice FB only.

People don’t seem to see the difference in academic prestige for a low enrollment selective undergrad institution with minimal research (SMU) versus graduate/research oriented institutions. The PAC presidents do not care about SMU’s USNWR ranking.

They do care that SMU is ARWU 701-800! SDSU is 501-600.
Rice is 101-150 (same tier as AZ, ASU, UU). And UCSD is #21.

The way you sell SDSU is with UCSD and Rice.

UCSD is a fine academic institution and had some success athletically at the D2 level. But, they are not PAC worthy at this point athletically nor do you need two schools from San Diego in the PAC.

Plus UCSD is not Division I yet.

(01-30-2023 03:33 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:33 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:24 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Amazon/ESPN split
Less Exposure
Payout Equal to Big12
Adding SDSU

Sounds about right…

If this guy (who is a known pro-Big 12 Arizona guy) thinks the Pac-12 deal will be solid, that says something.

I think it is fairly obvious that a Pac-12 deal is going to get done, good or bad. The Pac-12 is going to lose exposure? Well, 45% of their football games are on the Pac-12 Network. So how much exposure are they really losing?

That's actually a good point.

(01-30-2023 03:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:26 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  SMU is academically categorically different from PAC12 schools.

Seriously, one has to not understand academia at all to make that statement.

These are SMU’s self-identified peer universities and the consortium it currently belongs to. Not a PAC school or a PAC-like school on the list.

Cohort Peer Universities

These universities are those defined as operationally comparative.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
Waco, Texas

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
Bronx, New York

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
Malibu, California

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Fort Worth, Texas

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
Denver, Colorado

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
Tulsa, Oklahoma

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
Villanova, Pennsylvania


G14

The G14 is a consortium of fourteen universities formed by the Provosts of the universities, and supported by the Institutional Research offices through data exchanges and information sharing.

BOSTON COLLEGE
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

BOSTON UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
Waltham, Massachusetts

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
New York, New York

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Dallas, Texas

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TUFTS UNIVERSITY
Medford, Massachusetts

TULANE UNIVERSITY
New Orleans, Louisiana

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
South Bend, Indiana

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

So SMU is a private university that identifies its peers as other private universities. SMU is focused on undergraduate studies, and lists peers that also focus on undergraduates. Identified peers include a lot of the private, undergrad focused schools the are P5 members (e.g., Notre Dame, Baylor, TCU, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest, etc.). The academic reputation of SMU, and its self-identified peers, is strong.

The dilemma is that you’re equating academics with research and AAU. Yet SMU doesn’t strive to be research/graduate focused like Stanford, Northwestern, Duke or Vanderbilt. Even the B1G (with Nebraska) and ACC (with Louisville) understood that expansion involves more than just academic fit.

Here's an even simpler way of looking at it from my vantage point:

Before June 2022: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 largely matched what was academically acceptable for the Big Ten with large high prestige research institutions that are preferably AAU (or very close to AAU standards).

Now: Academically acceptable for the Pac-12 is going to largely match what's academically acceptable for the ACC. There is a mix of high prestige research institutions with higher ranked undergrad-focused private schools, and they'll stomach adding an outlier or two based on pure athletic and/or geographic need.

That's how I see it. The Pac-12's academic standards for expansion going forward are no longer going to be Big Ten-like academic standards, but rather ACC-like academic standards, if only because there's no G5 school out there playing FBS football in the Western-ish half of the US with Big-Ten like standards besides Rice. In contrast, having ACC-like academic standards provide a *little* more flexibility but still doesn't let the floodgates open to the point where it would upset Stanford, Cal and Washington (just as has been the case with high prestige AAU members Duke, UNC and UVA in the ACC).

So, is SMU an institutional fit with the ACC? I would say unequivocally YES and that's evidenced by the list of the SMU peer schools and G14 schools, which both include several ACC members. I think the Pac-12 is saying to itself, "We can't pretend to have Big Ten standards for expansion anymore outside of using it as an excuse to not expand at all, but we can still apply ACC standards." That's exactly how a school like SMU would fit.

If academics is the sticking point, then taking Rice and Tulane together would seem a workable option.

But adherence to the academic litmus test will ruin the athletics. Rice and Tulane fit academically, but those schools have downgraded their athletics to below P5 standards. Neither Rice nor Tulane invest sufficiently in athletics. The PAC wants to maintain their athletic reputation as a P5 conference.

I don't know about Rice, but Tulane has a $50 million athletic budget now. I believe SDSU is around $58 million.

(01-30-2023 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 03:33 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:33 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:24 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Amazon/ESPN split
Less Exposure
Payout Equal to Big12
Adding SDSU

Sounds about right…

If this guy (who is a known pro-Big 12 Arizona guy) thinks the Pac-12 deal will be solid, that says something.

I think it is fairly obvious that a Pac-12 deal is going to get done, good or bad. The Pac-12 is going to lose exposure? Well, 45% of their football games are on the Pac-12 Network. So how much exposure are they really losing?

That's actually a good point.

It would be a good point if it didn't seem like the PAC was trying to keep the conference network alive to some extent or another. There's still been no announcement that the PAC-12 will get rid of its network at all. And this Amazon deal seems to almost be an attempt to keep the PAC-12 network alive, but put it on streaming. I do think Amazon would be an upgrade over the PAC-12 Network, but that isn't saying a lot.

(01-30-2023 03:56 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 12:43 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 11:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 09:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, absolutely. SDSU is tied with Oregon State and higher than Washington State in the US News rankings. Considering the Pac-12's other options and how critical Southern California is to the league, my educated guess is that's going to be academically acceptable. UNLV is definitely much lower than everyone else (#285 compared to Wazzu's #212 ranking).

Is that evidence that SDSU belongs in the PAC or evidence that OSU and WSU don’t?

It’s not like any of the 4C4 are huge value adds to the conference, but nobody seems willing to address the issue that we have market redundancy in a region (PNW) that is not valuable to the remainder of the conference and that fills the TV content with more Pacific Time Zone games.

I wouldn’t support divisionless expansion. If the PAC wants to add SDSU and some Texas school, put them in a South division with the 4C4 and lower our exposure to the PNW.

Also, if the PAC wants to add SDSU, the compromise that would make Cal/Furd presidents happy is to add SDSU and UCSD plus Rice FB only.

People don’t seem to see the difference in academic prestige for a low enrollment selective undergrad institution with minimal research (SMU) versus graduate/research oriented institutions. The PAC presidents do not care about SMU’s USNWR ranking.

They do care that SMU is ARWU 701-800! SDSU is 501-600.
Rice is 101-150 (same tier as AZ, ASU, UU). And UCSD is #21.

The way you sell SDSU is with UCSD and Rice.

UCSD is a fine academic institution and had some success athletically at the D2 level. But, they are not PAC worthy at this point athletically nor do you need two schools from San Diego in the PAC.

Plus UCSD is not Division I yet.

They are, sort of. A year and a half away from completing their transition. But as I said, by the time they experience any real Division 1 success they will be about 20 years too late for the Pac.
.