(07-20-2023 03:36 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Thank you.

Point being is that no Pac 12 member is kicking themselves for leaving a more profitable conference to join the Pac 12.

Except Colorado.

They are the only ones in the position of thinking "Hey maybe it was a financial mistake to join the Pac 12" as no one else had any realistic alternative (until the Big 10 came knocking).

Sure, the added Pac 12 academic prestige was worth something. And it was probably worth something to get away from Texas to be honest. I think the latter served as motivation for the Nebraska and A&M exits for sure.

But now with Texas gone from the Big 12, and the Pac 12 academic prestige taking a hit with USC and UCLA gone, those two factors are not worth as much as they once were.

Harder to justify enduring that conference revenue drag...

OU has had much more success in the big 12 than Texas. For A&M, yes, it was absolutely part of the reason that we wanted to join the SEC, we felt that we would thrive if we got out from under Texas' vast shadow, and that has proven to be the case. However, Nebraska and Colorado are just as good of fits geographically in the B1G and Pac, respectively, as they were in the big 12, and they're both Flagships in their own right. They were both AAU Flagships until Perlman picked the wrong time for a meltdown.

(07-20-2023 03:46 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 03:36 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Thank you.

Point being is that no Pac 12 member is kicking themselves for leaving a more profitable conference to join the Pac 12.

Except Colorado.

They are the only ones in the position of thinking "Hey maybe it was a financial mistake to join the Pac 12" as no one else had any realistic alternative (until the Big 10 came knocking).

Sure, the added Pac 12 academic prestige was worth something. And it was probably worth something to get away from Texas to be honest. I think the latter served as motivation for the Nebraska and A&M exits for sure.

But now with Texas gone from the Big 12, and the Pac 12 academic prestige taking a hit with USC and UCLA gone, those two factors are not worth as much as they once were.

Harder to justify enduring that conference revenue drag...

Except their academic ranking went down since joining the PAC, ticket sales plummeted, interest by local media plummeted thus avg Coloradans stopped caring. They may have been able to withstand the loss of NU on the schedule, the post Thanksgiving game had they stayed in the Big 12. The PAC gave them nothing. Utah is not a rival. The CA schools are not huge draws in Boulder. It was a dumb move.

CU's academic ranking went DOWN to 29 in ARWU with a 1385 avg SAT? CU, Academically, is roughly on par with UT. They're the strongest school Academically in the Pac today outside of the Big 3 of Stanford/Cal/UW.

(07-20-2023 05:44 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Here is a few other items to think about if I'm Colorado.

1. Travel in the XII. Might be less student athlete friendly.
2. Potential to win. Smaller 10 team PAC easier to win a championships.
3. Unpredictable realignment. What if KU or OSU were to leave the XII?
4. Outside shot at the B1G themselves. Natural rival for Nebraska.

PAC I think most of us agree is an easier FB/BB league than the XII. It might be better for Colorado to hang in the PAC since they don't have a strong athletic brand.

Yes there is less revenue in the XII but they are still in a power conference.

Hey, Northwestern has an opening in their football program. Baseball, too. Perhaps soon the entire Athletic Dept. Your thinking would fit in nicely there.

Except for #1. The travel would be nearly the same for the buffs in the big 12 as it is in the Pac. They're flying everywhere they go in the Pac already, including to Salt Lake City. The 4 nearest Pac/big 12 schools to CU? KU, BYU, Utah, and KSt, but they're all around 500 miles and they're all probably a short flight instead of a very long bus ride for the money sports at least. For the fans, those 3 big 12 schools would more convenient, maybe, but again, not by a huge amount. Colorado is just a long way from everywhere.

(07-20-2023 03:46 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 03:36 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Thank you.

Point being is that no Pac 12 member is kicking themselves for leaving a more profitable conference to join the Pac 12.

Except Colorado.

They are the only ones in the position of thinking "Hey maybe it was a financial mistake to join the Pac 12" as no one else had any realistic alternative (until the Big 10 came knocking).

Sure, the added Pac 12 academic prestige was worth something. And it was probably worth something to get away from Texas to be honest. I think the latter served as motivation for the Nebraska and A&M exits for sure.

But now with Texas gone from the Big 12, and the Pac 12 academic prestige taking a hit with USC and UCLA gone, those two factors are not worth as much as they once were.

Harder to justify enduring that conference revenue drag...

Except their academic ranking went down since joining the PAC, ticket sales plummeted, interest by local media plummeted thus avg Coloradans stopped caring. They may have been able to withstand the loss of NU on the schedule, the post Thanksgiving game had they stayed in the Big 12. The PAC gave them nothing. Utah is not a rival. The CA schools are not huge draws in Boulder. It was a dumb move.

Outsider question: Has attendance & fan interest plummeted because the Buffs aren't playing Big 12 teams, or because they're not winning very much?

(07-20-2023 11:54 AM)NegativeOptimist Wrote:  


This is what the U Colorado System has for research revenue numbers, broken down by campus. Stark difference from Big 12 timeframe to now, both in raw numbers and increases. If people want to align that with the national averages, or Big 12 averages of similar research revenue increases, that is an additional piece to reconcile and remove other factors. But as of now, there is a clear uptick since joining the Pac 12.

Perhaps if he has the numbers for the Big 12 schools (old members), you can take the increased average and see what the delta is for that compared to UC and perhaps that shows any affiliation differences.

From when Utah joined the Pac in 2011 to 2022, their overall research budget increased 48%, which sure sounds like a lot. However, the NSF's funding for research grants increased by 46% over that time period. Looking at CU's numbers from that same time perioed, starting from $359m, then that 46% growth would equate to only $524m in 2012, a full 106m lower than their actual current amount of $630m. However, the year before CU left the big 12, in 2010, their research awards were $454m. $454m x 1.46 = $662m, quite a bit more than their current actual $630m. Which number is more accurate? Why was there such a large 1 time spike in 2010? I have no idea. But, if you take the average of those 2 years in 2010 and 2011, which would be $406.5m, multiply it by 1.46, then you get

$406.5m x 1.46 = $593.5m predicted for 2022 using nationwide trends for research institutions

I'd say that the move to the Pac looks to have been possibly mildly helpful to CU Boulder's overall research awards, but the data is open to interpretation and it's impossible to ascertain for certain.

edit: I just read the fine print at the bottom of the chart, "gifts supporting research are not including prior to FY 2019. Boulder and Anschutz CU Foundation gifts supporting research were added in 2019". Your data is basically worthless.

I've said it before, but it still blows my mind how massive the outsized value USC/UCLA had on the Pac-12 vs. anyone in the Big 12.

Consider: Colorado left the Big 12 first of all schools. Five more will have left by July 2024. Put more bluntly, every school that has any shot at going to the Big Two (i.e., SEC or B1G), has left.

Then USC/UCLA leave the Pac-12. All of a sudden despite losing just two schools in the Pac-12 compared to the five others in the Big 12, despite the fact that the roster will be 50% backfill compared to the lineup it had when CU was there, AND despite the fact the Pac-12 has 8 of its 10 remaining members as AAU members (vs. only Kansas in the Big 12), the Big 12 is now possibly the more desirable league. Remarkable.

(07-20-2023 09:52 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I've said it before, but it still blows my mind how massive the outsized value USC/UCLA had on the Pac-12 vs. anyone in the Big 12.

Consider: Colorado left the Big 12 first of all schools. Five more will have left by July 2024. Put more bluntly, every school that has any shot at going to the Big Two (i.e., SEC or B1G), has left.

Then USC/UCLA leave the Pac-12. All of a sudden despite losing just two schools in the Pac-12 compared to the five others in the Big 12, despite the fact that the roster will be 50% backfill compared to the lineup it had when CU was there, AND despite the fact the Pac-12 has 8 of its 10 remaining members as AAU members (vs. only Kansas in the Big 12), the Big 12 is now possibly the more desirable league. Remarkable.

That's what happens when you put Stanford and Cal in charge of Conference Policy on revenue sports for 35 years. Note to Yormark: if you do allow Stanford or Cal to join, don't let them on any important committees.

The academic association has always rung specious to me.

For one, most of the cooperatives that these conferences engage in are not significant and that even includes the CIC or whatever the Big Ten is calling it. The University of Chicago dropped out of the CIC and Johns Hopkins never joined even though they were invited after placing their lacrosse program in the Big Ten. I mean, what does that tell you? That those schools don't value academics? Of course not, it means the venture wasn't really worth the trouble to them.

Secondly and this is what really drives it home for me...

If academic ventures are of the utmost importance then why in God's name would any school refuse to "rub shoulders" or partner with a school simply because they weren't in the same athletic conference? The entire premise is ridiculous.

Just for example, you're telling me that the Big Ten schools wouldn't jump at the chance to partner with Harvard and MIT and Stanford and all the rest irrespective of their athletic affiliation? You really think they're going to put arbitrary limitations on those opportunities? That would be the definition of foolishness.

Nobody out there is refusing partnership with anyone over where they play football. Heck, when you count the Ivy League, you have to consider there are numerous top schools that don't even take athletics seriously. There are schools like Tulane and Rice and others that don't play in Power conferences. There are great schools in lower divisions. There are schools that don't field anything really more than intramural teams. Their athletic affiliation means zilch.

Now, if you want to talk about the real world impact of making connections in DC or alumni partnering on business deals because they get to sit in the same skybox at the same game then there's currency to that. The main benefit of athletics is that it creates exposure for your school, it creates a sense of community, and yes, it can help make valuable connections across communities and states. This is the primary reason flagships tend to associate with one another...because those types of schools tend to be the focal point for political and economic influence in their respective states and communities.

But the issue of academics? It's an inverse relationship. If you value "academic spending" above athletic spending like all the "elite academics" apologists argue then you would also have to admit that such partnerships could never be formed on the basis of athletic association. We all know schools spend more on academics than athletics so why in the world would you wager those investments on whether or not Random State U is in your conference? I mean, if geography isn't a barrier then why would athletics create one?

Pac12 presidents have said for a while they want to come in third behind the SEC and BIG.

Flat out, they will not sign a deal that’s less the big12’s. George need to find an offer greater than 32 million with better exposure.

They will not find a deal they are all willing to accept this year.

Academics matter because the university presidents make them matter, no matter how ridiculous it is to everyone outside of academia.

When the MVC was expanding, there were reports from the Bradley beat writer that Murray St was facing resistance at the administrative level due to academics. And that's Bradley, not exactly an academic world-beater, trying to exclude someone for academics in a mid-major conference. It's absolutely silly, but university presidents live in their own bubble and they hold the votes. They decide the criteria and we predict things based off university presidents' patterns of behavior.

Colorado has been willingly taking less money to be in the Pac-12, and appears to be repeating that decision even with access to LA cut off. Why is that? Partially because their administration wants to be as close as possible to the administrations at Cal/Stanford/UW, even if they're costing their school money and exposure.

(07-20-2023 10:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Academics matter because the university presidents make them matter, no matter how ridiculous it is to everyone outside of academia.

When the MVC was expanding, there were reports from the Bradley beat writer that Murray St was facing resistance at the administrative level due to academics. And that's Bradley, not exactly an academic world-beater, trying to exclude someone for academics in a mid-major conference. It's absolutely silly, but university presidents live in their own bubble and they hold the votes. They decide the criteria and we predict things based off university presidents' patterns of behavior.

Colorado has been willingly taking less money to be in the Pac-12, and appears to be repeating that decision even with access to LA cut off. Why is that? Partially because their administration wants to be as close as possible to the administrations at Cal/Stanford/UW, even if they're costing their school money and exposure.

If you can come up with reasons why the administrations at Cal, Stanford, and Washington would distance themselves from the administration of Colorado or refuse partnerships on certain academic endeavors if the latter switched conferences then you'll have a basis to your point. Otherwise, this is just the same public messaging predicated on presumptions about why schools make the decisions they do.

If nothing else, your example really isn't illustrating the same principle. A conference might decide to avoid certain schools they don't feel fit their academic profile. For whatever reason, they don't want to be seen on the same TV screen with a "lesser school." That is a different animal than saying they wouldn't partner with that school academically. If it was to their benefit to partner on a grant, for example, then what is the evidence that these schools don't follow through with that? That and Murray State has nonetheless joined the MVC so this doesn't really seem to have been a matter that had any real impact.

Follow up, now that USC and UCLA will be going to the Big Ten, will they distance themselves in any way from their former conference mates(academically) since the PAC will now be viewed as a somewhat lesser academic conference by comparison?

(07-20-2023 11:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 10:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Academics matter because the university presidents make them matter, no matter how ridiculous it is to everyone outside of academia.

When the MVC was expanding, there were reports from the Bradley beat writer that Murray St was facing resistance at the administrative level due to academics. And that's Bradley, not exactly an academic world-beater, trying to exclude someone for academics in a mid-major conference. It's absolutely silly, but university presidents live in their own bubble and they hold the votes. They decide the criteria and we predict things based off university presidents' patterns of behavior.

Colorado has been willingly taking less money to be in the Pac-12, and appears to be repeating that decision even with access to LA cut off. Why is that? Partially because their administration wants to be as close as possible to the administrations at Cal/Stanford/UW, even if they're costing their school money and exposure.

If you can come up with reasons why the administrations at Cal, Stanford, and Washington would distance themselves from the administration of Colorado or refuse partnerships on certain academic endeavors if the latter switched conferences then you'll have a basis to your point. Otherwise, this is just the same public messaging predicated on presumptions about why schools make the decisions they do.

If the Colorado administration believes it and makes their decision accordingly, that self-inherently provides the whole basis. All that matters is what Colorado's decision-makers believe - it doesn't actually matter whether those beliefs are right or wrong.

Colorado's administrators could believe those academic relationships with Cal/Stanford/Washington are strengthened by athletic affiliation, and it's worth passing on $7 million a year from the Big XII. Their beliefs could be totally wrong. But in realignment, what ultimately matters is what those administrators believe to be true, not whether it's actually true.

(07-20-2023 11:23 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 11:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 10:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Academics matter because the university presidents make them matter, no matter how ridiculous it is to everyone outside of academia.

When the MVC was expanding, there were reports from the Bradley beat writer that Murray St was facing resistance at the administrative level due to academics. And that's Bradley, not exactly an academic world-beater, trying to exclude someone for academics in a mid-major conference. It's absolutely silly, but university presidents live in their own bubble and they hold the votes. They decide the criteria and we predict things based off university presidents' patterns of behavior.

Colorado has been willingly taking less money to be in the Pac-12, and appears to be repeating that decision even with access to LA cut off. Why is that? Partially because their administration wants to be as close as possible to the administrations at Cal/Stanford/UW, even if they're costing their school money and exposure.

If you can come up with reasons why the administrations at Cal, Stanford, and Washington would distance themselves from the administration of Colorado or refuse partnerships on certain academic endeavors if the latter switched conferences then you'll have a basis to your point. Otherwise, this is just the same public messaging predicated on presumptions about why schools make the decisions they do.

If the Colorado administration believes it and makes their decision accordingly, that self-inherently provides the whole basis. All that matters is what Colorado's decision-makers believe - it doesn't actually matter whether those beliefs are right or wrong.

Colorado's administrators could believe those academic relationships with Cal/Stanford/Washington are strengthened by athletic affiliation, and it's worth passing on $7 million a year from the Big XII. Their beliefs could be totally wrong. But in realignment, what ultimately matters is what those administrators believe to be true, not whether it's actually true.

While we all operate based on perception I would hope leaders would seek out verification of those perceptions before making major decisions predicated on those perceptions, especially when verification is readily available.

(07-20-2023 11:23 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 11:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 10:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Academics matter because the university presidents make them matter, no matter how ridiculous it is to everyone outside of academia.

When the MVC was expanding, there were reports from the Bradley beat writer that Murray St was facing resistance at the administrative level due to academics. And that's Bradley, not exactly an academic world-beater, trying to exclude someone for academics in a mid-major conference. It's absolutely silly, but university presidents live in their own bubble and they hold the votes. They decide the criteria and we predict things based off university presidents' patterns of behavior.

Colorado has been willingly taking less money to be in the Pac-12, and appears to be repeating that decision even with access to LA cut off. Why is that? Partially because their administration wants to be as close as possible to the administrations at Cal/Stanford/UW, even if they're costing their school money and exposure.

If you can come up with reasons why the administrations at Cal, Stanford, and Washington would distance themselves from the administration of Colorado or refuse partnerships on certain academic endeavors if the latter switched conferences then you'll have a basis to your point. Otherwise, this is just the same public messaging predicated on presumptions about why schools make the decisions they do.

If the Colorado administration believes it and makes their decision accordingly, that self-inherently provides the whole basis. All that matters is what Colorado's decision-makers believe - it doesn't actually matter whether those beliefs are right or wrong.

Colorado's administrators could believe those academic relationships with Cal/Stanford/Washington are strengthened by athletic affiliation, and it's worth passing on $7 million a year from the Big XII. Their beliefs could be totally wrong. But in realignment, what ultimately matters is what those administrators believe to be true, not whether it's actually true.

As Huan said below, you would think leaders of large and wealthy institutions would act on more than perception.

For one, don't we have a decades long track record of how schools go about working with each other on academic endeavors? And doesn't that track record include numerous realignments for athletics?

I don't see why anyone at Colorado or anywhere else would need to guess or base their beliefs on anything other than rock solid fact. Partnering with other schools is just everyday business as usual in the world of academia.

(07-20-2023 11:13 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

Keep in mind that, in the spring of 2010, the rumors were swirling that the Pac-10 wanted 6 Big XII schools. Those schools were going to be the 4 Texas schools (Texas, A&M, Tech, and Baylor) and OU/OSU. Nebraska was thought to be gone to the Big Ten and administrators at the remaining Big XII schools (ISU, KU, KSU, MU, CU) were all scrambling. The Big XII was a sinking ship and everyone wanted off.

It was thought that Baylor was going to tag along again even though some of the PAC schools didn't want them, so Colorado did the prudent thing and jumped at the invite first. That set things up so that Baylor didn't have to get the invite and would be left behind. Well, the PAC-16 never happened and Utah got the spot.

Colorado wanted the West Coast connections for alumni that lived there and to use that as a recruiting base. These numbers are pretty damming, but it's also hard to quantify what they might have gained from the move, too.

(07-21-2023 12:03 AM)Huan Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 11:23 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 11:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 10:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Academics matter because the university presidents make them matter, no matter how ridiculous it is to everyone outside of academia.

When the MVC was expanding, there were reports from the Bradley beat writer that Murray St was facing resistance at the administrative level due to academics. And that's Bradley, not exactly an academic world-beater, trying to exclude someone for academics in a mid-major conference. It's absolutely silly, but university presidents live in their own bubble and they hold the votes. They decide the criteria and we predict things based off university presidents' patterns of behavior.

Colorado has been willingly taking less money to be in the Pac-12, and appears to be repeating that decision even with access to LA cut off. Why is that? Partially because their administration wants to be as close as possible to the administrations at Cal/Stanford/UW, even if they're costing their school money and exposure.

If you can come up with reasons why the administrations at Cal, Stanford, and Washington would distance themselves from the administration of Colorado or refuse partnerships on certain academic endeavors if the latter switched conferences then you'll have a basis to your point. Otherwise, this is just the same public messaging predicated on presumptions about why schools make the decisions they do.

If the Colorado administration believes it and makes their decision accordingly, that self-inherently provides the whole basis. All that matters is what Colorado's decision-makers believe - it doesn't actually matter whether those beliefs are right or wrong.

Colorado's administrators could believe those academic relationships with Cal/Stanford/Washington are strengthened by athletic affiliation, and it's worth passing on $7 million a year from the Big XII. Their beliefs could be totally wrong. But in realignment, what ultimately matters is what those administrators believe to be true, not whether it's actually true.

While we all operate based on perception I would hope leaders would seek out verification of those perceptions before making major decisions predicated on those perceptions, especially when verification is readily available.

I have some good news and bad news for you. The good news is that it's almost 100% certain that leaders are seeking out verification of their perceptions before making major decisions. The bad news is that the verification readily available to them might as well be a rubber stamp since it comes from an echo chamber.

Colorado joined the PAC on the knowledge they had and the fear Baylor would have pulled the same crap they did when the Big 12 formed.

The money is irrelevant.

All this shows is Larry Scott wasn't the right guy

(07-20-2023 02:07 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 01:15 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  I wonder why Texas and OU would leave if the Big 12 is so great!?

After a decade or so of disappointing finishes in the SEC, some OUT folk will likely express they had a much easier path to the NC in the Big XII. But they will be cashing big checks.

What I've been saying all along

Simple math says a few elite and near elite (spoiled) fans will be pretty sad at mostly 6 to 8 win seasons

(07-21-2023 02:53 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(07-21-2023 12:03 AM)Huan Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 11:23 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 11:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 10:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Academics matter because the university presidents make them matter, no matter how ridiculous it is to everyone outside of academia.

When the MVC was expanding, there were reports from the Bradley beat writer that Murray St was facing resistance at the administrative level due to academics. And that's Bradley, not exactly an academic world-beater, trying to exclude someone for academics in a mid-major conference. It's absolutely silly, but university presidents live in their own bubble and they hold the votes. They decide the criteria and we predict things based off university presidents' patterns of behavior.

Colorado has been willingly taking less money to be in the Pac-12, and appears to be repeating that decision even with access to LA cut off. Why is that? Partially because their administration wants to be as close as possible to the administrations at Cal/Stanford/UW, even if they're costing their school money and exposure.

If you can come up with reasons why the administrations at Cal, Stanford, and Washington would distance themselves from the administration of Colorado or refuse partnerships on certain academic endeavors if the latter switched conferences then you'll have a basis to your point. Otherwise, this is just the same public messaging predicated on presumptions about why schools make the decisions they do.

If the Colorado administration believes it and makes their decision accordingly, that self-inherently provides the whole basis. All that matters is what Colorado's decision-makers believe - it doesn't actually matter whether those beliefs are right or wrong.

Colorado's administrators could believe those academic relationships with Cal/Stanford/Washington are strengthened by athletic affiliation, and it's worth passing on $7 million a year from the Big XII. Their beliefs could be totally wrong. But in realignment, what ultimately matters is what those administrators believe to be true, not whether it's actually true.

While we all operate based on perception I would hope leaders would seek out verification of those perceptions before making major decisions predicated on those perceptions, especially when verification is readily available.

I have some good news and bad news for you. The good news is that it's almost 100% certain that leaders are seeking out verification of their perceptions before making major decisions. The bad news is that the verification readily available to them might as well be a rubber stamp since it comes from an echo chamber.

Academia is an echo chamber? Surely you jest.

In seriousness, we still have decades worth of practice in place on the how and why schools partner with each other. Whatever certain leaders want to brag about over cocktails or whatever the water cooler talk is at faculty conferences, the real world process is based on mutual benefit. Schools partner when it's mutually beneficial to do so.

If someone in the grants office or at the NSF is concerned about who's playing football this weekend then they're not doing their job.

We tend to forget that the reason college athletics is a big deal is because it's a cost effective(when you consider the entirety of the cost/benefit analysis) way to promote a school. It's really only even about media revenue insofar as additional revenue makes competing easier and therefore aids in the endeavor to make your school more visible. That and it offsets the cost of marketing.

When you think about it, if schools wanted to pay for an annual ad campaign that would equal the amount of media exposure they receive from college sports then they'd be paying out the wazoo. It would never be cost effective. We think of these schools dumping money into foolish "non-academic" extracurriculars and it's really not that at all. The media revenue offsets the costs of this "ad campaign" which makes the whole thing gravy. Schools spend money, yes, in order to promote themselves in the general consciousness of the populace. Success increase applications. Success creates a common bond among students and also among the wider community. All of that produces alumni who will give back to the school over time and probably send their kids there if possible. The whole thing is about self-perpetuation. As the old saying goes, if you're not growing then you're shrinking. College sports is just a creative way to accomplish a very basic mission to exist.

Anyway, my thought on why conferences or schools might be a little picky at times is they want that exposure to be maximized. All the schools have the same goal, but conferences want to include schools that raise the tide for everyone, so to speak. Otherwise, there could be a net negative effect. Schools might be selective insofar as they don't want their exposure to suffer by partnering with schools that drag down their averages. A conference will make an effort to promote the whole in addition to promoting the individual member. So it's important to be selective in how you utilize that time, energy, and currency. Flagships and elite privates make great partners because of the synergy that leads to the broadest exposure possible.

As I said earlier, flagships are the focal points for economic and political power in their states and communities. Elite privates fall into that category as well although their influence can be more diffused or perhaps specialized. These are also the schools with the best funding mechanisms and the innate ability over time to raise their academic profile.

As wise people have often said, correlation is not causation. When people say that schools don't move to "lesser" academic conferences, they've missed the forest for the trees. Schools don't move to conferences that create a net negative effect on their ability to self-perpetuate because that's what administrators have to concern themselves with unless they want to make budget cuts or if they want to keep their job.

(07-20-2023 09:52 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I've said it before, but it still blows my mind how massive the outsized value USC/UCLA had on the Pac-12 vs. anyone in the Big 12.

Consider: Colorado left the Big 12 first of all schools. Five more will have left by July 2024. Put more bluntly, every school that has any shot at going to the Big Two (i.e., SEC or B1G), has left.

Then USC/UCLA leave the Pac-12. All of a sudden despite losing just two schools in the Pac-12 compared to the five others in the Big 12, despite the fact that the roster will be 50% backfill compared to the lineup it had when CU was there, AND despite the fact the Pac-12 has 8 of its 10 remaining members as AAU members (vs. only Kansas in the Big 12), the Big 12 is now possibly the more desirable league. Remarkable.

Location and markets.

In the southern US, football is a religion. In the left coast? Not so much. Again, which viable replacements for those schools does PAC have? SDSU or SMU, Fresno? Boise? None of those were at the top of the list for the B12 last expansion round.

You are also still dismissing the fact that multiple PAC schools may soon be in the B1G. Well, maybe not so soon. How many B12 schools are wanted by the P2?