Currentlly only two programs make any sense for the SEC. These programs are Cincinnatti and East Carolina. My reasons for them are simple. Both are in populated states and both have a large student enrollment. If both agreed to have their sports aired only on the SEC network. Then the SEC could capitalize on their states population and could also add additional bowl games to the conference line up.

(04-23-2013 10:54 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Currentlly only two programs make any sense for the SEC. These programs are Cincinnatti and East Carolina. My reasons for them are simple. Both are in populated states and both have a large student enrollment. If both agreed to have their sports aired only on the SEC network. Then the SEC could capitalize on their states population and could also add additional bowl games to the conference line up.

I know most people find it ludicrous HH, but I've always thought ECU and the SEC made sense for a lot of reasons, the two biggest being the fact that the SEC wants into North Carolina and ECU is a football first school in a football rabid city like many of the SEC schools.
Having said that though, NCSU and Va Tech make the most sense for the SEC, but with all the GORs now in place, it definitely makes me wonder what the SEC would do if they ever wanted to make a move to 16.

(04-23-2013 10:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:04 AM)lew240z Wrote:  Air Force will never go to the Big 12. They can't recruit at that level and don't want the future Air Force officers getting beaten up trying to play at that level.

Missouri is not leaving the SEC. There is no longer any desire to be in the BiG. No one at UM gives a hot bucket what KU does and the feeling is mutual.

None of the OP's candidates for the PAC will ever get an invitation. No Cal State school will ever be acceptable to Cal and UCLA. Boise is viewed as a jumped up junior college. BYU will never be forgiven for the Mormon funding of the opposition to homosexual marriage.

The most likely candidate for the PAC or Big 12 is Colorado State. The are building a new stadium and have greatly raised the budget for coaches salaries. Also, CSU gets enough in the way of research grants to make the PAC happy.

I do not get the appeal of Colorado State to the PAC, but a lot of people from that region trumpet them, so I won't poo poo it. However, what do they add that is not already provided by UC-Boulder? I know pickings are slim out there. If they were to double up in that market, I think the PAC would like to see Wyoming devote the next decade to improving their overall brand and adding that flagship down the road instead of another state school. Wyoming is really not that far off from Utah right now other than not being in a population growth trend. Wyoming is #156 academic, $30 mil revenue. Utah is #125 academic, $46 mil revenue, but that number was $38 mil last year (bump to the PAC surely helped.) Wyoming does not have any other state schools to funnel away dollars or attention. I'm not for the PAC adding them straight up, but they seem like a more sensible add in the coming decades rather than Colorado State.

Curious... why do small population states like New Mexico, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana continue to operate two large schools that are mediocre in almost everything (academics, athletics, research, etc.) but not great in anything for an extended period? It seems they would want a singular great school as the flagship and treat the state school as the complement, similar to how MO, MN, WI, IL, WA, OR and a number of other states operate. If those Western states would make that concerted effort and get their flagships into the top 100 academically, raise their research and athletic profiles, and build a brand that had the whole state behind them, I'm sure the PAC would love it. They just all seem content to have two schools that are both outside the top 150 academically, revenues between 20-40 mil, and can never get over the hump to becoming elite.

The possible appeal CSU to the PAC is its research status. That is more important to the PAC than athletics. CSU's research grants are actually slightly bigger than CU-Boulder but less than half of the University of Colorado system. CSU has more grads in the Denver market than CU.

With regards to Wyoming, its research is a fraction of CSU's. Its athletics are usually worse, too. Wyoming has a smaller population than the city of Denver, and about one seventh of the population of Metro Denver. The last I checked the population of Wyoming was about 505,000. And that is divided up into seven TV markets. Western Wyoming is in the Salt Lake City market. Northwest WY in in the Idaho Fall, ID market. Northern WY is in the Billings, Montana market. Rapid City, SD covers the northeast. The Cheyenne market includes western Nebraska. Only the Casper market is completely in the state. And Laramie, the home of UW is in the Denver market. UW is actually lucky to be in the Mountain West even though they were one of the gang of five at the Stapleton Airport meeting.

The expansion derby just ended with the ACC GoR...

(04-23-2013 12:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  The expansion derby just ended with the ACC GoR...

The sunbelt still has a move to make to cover the loss of WKU

(04-23-2013 10:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Curious... why do small population states like New Mexico, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana continue to operate two large schools that are mediocre in almost everything (academics, athletics, research, etc.) but not great in anything for an extended period? It seems they would want a singular great school as the flagship and treat the state school as the complement, similar to how MO, MN, WI, IL, WA, OR and a number of other states operate. If those Western states would make that concerted effort and get their flagships into the top 100 academically, raise their research and athletic profiles, and build a brand that had the whole state behind them, I'm sure the PAC would love it. They just all seem content to have two schools that are both outside the top 150 academically, revenues between 20-40 mil, and can never get over the hump to becoming elite.

This largely goes back to the Morrill Act in 1862 and the creation of "land grant" universities. Land grant universities, which include agricultural studies as part of their original focus, were established in rural parts of states, away from population centers which often had their own Universities.
Examples:
UW (Seatle)/WSU-lg- (Pullman)
BSU (Boise)/Idaho-lg- (Moscow)
Utah (SLC)/USU-lg- (Logan)
UNM (ABQ)/NMSU-lg- (Las Cruces)
GT (Atl)/UGA-lg-(Athens)

This is entirely manageable for more populated states, but does split resources in less populous states. Often the LG school will have very strong engineering or other programs while the non-LG school will house the med school, life sciences, law, etc. programs. This makes merger impractical because there is less redundancy at the academic departmental level.

(04-23-2013 11:07 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:54 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Currentlly only two programs make any sense for the SEC. These programs are Cincinnatti and East Carolina. My reasons for them are simple. Both are in populated states and both have a large student enrollment. If both agreed to have their sports aired only on the SEC network. Then the SEC could capitalize on their states population and could also add additional bowl games to the conference line up.

I know most people find it ludicrous HH, but I've always thought ECU and the SEC made sense for a lot of reasons, the two biggest being the fact that the SEC wants into North Carolina and ECU is a football first school in a football rabid city like many of the SEC schools.
Having said that though, NCSU and Va Tech make the most sense for the SEC, but with all the GORs now in place, it definitely makes me wonder what the SEC would do if they ever wanted to make a move to 16.

You guys definitely helped your chances haha

I don't think the PAC would go to 16, unless somehow the college landscape changed where they all decided that there would ONLY be five conferences and each league would HAVE to have 16 teams. I don't see that happening. The PAC won't expand unless there's a significant upside in cash. Right now, adding SDSU, BYU, Boise and UNLV does nothing for them but add mouths to feed. I think the Texhoma deal from a couple of years ago was the last time the PAC will ever consider expanding.

Basically...I don't we'll ever see four or five 16 team conferences, imo.

(04-23-2013 10:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Curious... why do small population states like New Mexico, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana continue to operate two large schools that are mediocre in almost everything (academics, athletics, research, etc.) but not great in anything for an extended period? It seems they would want a singular great school as the flagship and treat the state school as the complement, similar to how MO, MN, WI, IL, WA, OR and a number of other states operate. If those Western states would make that concerted effort and get their flagships into the top 100 academically, raise their research and athletic profiles, and build a brand that had the whole state behind them, I'm sure the PAC would love it. They just all seem content to have two schools that are both outside the top 150 academically, revenues between 20-40 mil, and can never get over the hump to becoming elite.

This largely goes back to the Morrill Act in 1862 and the creation of "land grant" universities. Land grant universities, which include agricultural studies as part of their original focus, were established in rural parts of states, away from population centers which often had their own Universities.
Examples:
UW (Seatle)/WSU-lg- (Pullman)
BSU (Boise)/Idaho-lg- (Moscow)
Utah (SLC)/USU-lg- (Logan)
UNM (ABQ)/NMSU-lg- (Las Cruces)
GT (Atl)/UGA-lg-(Athens)

This is entirely manageable for more populated states, but does split resources in less populous states. Often the LG school will have very strong engineering or other programs while the non-LG school will house the med school, life sciences, law, etc. programs. This makes merger impractical because there is less redundancy at the academic departmental level.

Good explanation. I understood the landgrant/rural idea but was not sure about departmental redundancy.