(06-15-2018 10:08 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:51 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 04:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boise State is not a small market anymore. That town is still growing, and becoming a metro in the state of Idaho. They seemed to be the only one who have been good on tv ratings, football and basketball. Better than the rest of the MWC. PAC 12 might need to stretch out like get Hawaii so that they can reach the east Asia and Australia tv market. Now, the issue with the PAC 12 is that they are stuck in expansion with MWC, big Sky, Big West, WCC, WAC or C-USA schools. They could try and get Houston as well.

Even with the growth, Boise's market is still small time. The PAC can't lure Texas, Oklahoma or any other Big 12 program. The only real options for them are big Texas universities in big Texas markets. Houston is their best option right now, but they need a partner.

The only other larger Texas universities in large markets are North Texas, UTEP, and UTSA. None of the three currently have similar budget numbers or the recent history of success on the field that Houston does. Of the three named, North Texas is closest in budget, winning, student enrollment, and alumni size. None of the PAC's Texas options, including Houston, have the academics desired by the PAC, and I know at least Houston and North Texas are both Tier 1 research universities. I just don't see the PAC ready to expand with these options. 5 or 10 years down the road, they may feel differently, or have better options.

I know Rice is openly campaigning for a spot in the PAC. They are the only Texas university with the academics the PAC is looking for, but they are a very small private school with a very small alumni base. In the Houston market, U of H just makes more sense.

Source?

My brother is a Rice season ticket holder. His wife works at Rice and in her job she works with the athletic department. Rice wants very badly to move to the PAC. Having said that, the PAC doesn't view Rice as an option right now.

Because of this, I have an idea about what it might take to gain the PAC's interest. I think two large Texas universities with athletic budgets in the neighborhood of $60-$65 million and board approved plans for stadium expansion, would show a real commitment, and be hard for the PAC to pass up, even if the academics are not at the level the PAC would like. Houston is only a few million from reaching the athletic budget number, and has a nice new stadium that I'm sure they can expand. North Texas is still about $25 million away from reaching the athletic budget number, but that could change within the next few years. UNT's athletic department is growing revenue at a very fast rate (more then doubled our athletic budget within the past 8 years). North Texas also has a nice new stadium and plans for expanding it.

North Texas moves NO needles ... NO one cares NO one goes ... Rice has been rumored to be a Big 12 addition for Baseball Only ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-15-2018 12:44 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Don’t really see both the big 12 and pac 12 dissolve, than rebuild with the top tier since it’s much easier to just merge. Got to believe it’s a Texas group headed to the pac rather than pac schools going to the big 12. Also, not even sure if 2 from byu, Boise, unlv and col state would work as well as arizonia schools for the big 12. Bottom line, if you put Texas and 3 or 5 big 12 schools in the pac 12, they would be $ fine

The PAC can’t really expand with a Texas cohort and remain the PAC.

As stated best by Frank, the non-California schools, even though they are in separate states are basically part of the larger California economy which is why CA is home to so many alumni (and disproportionately wealthy ones) of non-CA PAC schools. $5M in TV contracts (or even $20M) is small potatoes compared to the financial benefits these schools see as a result of the high CA visibility that PAC membership engenders.

Adding Texas and friends to the existing PAC membership effectively pulls the Eastern Division schools out of California because their greatly reduced cross division games are being spent in Washington and Oregon as much as California. It essentially would take AZ, ASU, CU, and UU our of the PAC. It would also mean that UT and friends would have few matchups with USC and UCLA which would basically be the draw for them joining the PAC.

So as long as we’re playing fantasy realignment, I would say that their are some unbreakable rules for the PAC:
1) the California schools have to play round robin.
2) every current PAC school in the new alignment has to play 2 PAC-California schools per year (Home and Away) at minimum.
3) USC has to have enough OOC games to play ND.

Any fantasy that checks those boxes has at least some modicum of plausibility.

(06-15-2018 02:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:44 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Don’t really see both the big 12 and pac 12 dissolve, than rebuild with the top tier since it’s much easier to just merge. Got to believe it’s a Texas group headed to the pac rather than pac schools going to the big 12. Also, not even sure if 2 from byu, Boise, unlv and col state would work as well as arizonia schools for the big 12. Bottom line, if you put Texas and 3 or 5 big 12 schools in the pac 12, they would be $ fine

The PAC can’t really expand with a Texas cohort and remain the PAC.

As stated best by Frank, the non-California schools, even though they are in separate states are basically part of the larger California economy which is why CA is home to so many alumni (and disproportionately wealthy ones) of non-CA PAC schools. $5M in TV contracts (or even $20M) is small potatoes compared to the financial benefits these schools see as a result of the high CA visibility that PAC membership engenders.

Adding Texas and friends to the existing PAC membership effectively pulls the Eastern Division schools out of California because their greatly reduced cross division games are being spent in Washington and Oregon as much as California. It essentially would take AZ, ASU, CU, and UU our of the PAC. It would also mean that UT and friends would have few matchups with USC and UCLA which would basically be the draw for them joining the PAC.

So as long as we’re playing fantasy realignment, I would say that their are some unbreakable rules for the PAC:
1) the California schools have to play round robin.
2) every current PAC school in the new alignment has to play 2 PAC-California schools per year (Home and Away) at minimum.
3) USC has to have enough OOC games to play ND.

Any fantasy that checks those boxes has at least some modicum of plausibility.

Pods solve your scheduling problem.

(06-15-2018 01:48 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 10:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 10:12 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 04:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boise State is not a small market anymore. That town is still growing, and becoming a metro in the state of Idaho. They seemed to be the only one who have been good on tv ratings, football and basketball. Better than the rest of the MWC. PAC 12 might need to stretch out like get Hawaii so that they can reach the east Asia and Australia tv market. Now, the issue with the PAC 12 is that they are stuck in expansion with MWC, big Sky, Big West, WCC, WAC or C-USA schools. They could try and get Houston as well.

Boise TV market is #112 in the nation. The entire population of Idaho is about the same size as Providence, Rhode Island metro area.

You have no clue about market size at all.

I am talking about the northwest, not the whole country. Boise is one of the largest up there. Boise also have a nationwide audience as well because of their win against Oklahoma. That win ranks inside the top 5 upset win in bowl history. Boise have the fans from other schools root for them when they play against their enemies. And, they get the respect that they can beat P5 schools.

Ehh at least for me Boise St's appeal is that they're a giant killer from the group of 5. If Boise St did get in a power conference I would have no interest in watching them unless they were competing for a championship.

That appeal is that they were once a giant killer. The further removed they get from that moment, the less their appeal is. Now, they are merely one of the two best programs in a weak G5 conference. Their window of opportunity is closed, probably for at least my lifetime and likely forever.

(06-15-2018 02:31 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:44 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Don’t really see both the big 12 and pac 12 dissolve, than rebuild with the top tier since it’s much easier to just merge. Got to believe it’s a Texas group headed to the pac rather than pac schools going to the big 12. Also, not even sure if 2 from byu, Boise, unlv and col state would work as well as arizonia schools for the big 12. Bottom line, if you put Texas and 3 or 5 big 12 schools in the pac 12, they would be $ fine

The PAC can’t really expand with a Texas cohort and remain the PAC.

As stated best by Frank, the non-California schools, even though they are in separate states are basically part of the larger California economy which is why CA is home to so many alumni (and disproportionately wealthy ones) of non-CA PAC schools. $5M in TV contracts (or even $20M) is small potatoes compared to the financial benefits these schools see as a result of the high CA visibility that PAC membership engenders.

Adding Texas and friends to the existing PAC membership effectively pulls the Eastern Division schools out of California because their greatly reduced cross division games are being spent in Washington and Oregon as much as California. It essentially would take AZ, ASU, CU, and UU our of the PAC. It would also mean that UT and friends would have few matchups with USC and UCLA which would basically be the draw for them joining the PAC.

So as long as we’re playing fantasy realignment, I would say that their are some unbreakable rules for the PAC:
1) the California schools have to play round robin.
2) every current PAC school in the new alignment has to play 2 PAC-California schools per year (Home and Away) at minimum.
3) USC has to have enough OOC games to play ND.

Any fantasy that checks those boxes has at least some modicum of plausibility.

Pods solve your scheduling problem.

But it doesn't solve the problem that the Four Corners pod have enough votes to keep the Texas pod out. Or the corrolary problem that, if the Four Corners pod were for some reason (like a collective brain freeze) to let them in, then the Four Corners schools lose any leverage they now have, because the other three pods can always outvote them.

(06-15-2018 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:31 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:44 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Don’t really see both the big 12 and pac 12 dissolve, than rebuild with the top tier since it’s much easier to just merge. Got to believe it’s a Texas group headed to the pac rather than pac schools going to the big 12. Also, not even sure if 2 from byu, Boise, unlv and col state would work as well as arizonia schools for the big 12. Bottom line, if you put Texas and 3 or 5 big 12 schools in the pac 12, they would be $ fine

The PAC can’t really expand with a Texas cohort and remain the PAC.

As stated best by Frank, the non-California schools, even though they are in separate states are basically part of the larger California economy which is why CA is home to so many alumni (and disproportionately wealthy ones) of non-CA PAC schools. $5M in TV contracts (or even $20M) is small potatoes compared to the financial benefits these schools see as a result of the high CA visibility that PAC membership engenders.

Adding Texas and friends to the existing PAC membership effectively pulls the Eastern Division schools out of California because their greatly reduced cross division games are being spent in Washington and Oregon as much as California. It essentially would take AZ, ASU, CU, and UU our of the PAC. It would also mean that UT and friends would have few matchups with USC and UCLA which would basically be the draw for them joining the PAC.

So as long as we’re playing fantasy realignment, I would say that their are some unbreakable rules for the PAC:
1) the California schools have to play round robin.
2) every current PAC school in the new alignment has to play 2 PAC-California schools per year (Home and Away) at minimum.
3) USC has to have enough OOC games to play ND.

Any fantasy that checks those boxes has at least some modicum of plausibility.

Pods solve your scheduling problem.

But it doesn't solve the problem that the Four Corners pod have enough votes to keep the Texas pod out.

The State of California is in BIG trouble .. Illegal Aliens are running rampant .. Politicians are fighting to see who can sound more ignorant than Maxine Waters .. Texas wants NO part of California ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-15-2018 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:31 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:44 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Don’t really see both the big 12 and pac 12 dissolve, than rebuild with the top tier since it’s much easier to just merge. Got to believe it’s a Texas group headed to the pac rather than pac schools going to the big 12. Also, not even sure if 2 from byu, Boise, unlv and col state would work as well as arizonia schools for the big 12. Bottom line, if you put Texas and 3 or 5 big 12 schools in the pac 12, they would be $ fine

The PAC can’t really expand with a Texas cohort and remain the PAC.

As stated best by Frank, the non-California schools, even though they are in separate states are basically part of the larger California economy which is why CA is home to so many alumni (and disproportionately wealthy ones) of non-CA PAC schools. $5M in TV contracts (or even $20M) is small potatoes compared to the financial benefits these schools see as a result of the high CA visibility that PAC membership engenders.

Adding Texas and friends to the existing PAC membership effectively pulls the Eastern Division schools out of California because their greatly reduced cross division games are being spent in Washington and Oregon as much as California. It essentially would take AZ, ASU, CU, and UU our of the PAC. It would also mean that UT and friends would have few matchups with USC and UCLA which would basically be the draw for them joining the PAC.

So as long as we’re playing fantasy realignment, I would say that their are some unbreakable rules for the PAC:
1) the California schools have to play round robin.
2) every current PAC school in the new alignment has to play 2 PAC-California schools per year (Home and Away) at minimum.
3) USC has to have enough OOC games to play ND.

Any fantasy that checks those boxes has at least some modicum of plausibility.

Pods solve your scheduling problem.

But it doesn't solve the problem that the Four Corners pod have enough votes to keep the Texas pod out.

Sure, but if they're not being permanently relegated to an eastern division, there's much less to object to.

(06-15-2018 02:52 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:31 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:44 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Don’t really see both the big 12 and pac 12 dissolve, than rebuild with the top tier since it’s much easier to just merge. Got to believe it’s a Texas group headed to the pac rather than pac schools going to the big 12. Also, not even sure if 2 from byu, Boise, unlv and col state would work as well as arizonia schools for the big 12. Bottom line, if you put Texas and 3 or 5 big 12 schools in the pac 12, they would be $ fine

The PAC can’t really expand with a Texas cohort and remain the PAC.

As stated best by Frank, the non-California schools, even though they are in separate states are basically part of the larger California economy which is why CA is home to so many alumni (and disproportionately wealthy ones) of non-CA PAC schools. $5M in TV contracts (or even $20M) is small potatoes compared to the financial benefits these schools see as a result of the high CA visibility that PAC membership engenders.

Adding Texas and friends to the existing PAC membership effectively pulls the Eastern Division schools out of California because their greatly reduced cross division games are being spent in Washington and Oregon as much as California. It essentially would take AZ, ASU, CU, and UU our of the PAC. It would also mean that UT and friends would have few matchups with USC and UCLA which would basically be the draw for them joining the PAC.

So as long as we’re playing fantasy realignment, I would say that their are some unbreakable rules for the PAC:
1) the California schools have to play round robin.
2) every current PAC school in the new alignment has to play 2 PAC-California schools per year (Home and Away) at minimum.
3) USC has to have enough OOC games to play ND.

Any fantasy that checks those boxes has at least some modicum of plausibility.

Pods solve your scheduling problem.

But it doesn't solve the problem that the Four Corners pod have enough votes to keep the Texas pod out.

The State of California is in BIG trouble .. Illegal Aliens are running rampant .. Politicians are fighting to see who can sound more ignorant than Maxine Waters .. Texas wants NO part of California ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Besides the fact that this is one-hundred percent false, keep political rants like this out of here.

(06-15-2018 02:16 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 10:08 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:51 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 04:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boise State is not a small market anymore. That town is still growing, and becoming a metro in the state of Idaho. They seemed to be the only one who have been good on tv ratings, football and basketball. Better than the rest of the MWC. PAC 12 might need to stretch out like get Hawaii so that they can reach the east Asia and Australia tv market. Now, the issue with the PAC 12 is that they are stuck in expansion with MWC, big Sky, Big West, WCC, WAC or C-USA schools. They could try and get Houston as well.

Even with the growth, Boise's market is still small time. The PAC can't lure Texas, Oklahoma or any other Big 12 program. The only real options for them are big Texas universities in big Texas markets. Houston is their best option right now, but they need a partner.

The only other larger Texas universities in large markets are North Texas, UTEP, and UTSA. None of the three currently have similar budget numbers or the recent history of success on the field that Houston does. Of the three named, North Texas is closest in budget, winning, student enrollment, and alumni size. None of the PAC's Texas options, including Houston, have the academics desired by the PAC, and I know at least Houston and North Texas are both Tier 1 research universities. I just don't see the PAC ready to expand with these options. 5 or 10 years down the road, they may feel differently, or have better options.

I know Rice is openly campaigning for a spot in the PAC. They are the only Texas university with the academics the PAC is looking for, but they are a very small private school with a very small alumni base. In the Houston market, U of H just makes more sense.

Source?

My brother is a Rice season ticket holder. His wife works at Rice and in her job she works with the athletic department. Rice wants very badly to move to the PAC. Having said that, the PAC doesn't view Rice as an option right now.

Because of this, I have an idea about what it might take to gain the PAC's interest. I think two large Texas universities with athletic budgets in the neighborhood of $60-$65 million and board approved plans for stadium expansion, would show a real commitment, and be hard for the PAC to pass up, even if the academics are not at the level the PAC would like. Houston is only a few million from reaching the athletic budget number, and has a nice new stadium that I'm sure they can expand. North Texas is still about $25 million away from reaching the athletic budget number, but that could change within the next few years. UNT's athletic department is growing revenue at a very fast rate (more then doubled our athletic budget within the past 8 years). North Texas also has a nice new stadium and plans for expanding it.

North Texas moves NO needles ... NO one cares NO one goes ... Rice has been rumored to be a Big 12 addition for Baseball Only ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old North Texas athletics was bad, but things are changing. I agree, right now UNT isn't an option for the PAC, but with another 10 years of growth and on the field success, they could be.

Remember, North Texas is growing their athletic budget at a faster rate then any other program in C-USA, and probably at one of the fastest rates among all of the G5s. North Texas is also building and renovating facilities at a pace faster then most in the G5. As we argue, North Texas is building a new track and soccer facility, expanding their alumni pavilion at Apogee Stadium, constructing new basketball offices at the Super Pit, installing new turf at Apogee, and preparing to break ground on a new indoor practice facility. And, more is on the way.

You can dismiss what North Texas is building if you choose, but it won't change the fact that things are improving in every area of athletics, and down the road others will probably take notice.

(06-15-2018 02:55 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:31 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:44 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Don’t really see both the big 12 and pac 12 dissolve, than rebuild with the top tier since it’s much easier to just merge. Got to believe it’s a Texas group headed to the pac rather than pac schools going to the big 12. Also, not even sure if 2 from byu, Boise, unlv and col state would work as well as arizonia schools for the big 12. Bottom line, if you put Texas and 3 or 5 big 12 schools in the pac 12, they would be $ fine

The PAC can’t really expand with a Texas cohort and remain the PAC.

As stated best by Frank, the non-California schools, even though they are in separate states are basically part of the larger California economy which is why CA is home to so many alumni (and disproportionately wealthy ones) of non-CA PAC schools. $5M in TV contracts (or even $20M) is small potatoes compared to the financial benefits these schools see as a result of the high CA visibility that PAC membership engenders.

Adding Texas and friends to the existing PAC membership effectively pulls the Eastern Division schools out of California because their greatly reduced cross division games are being spent in Washington and Oregon as much as California. It essentially would take AZ, ASU, CU, and UU our of the PAC. It would also mean that UT and friends would have few matchups with USC and UCLA which would basically be the draw for them joining the PAC.

So as long as we’re playing fantasy realignment, I would say that their are some unbreakable rules for the PAC:
1) the California schools have to play round robin.
2) every current PAC school in the new alignment has to play 2 PAC-California schools per year (Home and Away) at minimum.
3) USC has to have enough OOC games to play ND.

Any fantasy that checks those boxes has at least some modicum of plausibility.

Pods solve your scheduling problem.

But it doesn't solve the problem that the Four Corners pod have enough votes to keep the Texas pod out.

Sure, but if they're not being permanently relegated to an eastern division, there's much less to object to.

In a pod system the SW schools who currently play both USC and UCLA annually are reduced to playing each school twice every 4 years and in exchange also play Texas twice every 4 years. That is devastating for those SW schools and it puts the NW schools in just as bad a position. That’s 8 “no” votes for expansion with Texas and friends. Unless the money is huge.

(06-15-2018 03:39 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:16 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 10:08 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:51 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Even with the growth, Boise's market is still small time. The PAC can't lure Texas, Oklahoma or any other Big 12 program. The only real options for them are big Texas universities in big Texas markets. Houston is their best option right now, but they need a partner.

The only other larger Texas universities in large markets are North Texas, UTEP, and UTSA. None of the three currently have similar budget numbers or the recent history of success on the field that Houston does. Of the three named, North Texas is closest in budget, winning, student enrollment, and alumni size. None of the PAC's Texas options, including Houston, have the academics desired by the PAC, and I know at least Houston and North Texas are both Tier 1 research universities. I just don't see the PAC ready to expand with these options. 5 or 10 years down the road, they may feel differently, or have better options.

I know Rice is openly campaigning for a spot in the PAC. They are the only Texas university with the academics the PAC is looking for, but they are a very small private school with a very small alumni base. In the Houston market, U of H just makes more sense.

Source?

My brother is a Rice season ticket holder. His wife works at Rice and in her job she works with the athletic department. Rice wants very badly to move to the PAC. Having said that, the PAC doesn't view Rice as an option right now.

Because of this, I have an idea about what it might take to gain the PAC's interest. I think two large Texas universities with athletic budgets in the neighborhood of $60-$65 million and board approved plans for stadium expansion, would show a real commitment, and be hard for the PAC to pass up, even if the academics are not at the level the PAC would like. Houston is only a few million from reaching the athletic budget number, and has a nice new stadium that I'm sure they can expand. North Texas is still about $25 million away from reaching the athletic budget number, but that could change within the next few years. UNT's athletic department is growing revenue at a very fast rate (more then doubled our athletic budget within the past 8 years). North Texas also has a nice new stadium and plans for expanding it.

North Texas moves NO needles ... NO one cares NO one goes ... Rice has been rumored to be a Big 12 addition for Baseball Only ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old North Texas athletics was bad, but things are changing. I agree, right now UNT isn't an option for the PAC, but with another 10 years of growth and on the field success, they could be.

Remember, North Texas is growing their athletic budget at a faster rate then any other program in C-USA, and probably at one of the fastest rates among all of the G5s. North Texas is also building and renovating facilities at a pace faster then most in the G5. As we argue, North Texas is building a new track and soccer facility, expanding their alumni pavilion at Apogee Stadium, constructing new basketball offices at the Super Pit, installing new turf at Apogee, and preparing to break ground on a new indoor practice facility. And, more is on the way.

You can dismiss what North Texas is building if you choose, but it won't change the fact that things are improving in every area of athletics, and down the road others will probably take notice.

The PAC is just as much an academic conference with academics being weighted heavily toward research. A $60M athletic budget means nothing if your school’s annual research budget is also $60M (NT is actually $37M). Washington State is over $300M at the bottom of the PAC. In fact if any BigXII members were to join the PAC to make a PAC13, here’s how they’d rank in research activity:
UT 6/13
OU 12/13
KU 12/13
Everybody else 13/13.

(06-15-2018 03:39 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:16 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 10:08 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:51 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Even with the growth, Boise's market is still small time. The PAC can't lure Texas, Oklahoma or any other Big 12 program. The only real options for them are big Texas universities in big Texas markets. Houston is their best option right now, but they need a partner.

The only other larger Texas universities in large markets are North Texas, UTEP, and UTSA. None of the three currently have similar budget numbers or the recent history of success on the field that Houston does. Of the three named, North Texas is closest in budget, winning, student enrollment, and alumni size. None of the PAC's Texas options, including Houston, have the academics desired by the PAC, and I know at least Houston and North Texas are both Tier 1 research universities. I just don't see the PAC ready to expand with these options. 5 or 10 years down the road, they may feel differently, or have better options.

I know Rice is openly campaigning for a spot in the PAC. They are the only Texas university with the academics the PAC is looking for, but they are a very small private school with a very small alumni base. In the Houston market, U of H just makes more sense.

Source?

My brother is a Rice season ticket holder. His wife works at Rice and in her job she works with the athletic department. Rice wants very badly to move to the PAC. Having said that, the PAC doesn't view Rice as an option right now.

Because of this, I have an idea about what it might take to gain the PAC's interest. I think two large Texas universities with athletic budgets in the neighborhood of $60-$65 million and board approved plans for stadium expansion, would show a real commitment, and be hard for the PAC to pass up, even if the academics are not at the level the PAC would like. Houston is only a few million from reaching the athletic budget number, and has a nice new stadium that I'm sure they can expand. North Texas is still about $25 million away from reaching the athletic budget number, but that could change within the next few years. UNT's athletic department is growing revenue at a very fast rate (more then doubled our athletic budget within the past 8 years). North Texas also has a nice new stadium and plans for expanding it.

North Texas moves NO needles ... NO one cares NO one goes ... Rice has been rumored to be a Big 12 addition for Baseball Only ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old North Texas athletics was bad, but things are changing. I agree, right now UNT isn't an option for the PAC, but with another 10 years of growth and on the field success, they could be.

Remember, North Texas is growing their athletic budget at a faster rate then any other program in C-USA, and probably at one of the fastest rates among all of the G5s. North Texas is also building and renovating facilities at a pace faster then most in the G5. As we argue, North Texas is building a new track and soccer facility, expanding their alumni pavilion at Apogee Stadium, constructing new basketball offices at the Super Pit, installing new turf at Apogee, and preparing to break ground on a new indoor practice facility. And, more is on the way.

You can dismiss what North Texas is building if you choose, but it won't change the fact that things are improving in every area of athletics, and down the road others will probably take notice.

They would take SMU before UNT regardless. Maybe if football could win a bowl game and not lose to mediocre FCS teams by 60 points they'll consider.

(06-15-2018 11:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 10:08 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:51 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 04:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boise State is not a small market anymore. That town is still growing, and becoming a metro in the state of Idaho. They seemed to be the only one who have been good on tv ratings, football and basketball. Better than the rest of the MWC. PAC 12 might need to stretch out like get Hawaii so that they can reach the east Asia and Australia tv market. Now, the issue with the PAC 12 is that they are stuck in expansion with MWC, big Sky, Big West, WCC, WAC or C-USA schools. They could try and get Houston as well.

Even with the growth, Boise's market is still small time. The PAC can't lure Texas, Oklahoma or any other Big 12 program. The only real options for them are big Texas universities in big Texas markets. Houston is their best option right now, but they need a partner.

The only other larger Texas universities in large markets are North Texas, UTEP, and UTSA. None of the three currently have similar budget numbers or the recent history of success on the field that Houston does. Of the three named, North Texas is closest in budget, winning, student enrollment, and alumni size. None of the PAC's Texas options, including Houston, have the academics desired by the PAC, and I know at least Houston and North Texas are both Tier 1 research universities. I just don't see the PAC ready to expand with these options. 5 or 10 years down the road, they may feel differently, or have better options.

I know Rice is openly campaigning for a spot in the PAC. They are the only Texas university with the academics the PAC is looking for, but they are a very small private school with a very small alumni base. In the Houston market, U of H just makes more sense.

Source?

My brother is a Rice season ticket holder. His wife works at Rice and in her job she works with the athletic department. Rice wants very badly to move to the PAC. Having said that, the PAC doesn't view Rice as an option right now.

Because of this, I have an idea about what it might take to gain the PAC's interest. I think two large Texas universities with athletic budgets in the neighborhood of $60-$65 million and board approved plans for stadium expansion, would show a real commitment, and be hard for the PAC to pass up, even if the academics are not at the level the PAC would like. Houston is only a few million from reaching the athletic budget number, and has a nice new stadium that I'm sure they can expand. North Texas is still about $25 million away from reaching the athletic budget number, but that could change within the next few years. UNT's athletic department is growing revenue at a very fast rate (more then doubled our athletic budget within the past 8 years). North Texas also has a nice new stadium and plans for expanding it.

TDECU is expandable to 60K. My feeling is that the Pac12 knows they need the Texas market to be competitive in revenue long term. Other than California---their footprint is pretty lightly populated and they have multiple teams in multiple small states. Due to geography, Texas is the only place in the west where the Pac12 can pick enough population to make a difference.

They know all this. They know Houston and another Texas school could adequately work long term (the association would obviously make these added schools even more popular in the state over time). But---thats a fall back position. They want the Longorns. When it comes to UT, the Pac12 is like Ahab and the White Whale. I think they were intending to make one more run at UT in 2023-2024. But....I believe they thought the Pac12 Network would be doing much better than it is by now. If the disparity continues to grow as predicted, they may start second guessing waiting that long. Frankly, I dont think Texas will end up leaving the Big12. The Big12 fits them well and having just 10 members has made B12 membership quite lucrative for Texas (especially when you consider the extra bucks from the LHN--which the Pac12 would never allow).

I agree, the PAC wants Texas. And, I agree, they will never get them.

At some point in the next 10 years, I expect the PAC to move to plan "B". I think the Big 12's media deal runs through 2024. So, they should sign their new deal before that one ends (2022-23). When Texas signs on to the next deal, the PAC will probably give up on their dreams of adding Texas. When that happens the PAC will probably look at other Texas options. I think they realize the PAC becomes a much more lucrative conference if they can claim the 5th and 7th largest media markets in America. Also, their ability to host a few more early kickoff in the central time zone should increase their value too. And, playing in Texas is always good for recruiting.

At that point the only real Texas options for the PAC are in Houston, DFW, and San Antonio. Enrollment, alumni numbers, athletic budgets, on the field success, and facilities will determine which two programs get the call. I think Houston will be a lock. And, right now, I'd say North Texas is in the lead for the other spot.

If the PAC is going to move on a couple of Texas programs, I think we will hear rumblings by 2023, and the likely candidates will be known by 2026. Just my opinion.

(06-15-2018 04:05 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:39 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:16 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 10:08 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Source?

My brother is a Rice season ticket holder. His wife works at Rice and in her job she works with the athletic department. Rice wants very badly to move to the PAC. Having said that, the PAC doesn't view Rice as an option right now.

Because of this, I have an idea about what it might take to gain the PAC's interest. I think two large Texas universities with athletic budgets in the neighborhood of $60-$65 million and board approved plans for stadium expansion, would show a real commitment, and be hard for the PAC to pass up, even if the academics are not at the level the PAC would like. Houston is only a few million from reaching the athletic budget number, and has a nice new stadium that I'm sure they can expand. North Texas is still about $25 million away from reaching the athletic budget number, but that could change within the next few years. UNT's athletic department is growing revenue at a very fast rate (more then doubled our athletic budget within the past 8 years). North Texas also has a nice new stadium and plans for expanding it.

North Texas moves NO needles ... NO one cares NO one goes ... Rice has been rumored to be a Big 12 addition for Baseball Only ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old North Texas athletics was bad, but things are changing. I agree, right now UNT isn't an option for the PAC, but with another 10 years of growth and on the field success, they could be.

Remember, North Texas is growing their athletic budget at a faster rate then any other program in C-USA, and probably at one of the fastest rates among all of the G5s. North Texas is also building and renovating facilities at a pace faster then most in the G5. As we argue, North Texas is building a new track and soccer facility, expanding their alumni pavilion at Apogee Stadium, constructing new basketball offices at the Super Pit, installing new turf at Apogee, and preparing to break ground on a new indoor practice facility. And, more is on the way.

You can dismiss what North Texas is building if you choose, but it won't change the fact that things are improving in every area of athletics, and down the road others will probably take notice.

They would take SMU before UNT regardless. Maybe if football could win a bowl game and not lose to mediocre FCS teams by 60 points they'll consider.

I don't think so. SMU is too small. They have few fans and few alumni. These are the same reasons Rice can't get a invitation, and Rice has strong academics.

As for on the field success, you can harp on the past if you wish, but we will see where each program is on Sept. 1, when SMU travels to North Texas.

(06-15-2018 12:07 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 10:12 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 04:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boise State is not a small market anymore. That town is still growing, and becoming a metro in the state of Idaho. They seemed to be the only one who have been good on tv ratings, football and basketball. Better than the rest of the MWC. PAC 12 might need to stretch out like get Hawaii so that they can reach the east Asia and Australia tv market. Now, the issue with the PAC 12 is that they are stuck in expansion with MWC, big Sky, Big West, WCC, WAC or C-USA schools. They could try and get Houston as well.

Boise TV market is #112 in the nation. The entire population of Idaho is about the same size as Providence, Rhode Island metro area.

You have no clue about market size at all.

Providence Friars to the PAC 12 confirmed.

Big 10 would be better fit. what with hockey and all

(06-15-2018 03:53 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  In a pod system the SW schools who currently play both USC and UCLA annually are reduced to playing each school twice every 4 years and in exchange also play Texas twice every 4 years. That is devastating for those SW schools and it puts the NW schools in just as bad a position. That’s 8 “no” votes for expansion with Texas and friends. Unless the money is huge.

The PNW schools are already in that position with respect to USC/UCLA. The games they'd be giving up are against Stanford/Cal. Do you think they'd be willing to trade those for Texas+friends?

(06-15-2018 04:57 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 03:53 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  In a pod system the SW schools who currently play both USC and UCLA annually are reduced to playing each school twice every 4 years and in exchange also play Texas twice every 4 years. That is devastating for those SW schools and it puts the NW schools in just as bad a position. That’s 8 “no” votes for expansion with Texas and friends. Unless the money is huge.

The PNW schools are already in that position with respect to USC/UCLA. The games they'd be giving up are against Stanford/Cal. Do you think they'd be willing to trade those for Texas+friends?

No. Leach has kept WSU in the game, but once he’s gone they’ll slide to the bottom of the P5 joining OSU. And if WSU’s money problems are bad now while having as much FB success currently as they’re ever likely to have going forward, they simply can not tolerate another setback such as diminishing CA exposure (their NorCal exposure would be halved and their SoCal exposure would be further diminished, albeit slightly, in a pod system). I’m sure if OSU and WSU could go back to 10 they would, although if the PAC were to go back to 10, I’m not sure OSU and WSU would be included.

And because the SW schools would absolute demand pods (and still would hate that) and because the NW schools would absolutely demand E/W divisions, that stabilizes the PAC both from ingress or egress. The one thing that destabilizes the PAC is that the NW and SW schools really have no direct loyalty to each other, just indirectly through CA. The 3/4 rule however means that even if the CA schools wanted to play the SW and NW schools against each other, they’d need one school to eschew their region to make it work. It’s an inherently stabilizing arrangement.

That’s why there’s going to be no movement into it out of the PAC unless there is a huge financial incentive or unless UT, OU, USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford agree to do something very disruptive to the CFB landscape.

(06-15-2018 04:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I agree, the PAC wants Texas. And, I agree, they will never get them.

At some point in the next 10 years, I expect the PAC to move to plan "B". I think the Big 12's media deal runs through 2024. So, they should sign their new deal before that one ends (2022-23). When Texas signs on to the next deal, the PAC will probably give up on their dreams of adding Texas. When that happens the PAC will probably look at other Texas options. I think they realize the PAC becomes a much more lucrative conference if they can claim the 5th and 7th largest media markets in America. Also, their ability to host a few more early kickoff in the central time zone should increase their value too. And, playing in Texas is always good for recruiting.

At that point the only real Texas options for the PAC are in Houston, DFW, and San Antonio. Enrollment, alumni numbers, athletic budgets, on the field success, and facilities will determine which two programs get the call. I think Houston will be a lock. And, right now, I'd say North Texas is in the lead for the other spot.

If the PAC is going to move on a couple of Texas programs, I think we will hear rumblings by 2023, and the likely candidates will be known by 2026. Just my opinion.

The PAC will expand with UCSD and UC-Davis before they’ll expand into Texas without UT.

(06-15-2018 02:55 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:31 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:44 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Don’t really see both the big 12 and pac 12 dissolve, than rebuild with the top tier since it’s much easier to just merge. Got to believe it’s a Texas group headed to the pac rather than pac schools going to the big 12. Also, not even sure if 2 from byu, Boise, unlv and col state would work as well as arizonia schools for the big 12. Bottom line, if you put Texas and 3 or 5 big 12 schools in the pac 12, they would be $ fine

The PAC can’t really expand with a Texas cohort and remain the PAC.

As stated best by Frank, the non-California schools, even though they are in separate states are basically part of the larger California economy which is why CA is home to so many alumni (and disproportionately wealthy ones) of non-CA PAC schools. $5M in TV contracts (or even $20M) is small potatoes compared to the financial benefits these schools see as a result of the high CA visibility that PAC membership engenders.

Adding Texas and friends to the existing PAC membership effectively pulls the Eastern Division schools out of California because their greatly reduced cross division games are being spent in Washington and Oregon as much as California. It essentially would take AZ, ASU, CU, and UU our of the PAC. It would also mean that UT and friends would have few matchups with USC and UCLA which would basically be the draw for them joining the PAC.

So as long as we’re playing fantasy realignment, I would say that their are some unbreakable rules for the PAC:
1) the California schools have to play round robin.
2) every current PAC school in the new alignment has to play 2 PAC-California schools per year (Home and Away) at minimum.
3) USC has to have enough OOC games to play ND.

Any fantasy that checks those boxes has at least some modicum of plausibility.

Pods solve your scheduling problem.

But it doesn't solve the problem that the Four Corners pod have enough votes to keep the Texas pod out.

Sure, but if they're not being permanently relegated to an eastern division, there's much less to object to.

If they agree to let the Texas pod in with the promise they won't be relegated to an eastern division, then there is nothing to stop the 12 voting members (75%) in the other three pods from reneging on that promise in the future.

But it's all moot anyway, because there is no reason the schools the PAC would want would also want the PAC.

(06-15-2018 05:27 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 04:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I agree, the PAC wants Texas. And, I agree, they will never get them.

At some point in the next 10 years, I expect the PAC to move to plan "B". I think the Big 12's media deal runs through 2024. So, they should sign their new deal before that one ends (2022-23). When Texas signs on to the next deal, the PAC will probably give up on their dreams of adding Texas. When that happens the PAC will probably look at other Texas options. I think they realize the PAC becomes a much more lucrative conference if they can claim the 5th and 7th largest media markets in America. Also, their ability to host a few more early kickoff in the central time zone should increase their value too. And, playing in Texas is always good for recruiting.

At that point the only real Texas options for the PAC are in Houston, DFW, and San Antonio. Enrollment, alumni numbers, athletic budgets, on the field success, and facilities will determine which two programs get the call. I think Houston will be a lock. And, right now, I'd say North Texas is in the lead for the other spot.

If the PAC is going to move on a couple of Texas programs, I think we will hear rumblings by 2023, and the likely candidates will be known by 2026. Just my opinion.

The PAC will expand with UCSD and UC-Davis before they’ll expand into Texas without UT.

If that is the back-up plan they pursue, then I think the PAC will fall behind the other revenue rich conferences. UCSD and UC-Davis won't help with their football media rights and that drives college athletics.