(07-14-2018 05:12 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s not just about money or athletic competitiveness. It’s also about ego. Neither school is close to being a Pac-12 peer academically and that alone is enough to keep them out.

School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

(07-15-2018 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:12 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s not just about money or athletic competitiveness. It’s also about ego. Neither school is close to being a Pac-12 peer academically and that alone is enough to keep them out.

School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

This^^^^^ and also the post directly above this one. All this about academics only is pertinent if they bring money.

(07-15-2018 02:32 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:12 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s not just about money or athletic competitiveness. It’s also about ego. Neither school is close to being a Pac-12 peer academically and that alone is enough to keep them out.

School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

This^^^^^ and also the post directly above this one. All this about academics only is pertinent if they bring money.

But, Boise State do have advertisers that are willing to buy ads for their games on tv which do bring money for the networks. Usually money do talk. Having Boise State in the PAC 12 would mean advertisement $$$$$ coming into the PAC 12 Network. Advertisers like underdogs like Boise State.

(07-15-2018 06:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 02:32 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:12 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s not just about money or athletic competitiveness. It’s also about ego. Neither school is close to being a Pac-12 peer academically and that alone is enough to keep them out.

School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

This^^^^^ and also the post directly above this one. All this about academics only is pertinent if they bring money.

But, Boise State do have advertisers that are willing to buy ads for their games on tv which do bring money for the networks. Usually money do talk. Having Boise State in the PAC 12 would mean advertisement $$$$$ coming into the PAC 12 Network. Advertisers like underdogs like Boise State.

I like that you’re pro-Boise St because I definitely am. I just don’t see how they are a realistic option today.

(07-15-2018 06:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 02:32 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:12 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s not just about money or athletic competitiveness. It’s also about ego. Neither school is close to being a Pac-12 peer academically and that alone is enough to keep them out.

School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

This^^^^^ and also the post directly above this one. All this about academics only is pertinent if they bring money.

But, Boise State do have advertisers that are willing to buy ads for their games on tv which do bring money for the networks. Usually money do talk. Having Boise State in the PAC 12 would mean advertisement $$$$$ coming into the PAC 12 Network. Advertisers like underdogs like Boise State.

Boise loses all the underdog allure the minute they receive PAC admission, just like Butler to the Big East.

(07-15-2018 06:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 02:32 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:12 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s not just about money or athletic competitiveness. It’s also about ego. Neither school is close to being a Pac-12 peer academically and that alone is enough to keep them out.

School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

This^^^^^ and also the post directly above this one. All this about academics only is pertinent if they bring money.

But, Boise State do have advertisers that are willing to buy ads for their games on tv which do bring money for the networks. Usually money do talk. Having Boise State in the PAC 12 would mean advertisement $$$$$ coming into the PAC 12 Network. Advertisers like underdogs like Boise State.

Not really. Those advertisers are also probably already paying for PAC-12 games. Boise State doesn't have any unique advertisers that would be able to move the needle. Ratings talk.

Washington State vs. Boise State (on ESPN) last year should be a good benchmark. For Washington State, it was it's 3rd lowest rated game. The only two lower games were Stanford (on FS1) and Montana State (on FS1) were rated lower. Boise State, on the other hand, had it's 3rd highest rated game against Washington State. Only Virginia (on ESPN) and the Las Vegas Bowl (against Oregon, on ABC) were rated higher.

Any advertisers that would be willing to pay for games for Boise State are also willing to pay for games without Boise State in them. Your argument that there are advertisers that are willing to pay is frankly idiotic, because assumes that they're willing to pay more for Boise State than they are willing to pay for other games. That doesn't bear it out.

(07-15-2018 07:49 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 06:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 02:32 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:12 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s not just about money or athletic competitiveness. It’s also about ego. Neither school is close to being a Pac-12 peer academically and that alone is enough to keep them out.

School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

This^^^^^ and also the post directly above this one. All this about academics only is pertinent if they bring money.

But, Boise State do have advertisers that are willing to buy ads for their games on tv which do bring money for the networks. Usually money do talk. Having Boise State in the PAC 12 would mean advertisement $$$$$ coming into the PAC 12 Network. Advertisers like underdogs like Boise State.

Not really. Those advertisers are also probably already paying for PAC-12 games. Boise State doesn't have any unique advertisers that would be able to move the needle. Ratings talk.

Washington State vs. Boise State (on ESPN) last year should be a good benchmark. For Washington State, it was it's 3rd lowest rated game. The only two lower games were Stanford (on FS1) and Montana State (on FS1) were rated lower. Boise State, on the other hand, had it's 3rd highest rated game against Washington State. Only Virginia (on ESPN) and the Las Vegas Bowl (against Oregon, on ABC) were rated higher.

Any advertisers that would be willing to pay for games for Boise State are also willing to pay for games without Boise State in them. Your argument that there are advertisers that are willing to pay is frankly idiotic, because assumes that they're willing to pay more for Boise State than they are willing to pay for other games. That doesn't bear it out.

When Boise gets a decent kick off time they do fine. The Wazzu game started at 8:30 Pacific time. Not many east coast watchers then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-15-2018 09:49 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 07:49 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 06:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 02:32 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

This^^^^^ and also the post directly above this one. All this about academics only is pertinent if they bring money.

But, Boise State do have advertisers that are willing to buy ads for their games on tv which do bring money for the networks. Usually money do talk. Having Boise State in the PAC 12 would mean advertisement $$$$$ coming into the PAC 12 Network. Advertisers like underdogs like Boise State.

Not really. Those advertisers are also probably already paying for PAC-12 games. Boise State doesn't have any unique advertisers that would be able to move the needle. Ratings talk.

Washington State vs. Boise State (on ESPN) last year should be a good benchmark. For Washington State, it was it's 3rd lowest rated game. The only two lower games were Stanford (on FS1) and Montana State (on FS1) were rated lower. Boise State, on the other hand, had it's 3rd highest rated game against Washington State. Only Virginia (on ESPN) and the Las Vegas Bowl (against Oregon, on ABC) were rated higher.

Any advertisers that would be willing to pay for games for Boise State are also willing to pay for games without Boise State in them. Your argument that there are advertisers that are willing to pay is frankly idiotic, because assumes that they're willing to pay more for Boise State than they are willing to pay for other games. That doesn't bear it out.

When Boise gets a decent kick off time they do fine. The Wazzu game started at 8:30 Pacific time. Not many east coast watchers then.

It's not the game time. It's that the only Boise games with more than 1 million viewers are games in which they played P5 opponents. About a dozen other G5 teams, maybe more, would have similar ratings for similar games in which they played P5 opponents.

Here are a couple of examples, both using early Friday evening starts so we're comparing apples to apples as much as possible. (Wouldn't make sense to compare Friday evening audiences for CFB to Saturday afternoon audiences.) Illinois-South Florida, also an early Friday evening game, had slightly more viewers than UVa-Boise. Utah St-Wisconsin had significantly more viewers for an early Friday evening game than either the Boise or South Florida games, but Wisconsin is a much better TV draw than UVa or Illinois.

(07-15-2018 10:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:49 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 07:49 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 06:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 02:32 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  This^^^^^ and also the post directly above this one. All this about academics only is pertinent if they bring money.

But, Boise State do have advertisers that are willing to buy ads for their games on tv which do bring money for the networks. Usually money do talk. Having Boise State in the PAC 12 would mean advertisement $$$$$ coming into the PAC 12 Network. Advertisers like underdogs like Boise State.

Not really. Those advertisers are also probably already paying for PAC-12 games. Boise State doesn't have any unique advertisers that would be able to move the needle. Ratings talk.

Washington State vs. Boise State (on ESPN) last year should be a good benchmark. For Washington State, it was it's 3rd lowest rated game. The only two lower games were Stanford (on FS1) and Montana State (on FS1) were rated lower. Boise State, on the other hand, had it's 3rd highest rated game against Washington State. Only Virginia (on ESPN) and the Las Vegas Bowl (against Oregon, on ABC) were rated higher.

Any advertisers that would be willing to pay for games for Boise State are also willing to pay for games without Boise State in them. Your argument that there are advertisers that are willing to pay is frankly idiotic, because assumes that they're willing to pay more for Boise State than they are willing to pay for other games. That doesn't bear it out.

When Boise gets a decent kick off time they do fine. The Wazzu game started at 8:30 Pacific time. Not many east coast watchers then.

It's not the game time. It's that the only Boise games with more than 1 million viewers are games in which they played P5 opponents. About a dozen other G5 teams, maybe more, would have similar ratings for similar games in which they played P5 opponents.

Here are a couple of examples, both using early Friday evening starts so we're comparing apples to apples as much as possible. (Wouldn't make sense to compare Friday evening audiences for CFB to Saturday afternoon audiences.) Illinois-South Florida, also an early Friday evening game, had slightly more viewers than UVa-Boise. Utah St-Wisconsin had significantly more viewers for an early Friday evening game than either the Boise or South Florida games, but Wisconsin is a much better TV draw than UVa or Illinois.

The Wassu game may have started at 7:30 PM Pacific (8:30 Mountain) on ESPN. However, that was exactly the same start time that Cal, Colorado, and USC, which all appeared on ESPN, same time slot. All of those schools brought in more viewers than Boise State did. So, controlling for the time slot, and controlling for the network, you'd can't say that Boise State did fine, when even Colorado brought in more viewers than Boise State did.

Furthermore, also, the only games that Boise State brought in more TV Viewers for the games was a game against Virginia (an Power-5 team), and a game against Oregon for the Las Vegas Bowl. None of Boise State's other games brought in more viewers than Washington State. So, if it was truly the time slot, then wouldn't you expect them to have more audiance in the timeslots?

(07-15-2018 11:10 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 10:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:49 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 07:49 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 06:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  But, Boise State do have advertisers that are willing to buy ads for their games on tv which do bring money for the networks. Usually money do talk. Having Boise State in the PAC 12 would mean advertisement $$$$$ coming into the PAC 12 Network. Advertisers like underdogs like Boise State.

Not really. Those advertisers are also probably already paying for PAC-12 games. Boise State doesn't have any unique advertisers that would be able to move the needle. Ratings talk.

Washington State vs. Boise State (on ESPN) last year should be a good benchmark. For Washington State, it was it's 3rd lowest rated game. The only two lower games were Stanford (on FS1) and Montana State (on FS1) were rated lower. Boise State, on the other hand, had it's 3rd highest rated game against Washington State. Only Virginia (on ESPN) and the Las Vegas Bowl (against Oregon, on ABC) were rated higher.

Any advertisers that would be willing to pay for games for Boise State are also willing to pay for games without Boise State in them. Your argument that there are advertisers that are willing to pay is frankly idiotic, because assumes that they're willing to pay more for Boise State than they are willing to pay for other games. That doesn't bear it out.

When Boise gets a decent kick off time they do fine. The Wazzu game started at 8:30 Pacific time. Not many east coast watchers then.

It's not the game time. It's that the only Boise games with more than 1 million viewers are games in which they played P5 opponents. About a dozen other G5 teams, maybe more, would have similar ratings for similar games in which they played P5 opponents.

Here are a couple of examples, both using early Friday evening starts so we're comparing apples to apples as much as possible. (Wouldn't make sense to compare Friday evening audiences for CFB to Saturday afternoon audiences.) Illinois-South Florida, also an early Friday evening game, had slightly more viewers than UVa-Boise. Utah St-Wisconsin had significantly more viewers for an early Friday evening game than either the Boise or South Florida games, but Wisconsin is a much better TV draw than UVa or Illinois.

The Wassu game may have started at 7:30 PM Pacific (8:30 Mountain) on ESPN. However, that was exactly the same start time that Cal, Colorado, and USC, which all appeared on ESPN, same time slot. All of those schools brought in more viewers than Boise State did. So, controlling for the time slot, and controlling for the network, you'd can't say that Boise State did fine, when even Colorado brought in more viewers than Boise State did.

Furthermore, also, the only games that Boise State brought in more TV Viewers for the games was a game against Virginia (an Power-5 team), and a game against Oregon for the Las Vegas Bowl. None of Boise State's other games brought in more viewers than Washington State. So, if it was truly the time slot, then wouldn't you expect them to have more audiance in the timeslots?

Their Fiesta Bowl appearances brought in more viewers, because those games where the big games that play by themselves at night. The game against Arizona was like 4 million.

The only other games that they played that were not P5 games where with BYU a few years ago, against a winning San Diego State and against a winning Freson State game. When they were in the WAC? They had a much higher ratings than they are getting in the MWC.

Forgot that when Boise State played Virginia Tech and Georgia? Both games started before 3 PM EST. Those games were higher. When Boise State takes on the Goliath in football like Oklahoma, Georgia and Virginia Tech? More people tune in. Arizona is a bigger name than Wazzu.

Boise’s path to the PAC (if it exists at all) probably goes through the CFP. They would need several appearances and perhaps even a title to move the needle enough.

(07-16-2018 01:16 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 11:10 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 10:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:49 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 07:49 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  Not really. Those advertisers are also probably already paying for PAC-12 games. Boise State doesn't have any unique advertisers that would be able to move the needle. Ratings talk.

Washington State vs. Boise State (on ESPN) last year should be a good benchmark. For Washington State, it was it's 3rd lowest rated game. The only two lower games were Stanford (on FS1) and Montana State (on FS1) were rated lower. Boise State, on the other hand, had it's 3rd highest rated game against Washington State. Only Virginia (on ESPN) and the Las Vegas Bowl (against Oregon, on ABC) were rated higher.

Any advertisers that would be willing to pay for games for Boise State are also willing to pay for games without Boise State in them. Your argument that there are advertisers that are willing to pay is frankly idiotic, because assumes that they're willing to pay more for Boise State than they are willing to pay for other games. That doesn't bear it out.

When Boise gets a decent kick off time they do fine. The Wazzu game started at 8:30 Pacific time. Not many east coast watchers then.

It's not the game time. It's that the only Boise games with more than 1 million viewers are games in which they played P5 opponents. About a dozen other G5 teams, maybe more, would have similar ratings for similar games in which they played P5 opponents.

Here are a couple of examples, both using early Friday evening starts so we're comparing apples to apples as much as possible. (Wouldn't make sense to compare Friday evening audiences for CFB to Saturday afternoon audiences.) Illinois-South Florida, also an early Friday evening game, had slightly more viewers than UVa-Boise. Utah St-Wisconsin had significantly more viewers for an early Friday evening game than either the Boise or South Florida games, but Wisconsin is a much better TV draw than UVa or Illinois.

The Wassu game may have started at 7:30 PM Pacific (8:30 Mountain) on ESPN. However, that was exactly the same start time that Cal, Colorado, and USC, which all appeared on ESPN, same time slot. All of those schools brought in more viewers than Boise State did. So, controlling for the time slot, and controlling for the network, you'd can't say that Boise State did fine, when even Colorado brought in more viewers than Boise State did.

Furthermore, also, the only games that Boise State brought in more TV Viewers for the games was a game against Virginia (an Power-5 team), and a game against Oregon for the Las Vegas Bowl. None of Boise State's other games brought in more viewers than Washington State. So, if it was truly the time slot, then wouldn't you expect them to have more audiance in the timeslots?

Their Fiesta Bowl appearances brought in more viewers, because those games where the big games that play by themselves at night. The game against Arizona was like 4 million.

The only other games that they played that were not P5 games where with BYU a few years ago, against a winning San Diego State and against a winning Freson State game. When they were in the WAC? They had a much higher ratings than they are getting in the MWC.

Forgot that when Boise State played Virginia Tech and Georgia? Both games started before 3 PM EST. Those games were higher. When Boise State takes on the Goliath in football like Oklahoma, Georgia and Virginia Tech? More people tune in. Arizona is a bigger name than Wazzu.

Because of those teams, not because of Boise State. You act as if those viewers are because of Boise State, they're not. They're viewing because of the other team. I think that if we put up each of those team's TV Viewers, you'll see that Boise State was actually one of their lower rated games in terms of TV Viership.

You can't claim to have this massive TV audience that watches because of Boise State, and then turn out to have lower-rated games than most of the teams. That doesn't lead to the conclusion.

(07-15-2018 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:12 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s not just about money or athletic competitiveness. It’s also about ego. Neither school is close to being a Pac-12 peer academically and that alone is enough to keep them out.

School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

And yet, the PAC could have made bank on at least two occasions, the OU-OSU additions, and B1G-PAC...swing and miss on both of those.

I don't disagree with you otherwise, but, I don't think it's that blunt. Granted, if it was only about academics, I think we'd see Rice and Tulane back among the majors. OU-OSU seemed to be about OSU's academic pedigree AND the scheduling challenges it provided to schools feeling they had to play in California; it wasn't about money. At least, not the short game stuff.

As for Scott's words about Boise and SDSU, as odd as they were at the time, it helped the conference look approachable. Boise's already an affiliate, and probably the most popular and successful football program currently not within the footprint of the conference. SDSU is more mired in the politics between the Cal and Cal State systems. Some see intentional blockage of SDSU by the PAC and the two Cal flagship campuses deliberately making the Cal State system a second class citizen, including its top campuses and programs. I doubt Scott's words didn't really fool anyone out west, laying out any hope for a future where a Cal State school runs in the PAC, but, for those not as familiar with the politics of higher ed out in CA, this may have served its point as a distraction.

(07-16-2018 05:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:12 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s not just about money or athletic competitiveness. It’s also about ego. Neither school is close to being a Pac-12 peer academically and that alone is enough to keep them out.

School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

And yet, the PAC could have made bank on at least two occasions, the OU-OSU additions, and B1G-PAC...swing and miss on both of those.

I don't disagree with you otherwise, but, I don't think it's that blunt. Granted, if it was only about academics, I think we'd see Rice and Tulane back among the majors. OU-OSU seemed to be about OSU's academic pedigree AND the scheduling challenges it provided to schools feeling they had to play in California; it wasn't about money. At least, not the short game stuff.

As for Scott's words about Boise and SDSU, as odd as they were at the time, it helped the conference look approachable. Boise's already an affiliate, and probably the most popular and successful football program currently not within the footprint of the conference. SDSU is more mired in the politics between the Cal and Cal State systems. Some see intentional blockage of SDSU by the PAC and the two Cal flagship campuses deliberately making the Cal State system a second class citizen, including its top campuses and programs. I doubt Scott's words didn't really fool anyone out west, laying out any hope for a future where a Cal State school runs in the PAC, but, for those not as familiar with the politics of higher ed out in CA, this may have served its point as a distraction.

That is the key word right there about the success of the field performance by Boise State. When boise State goes undefeated while the PAC 12 winner gets 2 loses? Who gets all eyes on them nationally? Boise State
Boise State have been taken the spotlight off the PAC 12 schools for number of years now. They have been in the spotlight more than Wazzu, Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State, Washington, USC and UCLA like for over 10 years. It hurts the PAC 12 when Boise State gets more sports Center highlights than any of the PAC 12 schools during that time period.

Washington and USC have had more success in the last few years than Boise has. Washington went to the Fiesta Bowl last year and made the CFP two years ago. USC has made it to a NY6 bowl two times compared to Boise's one. Boise St is still a good team and one of the top in G5, but they pale in comparison to what they were during the BCS. Right now, I'd say Boise is only ahead of Oregon State in terms of spotlight compared to all other PAC 12 schools.

(07-15-2018 12:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:12 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s not just about money or athletic competitiveness. It’s also about ego. Neither school is close to being a Pac-12 peer academically and that alone is enough to keep them out.

School officials say it's about "academic fit" or "cultural fit" because they want to make it sound like academics is the top priority in athletics. And when it coincidentally happens that a conference's new invitee has a solid academic reputation, then the commissioner says that even more loudly.

But, as I said in another thread, if ESPN or Fox told the Pac-12, "We'll increase your annual TV rights payment to $40 million/school if you add School X and School Y to your conference," Larry Scott would be welcoming School X and School Y to the conference before the sun went down that day, no matter where School X and School Y are on anybody's "best universities" list.

And conversely, if ESPN or Fox is opposed to paying more for potential new members, then even if those schools had the academic reputation of Caltech or MIT, that wouldn't get them through the door.

ESPN told the ACC to take Louisville .... a "five year" decision instead of a "hundred year" decision.

How well was that lesson learned?

(07-15-2018 10:16 AM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 04:12 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  State of Idaho Medical Cooperation

This shows that what Idaho could do for sending students to study in Seattle. All three D1 Idaho, both D1 Montana, University of Wyoming and both Alaska schools do not have a medical school.
The new school to open on the Idaho State's Meridian campus is a fo-profit school. It is a bad move, Idaho lawmakers should invest the money to build a non-profit medical school in Boise to share with all the state schools. As it is, Montana and Alaska-Fairbanks are getting a medical school for their campus. What they could have done is with the help of University of Washington, Oregon, Oregon State and Washington State by building a new medical school. Since there is a partnership going on, the state of Idaho is short on doctors and nurses. Sending only 20 students a year would not help provide the needs in the state of Idaho. There seems to be already a partnership between the PAC 12 north schools with Boise State, Idaho and Idaho State which setup pre-med and Nurse Practitioner Degrees. It boasted Boise State up in the rankings. Washington and Washington State seems to be grooming Boise State to go R1 since Boise gain an R3 real fast in 2 or 3 years time. If the Idaho lawmakers go ahead and build the med school in Boise? That would shoot Boise State up where they could give degrees in the medical field than what they are giving out today.

You just don't seem to get it. None of that will get Boise State into the PAC-12. The fact that there's a medical college opening in Meridian (which isn't actually affiliated with Boise State) doesn't get rid of its deficiencies.

As far as your "But Spokane is Boise State Territory", it's really not. It's a media market that the PAC-12 already dominates, and the primary team there is Washington State, not Boise State. In fact, in a 2014 New York Times Article, they listed the top 3 fan bases by zip code. The Spokane Zip codes seem to be listed as Washington, Washington State, and Oregon in that order. Boise State didn't register in the top 3.

Boise State does have a few zip-codes in Southeastern Oregon, but other than that, it's mainly Southern Idaho. No zip codes in Washington list Boise State in the top 3 teams that they root for.

You can see the map here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014...l-map.html

As far as the R3 designation. That is literally just about the number of degrees that you offer, and says virtually nothing about your research activities. In order to qualify as an R3, according to the Carnegie Institute, you only need to award 20 research/scholastic degrees (Boise State awarded 34). You're going to find it harder to move upto R2 and R1 due to the fact that you actually need to do academic research. (By the way, Medical Degrees aren't even considered on the Carnegie Institute classifications for number of degrees).

Boise State had $25,351,000 in Science and Engineering research and development expenditures. Oregon State had $225,456,000 in Science and Engineering research and development expenditures. In order for Boise State to get upto the level of Oregon State, they would have to increase their science and engineering research by 789%.

Furthermore, it seems like you're predecating your argument on the Idaho Lawmakers doing something that they're not actually looking at happening. There's a for-profit medical school going in Meridian, but there are currently no plans on building a medical school for Boise State.

As much as I like that map of the fanbases broke down by zipcode, I have a confession to make: that map is outdated, and there have definitely been some changes since then. I wish the New York Times would actually take the time to do another updated fanbase map, so we would truly be comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges, like we are doing now.

"Academics" (kind of hate that as the term, but it is the one used) matters as kind of a gatekeeper. There are a few schools in grey areas for conferences (if they bring in enough money, they overlook issues), but for the most part you are either academically acceptable or you are not and outside ridiculous amounts of money, nothing will change that. What that means varies conference to conference, but there is no reasonable amount of money that would get Cal-Berkley to agree to let in the church of the Mormon Church for instance. That's why Utah is in the PAC-12 and BYU (despite bigger overall money making potential) is not.

None of these moves are actually for academically prestigious schools in their own right, but if you are too far from where a conference wants you to be, that will eliminate your chances.

(07-17-2018 06:23 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  "Academics" (kind of hate that as the term, but it is the one used) matters as kind of a gatekeeper. There are a few schools in grey areas for conferences (if they bring in enough money, they overlook issues), but for the most part you are either academically acceptable or you are not and outside ridiculous amounts of money, nothing will change that. What that means varies conference to conference, but there is no reasonable amount of money that would get Cal-Berkley to agree to let in the church of the Mormon Church for instance. That's why Utah is in the PAC-12 and BYU (despite bigger overall money making potential) is not.

None of these moves are actually for academically prestigious schools in their own right, but if you are too far from where a conference wants you to be, that will eliminate your chances.

Exactly.

I didn’t say that academic prestige is more important than money in realignment. I said that money isn’t the only driver and that ego matters too. In most conferences the members want to associate with schools they deem to be their institutional peers, and as a general matter will avoid bringing in new schools they perceive to be a notch or more below them in the academic hierarchy.

Is there some point at which money trumps all other factors? Hypothetically, sure. But in the real world there aren’t any schools left in the G5 conferences that would meaningfully improve the per-school payout if added to a P5 conference. Consequently IMHO no G5 school is getting a P5 invitation unless it ticks ALL the boxes — i.e. it doesn’t erode per-school conference payouts, its athletic programs are nationally competitive, and its academic standing is in line with the current conference members.

(07-17-2018 06:23 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  "Academics" (kind of hate that as the term, but it is the one used) matters as kind of a gatekeeper. There are a few schools in grey areas for conferences (if they bring in enough money, they overlook issues), but for the most part you are either academically acceptable or you are not and outside ridiculous amounts of money, nothing will change that. What that means varies conference to conference, but there is no reasonable amount of money that would get Cal-Berkley to agree to let in the church of the Mormon Church for instance. That's why Utah is in the PAC-12 and BYU (despite bigger overall money making potential) is not.

None of these moves are actually for academically prestigious schools in their own right, but if you are too far from where a conference wants you to be, that will eliminate your chances.

No religious school could get in PAC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk