(07-16-2018 08:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(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.

Their Golden Era was 2002-2011. They went 118-13 during those 10 years and had zero or one loss during 8 of those years. Since 2012, they've lost 2 or more games per year and have averaged just over 3 losses a year. They've been undefeated only twice in their history and the last one was nearly a decade ago. They are regularly losing 2-3 games a year now so your argument doesn't work.

(07-17-2018 11:34 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(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.

If academics are so important? Why are UC-Davis, UC-San Diego, CalTech, Hawaii, New Mexico, UNR, Colorado State, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Buffalo, UC-Irvine, UC-Riverside, UC-Santa Barbara, Albany, UAB, UCF, USF, UMass, UConn, Albany, Delaware, Colorado Mines, Missouri S&T, Stony Brook, FAU, FIU, Boston U. and several MAC and D3 schools not in any of the P5 conferences for all sports? What PAC 12 could do to earn extra money is by inviting Boise State and San Diego State in as football only to try and help the conference along with stronger SoS. Playing schools like Portland State or the California FCS schools does not help. San Diego State ruled over a couple of PAC 12 teams last year.

As for people talking about the PAC 12? Washington had 6-6 records until the past few years. They even lost to Boise State in recent years. USC had something like a 8-5 or 9-4 in recent years? Stanford was the only one that put up the winning records until last year when they had more losses than Boise State. The past 10 years, Boise State still have more wins than Washington and Oregon and they are neck to neck with Stanford. PAC 12 south have not been that great on the field the past several years. What they could do is do just football only to see how many viewers more they would get. It would not hurt to try. It could be just a 5 year contract to test the schools out. It does not mean Boise State get in fully until they reached R1. Boise's endowment is catching up to Idaho, but have passed Idaho State.

Implausible proposals? Make a thread out of them. Topical discussion? Reference an outdated source. Sentence fragments that aren't questions? Add a question mark.

(07-17-2018 02:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Implausible proposals? Make a thread out of them. Topical discussion? Reference an outdated source. Sentence fragments that aren't questions? Add a question mark.

I love his style of writing. It’s so unique.

I don't know why people get stuck on the Boise thing. They simply don't match the PAC profile like at all.

SDSU is far more thorny an issue. Far more interesting, too.

(07-17-2018 03:07 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I don't know why people get stuck on the Boise thing. They simply don't match the PAC profile like at all.

SDSU is far more thorny an issue. Far more interesting, too.

They need to get a new stadium to even be on the radar for the PAC 12.

(07-17-2018 03:25 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 03:07 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I don't know why people get stuck on the Boise thing. They simply don't match the PAC profile like at all.

SDSU is far more thorny an issue. Far more interesting, too.

They need to get a new stadium to even be on the radar for the PAC 12.

Boise State could expand their stadium to I think 47,000 to 52,000. Their stadium is much bigger than Washington State's right now. The smallest P5 stadiums in the country belong to Duke, Wake Forrest and Washington State.

(07-14-2018 05:03 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Conference expansion is almost always about money. I think the Pac-12 revenue/expense issues trump everything:

1) The Pac-12 in 2017 had $509 million in revenue and $138 million in expenses. The expenses are primarily from the Pac-12 Network. The Pac-12 Network shows 850 live events per year on seven different feeds. The network has been a huge expense and the Pac-12 still does not have access to Direct-TV. So how does Boise State and San Diego State help fix this major issue?

2) The Pac-12 has a $3 billion Tier 1 TV deal with ESPN & Fox. This is a 12 year deal that pays the conference $250 million per year. So how does the addition of Boise State and San Diego State improve on that number?

3) Boise State and San Diego State have had a lot of athletic success, but there is still a difference between the leagues. In football, UCLA is 15-0 vs. San Diego State. Washington State is 5-1 vs. Boise State, including a win this past season. They both dominant the MWC in athletics, but what makes anyone think that they can have the same impact on the Pac-12? How does this increase revenue?

4) Recruiting. Why would the Pac-12 schools want to elevate Boise State and San Diego State? For example, USC has recruited players like Marcus Allen and Reggie Bush from the San Diego area. UCLA basketball recruited Bill Walton from San Diego and that resulted in two national championships and 88 straight wins. Why would USC and UCLA want to put SDSU on equal footing with them in San Diego? Boise State does a lot of recruiting in California. Why help them out? LA is 120 miles from San Diego. What can the San Diego market bring in revenue?

5) San Diego State is a Cal state school and that does not help their cause with the other California schools. Boise State was rated #628 in the Forbes list of 650 Best Colleges in 2017. That is going to be a hard sell with the four California schools, considering the fact that they are all in the top 50 of the Forbes 2017 list. On the academic side, I see the four California schools being against the additions. No impact on revenue.

Boise was beating UDub and Oregon but you left those out to make it look like Boise couldn't compete.

(07-14-2018 01:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  PAC 12 Future Expansion

Quote:"When we expanded in the past we looked at them because they are prominent schools in the West, with very strong athletics programs, in markets we are not in," Scott said. "There's a lot of criteria that we looked at last time, that I'm sure we'd look at again.

"If we were to look at expanding again, I'm sure both those schools would be on the list. But, we don't have any plans."

Larry Scott said that both programs are not markets that they are not in. So, in the future? Both schools will be looked at again since they are strong teams in football and mens basketball.PAC 12 really need help in both departments for post season.

Doubt it

(07-17-2018 04:16 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 03:25 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 03:07 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I don't know why people get stuck on the Boise thing. They simply don't match the PAC profile like at all.

SDSU is far more thorny an issue. Far more interesting, too.

They need to get a new stadium to even be on the radar for the PAC 12.

Boise State could expand their stadium to I think 47,000 to 52,000. Their stadium is much bigger than Washington State's right now. The smallest P5 stadiums in the country belong to Duke, Wake Forrest and Washington State.

I was referring to SDSU using Qualcomm and needing a new stadium, although I've seen renderings of Albertson's Stadium with a capacity of 60k somewhere.

(07-17-2018 12:18 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 08:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(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.

Their Golden Era was 2002-2011. They went 118-13 during those 10 years and had zero or one loss during 8 of those years. Since 2012, they've lost 2 or more games per year and have averaged just over 3 losses a year. They've been undefeated only twice in their history and the last one was nearly a decade ago. They are regularly losing 2-3 games a year now so your argument doesn't work.

Just so you know Boise has 19 starters back this year, they are loaded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk