(02-14-2019 07:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 06:30 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 03:45 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  It seems the big issue is that there are too many networks. If the PAC had just one network like the other conferences it would be more profitable as they wouldn’t have the costs of producing a ton of games for the regional areas.
The PAC 12 the can have a digital network for school production games for other sports much like the MW does for their digital network.

PAC12's problem is easily fixable. Just add two Oklahoma and four Texas schools. Move two Arizona schools and Colorado to the eastern division. The other current nine schools will be in the western division.

That would work except for a few issues:

Texas and Oklahoma require tag-along schools--academic snobs in the PAC 12 don't want those schools.

Texas and Oklahoma could make more money and get better exposure moving east rather than west.

The PAC has backed itself into a corner and has made improvement by means of expansion next to impossible.

And.... Texas doesn’t want to go west

Minor detail

(02-14-2019 07:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 06:30 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 03:45 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  It seems the big issue is that there are too many networks. If the PAC had just one network like the other conferences it would be more profitable as they wouldn’t have the costs of producing a ton of games for the regional areas.
The PAC 12 the can have a digital network for school production games for other sports much like the MW does for their digital network.

PAC12's problem is easily fixable. Just add two Oklahoma and four Texas schools. Move two Arizona schools and Colorado to the eastern division. The other current nine schools will be in the western division.

That would work except for a few issues:

Texas and Oklahoma require tag-along schools--academic snobs in the PAC 12 don't want those schools.

Texas and Oklahoma could make more money and get better exposure moving east rather than west.

The PAC has backed itself into a corner and has made improvement by means of expansion next to impossible.

The proposal is to fix not enough games in other time zone (central, mountain). If PAC12 only adds Texas and Oklahoma, the problem is not fixed. They have to take all six schools together to satisfy Texas and make Texas move. Basically Texas is still in SWC like environment. The world just needs four conferences, eight divisions now.

(02-13-2019 04:22 PM)YNot Wrote:  How does the PAC realistically get into the Central time zone? Could it pry away any B12 schools before Texas and Oklahoma leave? The only non-P5 schools that appear to meet the academic rigor are Rice and Tulane. Houston and Memphis would move the needle for football and basketball....but don't appear to check the academics or flagship/fan-following boxes.

So, 6-7 more years of the status quo?

They added ASU and UA, I don't think the rigor is an issue. The Pac will add whoever they can from the XII split that isn't named Baylor, WVU and prob Iowa St. The few P5 teams that would be considered are UNLV and Houston.

(02-14-2019 07:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 06:30 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 03:45 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  It seems the big issue is that there are too many networks. If the PAC had just one network like the other conferences it would be more profitable as they wouldn’t have the costs of producing a ton of games for the regional areas.
The PAC 12 the can have a digital network for school production games for other sports much like the MW does for their digital network.

PAC12's problem is easily fixable. Just add two Oklahoma and four Texas schools. Move two Arizona schools and Colorado to the eastern division. The other current nine schools will be in the western division.

That would work except for a few issues:

Texas and Oklahoma require tag-along schools--academic snobs in the PAC 12 don't want those schools.

Texas and Oklahoma could make more money and get better exposure moving east rather than west.

The PAC has backed itself into a corner and has made improvement by means of expansion next to impossible.

I hate to point out the obvious but Larry Scott had free reign from PAC Presidents to issue invites to UT, Texas Tech and Oklahoma.

The PAC is free to invite Houston, New Mexico and Wyoming tomorrow. I wonder why that hasn't happened. It would be a DavidS wet dream if it did.

(02-14-2019 08:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 04:22 PM)YNot Wrote:  How does the PAC realistically get into the Central time zone? Could it pry away any B12 schools before Texas and Oklahoma leave? The only non-P5 schools that appear to meet the academic rigor are Rice and Tulane. Houston and Memphis would move the needle for football and basketball....but don't appear to check the academics or flagship/fan-following boxes.

So, 6-7 more years of the status quo?

They added ASU and UA, I don't think the rigor is an issue. The Pac will add whoever they can from the XII split that isn't named Baylor, WVU and prob Iowa St. The few P5 teams that would be considered are UNLV and Houston.

Thing is that conferences like the Big Ten, SEC and PAC prefer flagship schools. Reason being that when they want to enter a new state it is to dominate or get a huge mind share of the state. If UT and OU go elsewhere then the pickings become very slim. The best candidate of those left would be Kansas, who has decent academics and a legendary basketball program but may not have enough to pan out economically for the model the PAC prefers. And even Kansas may not be available if they tag along one of the other two.

Houston may work but only as part of a large collection of schools heading west. But it's very tricky. Let's say not only are UT and A&M part of the power 4 but even Texas Tech is part of that group. Then any upside with UH goes down when three other Texas publics are in a position where they'd likely get substantial amount of attention from major media. No way would the PAC sign up with that type of risk hanging over them.

Any school that's west of the Continental Divide won't do anything for them if the goal is to enhance exposure in the two easternmost time zones.

So, yes, I agree with those who posit that it may be UT or bust with respect to the PAC.

(02-14-2019 08:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 04:22 PM)YNot Wrote:  How does the PAC realistically get into the Central time zone? Could it pry away any B12 schools before Texas and Oklahoma leave? The only non-P5 schools that appear to meet the academic rigor are Rice and Tulane. Houston and Memphis would move the needle for football and basketball....but don't appear to check the academics or flagship/fan-following boxes.

So, 6-7 more years of the status quo?

They added ASU and UA, I don't think the rigor is an issue. The Pac will add whoever they can from the XII split that isn't named Baylor, WVU and prob Iowa St. The few P5 teams that would be considered are UNLV and Houston.

I very much doubt that. I collected the data on the B12 schools. As Admission Index goes the date is beloiw. The P12 would definitely take any school that was tier 1 or tier 2 AI. If you consider the Presidents and Chancellors attempted to replace OK State with KU you can see 5 of the 6 they were considering were safely above that red red line, and in fact above the green line. Texas Tech was the outlier, but it was based on the requirement of taking the public schools in Texas to get Texas.



Now everything to the right is my own value ranking based on the data. Frank the Tank did similar with the B12 Rose Ceremony, but I don't think he pulled the Equity in Athletics data from the DoE, nor did he pull the HERD R&D numbers. To the point the stuff on the right is subjective. I think it gives you a ball park, and when I ran it against the 20 schools the B12 evaluated it correctly predicted the 11 who got roses and threw out the other 9. (Note the ones who got roses ranged from 11 to 15 on the same scale these B12 and P12 schools use and range from 12 to 25)

As a rule of thumb for expansion, conferences look at the lowest rated existing member ... provided they are not an outlier, such as Washington State (you can't use WSU for P12 minimum, either for budget or for AI, they are just plan bad ... Leach does wonders there).

I think the realistic line is an Athletic Budget (for a P5 school) equal to say Oregon or Colorado (around $81M as reported to the Feds), and AI somewhere between Utah and Oregon State (say 1200 SAT).

Iowa State as an Institution qualifies, and it's AAU, like oregon and Arizona, overcomes some deficiency in selectivity. But their Athletic budget is as far short of desired as Washington State. (Note, a G5 you go maybe $15-20M lower on the theory they can build it up $20M with P5 revenues.)

UT, OU and KU hit every target easily. But we all know UT and OU are off the table. KU is very attractive and could probably move stand alone to the B1G or SEC and certainly would compliment UT or OU as a partner in either. But if they are not off the board the P12 should target them (KC market).

Baylor is a strong school but has too strong a religious control, like BYU, and are a non starter with honor code, LGBT, and T9 issues. The P12 Presidents and Chancellors simply would not be willing to associate with them. TCU is not as selective, but has better budget for athletics and if anything better athletics, plus DFW market. Their religious association is very modest, and not restrictive (it's a liberal denomination, as is SMU). But TCU is not a research school. So the P12 would have to bend on that to take them. KU and TCU would be an interesting pair.

ISU, K State, OK State and Tech without Texas are non starters, too many "red" markers and except for Tech having more than 25,000 full time undergrads, don't check off a single "blue" box criteria. West Virginia is the weakest of the lot and too far away to consider anyway.

The same standards of the P12 likely apply for both the SEC and B1G for expansion. So I think you can safely say Baylor, Tech, WVU, ISU, K State, OK State are not going anywhere.

Texas and OU can go anywhere, and KU will likely be on the move too. TCU is the wild card. Definitely out for the B1G. But one wonders about their value for P12, SEC (probably not realistic), and even ACC.

As for the G5 I ran a similar with the Rose ceremony in mind


What should be obvious is that the B12 Rose ceremony only required schools have a top 10 G5 budget and hit the 1200 SAT for AI (same for P12). Tulane and Rice were such strong institutions that they stretched the line (there by the way is a $3.5 M drop after Rice to a bunch of MAC schools). Geography did not play a part. On my score index all fell short of the 16 minimum to get an invite, although Cincy, UConn and BYU came closest. UCF has risen "1" on my listing due to their recent FB success -- their weak endowment is a concern. What is fascinating is ignoring Temple and the two egghead schools, there is surprisingly little value difference in the schools given a Rose.

UNLV and New Mexico are lowly ranked academically that they are non-starters. Believe me if UNLV were not such an awful institution the P12 would be talking to them. SDSU is so far off the budget list I didn't bother to grade them. But they'd probably rank "7" or "8" as an institution.

This data does give one a clue as to who the B12 would look at for replacements (assuming UConn is too far away, the egghead schools and Temple not enough athletic value), and also how slim the pickings are for the AAC to replace any schools sucked up by the B12. For G5 conferences, resources (athletic budget) matters most. ODU, FIU, UMass and Rice standout from the rest of G5 ... obviously that doesn't do a thing for AAC football and except UMass probably no much for Basketball either. If they lose 2, standing pat looks better than lowering standards.

Anyway, what I am trying to show is there is nothing much out there for the P12. Fixing their issues internally makes more sense. (But were I the P12 expansion committee, I'd keep the lines open for Texas should they blunder and find themselves in a B12 without OU or KU and be looking to replace them with some schools just as mediocre as K State and Texas Tech. But I'd more seriously talk with TCU and KU -- most likely they would not add either, but keep options open.

Slim pickings.

(02-15-2019 01:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 08:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 04:22 PM)YNot Wrote:  How does the PAC realistically get into the Central time zone? Could it pry away any B12 schools before Texas and Oklahoma leave? The only non-P5 schools that appear to meet the academic rigor are Rice and Tulane. Houston and Memphis would move the needle for football and basketball....but don't appear to check the academics or flagship/fan-following boxes.

So, 6-7 more years of the status quo?

They added ASU and UA, I don't think the rigor is an issue. The Pac will add whoever they can from the XII split that isn't named Baylor, WVU and prob Iowa St. The few P5 teams that would be considered are UNLV and Houston.

Thing is that conferences like the Big Ten, SEC and PAC prefer flagship schools. Reason being that when they want to enter a new state it is to dominate or get a huge mind share of the state. If UT and OU go elsewhere then the pickings become very slim. The best candidate of those left would be Kansas, who has decent academics and a legendary basketball program but may not have enough to pan out economically for the model the PAC prefers. And even Kansas may not be available if they tag along one of the other two.

Houston may work but only as part of a large collection of schools heading west. But it's very tricky. Let's say not only are UT and A&M part of the power 4 but even Texas Tech is part of that group. Then any upside with UH goes down when three other Texas publics are in a position where they'd likely get substantial amount of attention from major media. No way would the PAC sign up with that type of risk hanging over them.

Any school that's west of the Continental Divide won't do anything for them if the goal is to enhance exposure in the two easternmost time zones.

So, yes, I agree with those who posit that it may be UT or bust with respect to the PAC.

I don't think PAC12/18 will like to accept religious schools. So the package should be Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Rice, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then SEC takes TCU, Baylor, Kansas and Kansas State. Then B1G takes West Virginia and Iowa State, still needs to raid two schools from ACC. Another path is that B1G fires first after PAC18. B1G takes Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and West Virginia. SEC takes Baylor, TCU, UCF and USF.

If Texas decides to go independent like Notre Dame, PAC18 may take Nevada instead.

(02-15-2019 09:19 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 08:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 04:22 PM)YNot Wrote:  How does the PAC realistically get into the Central time zone? Could it pry away any B12 schools before Texas and Oklahoma leave? The only non-P5 schools that appear to meet the academic rigor are Rice and Tulane. Houston and Memphis would move the needle for football and basketball....but don't appear to check the academics or flagship/fan-following boxes.

So, 6-7 more years of the status quo?

They added ASU and UA, I don't think the rigor is an issue. The Pac will add whoever they can from the XII split that isn't named Baylor, WVU and prob Iowa St. The few P5 teams that would be considered are UNLV and Houston.

Thing is that conferences like the Big Ten, SEC and PAC prefer flagship schools. Reason being that when they want to enter a new state it is to dominate or get a huge mind share of the state. If UT and OU go elsewhere then the pickings become very slim. The best candidate of those left would be Kansas, who has decent academics and a legendary basketball program but may not have enough to pan out economically for the model the PAC prefers. And even Kansas may not be available if they tag along one of the other two.

Houston may work but only as part of a large collection of schools heading west. But it's very tricky. Let's say not only are UT and A&M part of the power 4 but even Texas Tech is part of that group. Then any upside with UH goes down when three other Texas publics are in a position where they'd likely get substantial amount of attention from major media. No way would the PAC sign up with that type of risk hanging over them.

Any school that's west of the Continental Divide won't do anything for them if the goal is to enhance exposure in the two easternmost time zones.

So, yes, I agree with those who posit that it may be UT or bust with respect to the PAC.

I don't think PAC12/18 will like to accept religious schools. So the package should be Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Rice, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then SEC takes TCU, Baylor, Kansas and Kansas State. Then B1G takes West Virginia and Iowa State, still needs to raid two schools from ACC. Another path is that B1G fires first after PAC18. B1G takes Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and West Virginia. SEC takes Baylor, TCU, UCF and USF.

If Texas decides to go independent like Notre Dame, PAC18 may take Nevada instead.

TCU is no more religious than Duke or USC which were also founded by churches. They separated from the Divinity school years ago.

I still see the Big 12 poaching the Pac-12 more than the other way around. But when all is said in done, I don't think either conference changes. At best they may do a joint TV deal.

UC San Diego, folks. They got the high academic reputation, desirable location and are committed to Division 1 athletics.

Nobody seems to understand the problem. This is a an example of the problem. Stanford is playing at UCLA last season. The game is on the Pac-12 Network. Because it is on the Pac-12 Network, it is not available on Direct TV. So a typical sports bar in the San Francisco Bay Area or in Southern California will not carry the game if they have Direct-TV.

On the same day and at about the same time, Tennessee is playing at Vanderbilt on the SEC Network. In the same typical sports bars in the San Francisco Bay Area or in Southern California, every sports bar will carry the SEC game. You have a much better chance of seeing Tennessee at Vanderbilt in California rather than Stanford at UCLA.

The expansion talk is ridiculous. The Pac-12 Network struggles to get on TV in the west. Why would any Big-12 school be interested in that? The Pac-12 had revenues of $509 million in 2016-2017, much more than the Big 12. The revenue is good, but the $138 million in expenses kills that good news.

Texas is not going to join the Pac-12. They are not giving up the LHN, which is worth $15 million per year through 2030. The Pac-12 needs to get on Direct TV, they need to reduce the number of channels, they need to cut costs and they need to fire Larry Scott. If they do those things, they will be fine.

If those issues are taken care of, then expansion can be looked into, but only if there is additional revenue to the Pac-12. The pickings are slim for expansion. It starts and stops with UT and OU. Other schools that have been mentioned such as Houston, Rice, UNLV, San Diego State, Boise State...never going to happen.

(02-15-2019 11:50 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  UC San Diego, folks. They got the high academic reputation, desirable location and are committed to Division 1 athletics.

UCSD is not yet a member of the Big West and you are already trying to get rid of them? Or is this about not wanting Cal State Bakersfield?

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 11:50 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  UC San Diego, folks. They got the high academic reputation, desirable location and are committed to Division 1 athletics.

UCSD is not yet a member of the Big West and you are already trying to get rid of them? Or is this about not wanting Cal State Bakersfield?

Neither. I honestly believe UCSD has much of the foundation already in place for Pac membership in the future. Better academic profile than SDSU - check. Larger endowment than SDSU - check. Not a Cal State - check. No extreme demands like Texas - check. Desirable location and high enrollment - check.The only question is: will the Pac ever admit a school without football?

All that's missing is success in D1 athletics. But that should come in time.

(02-15-2019 02:19 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 11:50 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  UC San Diego, folks. They got the high academic reputation, desirable location and are committed to Division 1 athletics.

UCSD is not yet a member of the Big West and you are already trying to get rid of them? Or is this about not wanting Cal State Bakersfield?

Neither. I honestly believe UCSD has much of the foundation already in place for Pac membership in the future. Better academic profile than SDSU - check. Larger endowment than SDSU - check. Not a Cal State - check. No extreme demands like Texas - check. Desirable location and high enrollment - check.The only question is: will the Pac ever admit a school without football?

All that's missing is success in D1 athletics. But that should come in time.

Texas can do whatever it wants. Stanford and USC can do whatever they want. Those three have to have a meeting of the minds without having that much in common.

You can get to a Pac 15 thusly:

South - Texas, TT, OU, OSU, TCU
Mountains - Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Cal
West - USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon

Play your division and two rivals. Then you play 2 of the other 8 each year.

Texas for example will always have 5 or 6 conference games in Texas. The traditional 5 football powers on the West Coast stay together.

Of course WSU, OSU, ASU, ISU, KSU, and Baylor get kicked to the a new Mountain West.

This is the only way I can see more money for all 15. The real bonus is 6 CTZ schools, 3 MTZ schools, and only 6 PTZ schools. Swings votes in a construct like that will come from Colorado, Arizona, and Utah and that may be more than Texas, USC, or Stanford can handle.

BTW, anyone else think it's a little more than a coincidence that all this information about the PAC 12 Networks was leaked to the media only AFTER Scott announced his plan to sell a portion of the media company?

Makes me think there are people in leadership in the PAC 12 that are trying to make Scott look bad publicly. In other words, let's knock him down a peg or two so we can start a movement to replace him...

(02-15-2019 06:36 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 08:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 04:22 PM)YNot Wrote:  How does the PAC realistically get into the Central time zone? Could it pry away any B12 schools before Texas and Oklahoma leave? The only non-P5 schools that appear to meet the academic rigor are Rice and Tulane. Houston and Memphis would move the needle for football and basketball....but don't appear to check the academics or flagship/fan-following boxes.

So, 6-7 more years of the status quo?

They added ASU and UA, I don't think the rigor is an issue. The Pac will add whoever they can from the XII split that isn't named Baylor, WVU and prob Iowa St. The few P5 teams that would be considered are UNLV and Houston.

I very much doubt that. I collected the data on the B12 schools. As Admission Index goes the date is beloiw. The P12 would definitely take any school that was tier 1 or tier 2 AI. If you consider the Presidents and Chancellors attempted to replace OK State with KU you can see 5 of the 6 they were considering were safely above that red red line, and in fact above the green line. Texas Tech was the outlier, but it was based on the requirement of taking the public schools in Texas to get Texas.



Now everything to the right is my own value ranking based on the data. Frank the Tank did similar with the B12 Rose Ceremony, but I don't think he pulled the Equity in Athletics data from the DoE, nor did he pull the HERD R&D numbers. To the point the stuff on the right is subjective. I think it gives you a ball park, and when I ran it against the 20 schools the B12 evaluated it correctly predicted the 11 who got roses and threw out the other 9. (Note the ones who got roses ranged from 11 to 15 on the same scale these B12 and P12 schools use and range from 12 to 25)

As a rule of thumb for expansion, conferences look at the lowest rated existing member ... provided they are not an outlier, such as Washington State (you can't use WSU for P12 minimum, either for budget or for AI, they are just plan bad ... Leach does wonders there).

I think the realistic line is an Athletic Budget (for a P5 school) equal to say Oregon or Colorado (around $81M as reported to the Feds), and AI somewhere between Utah and Oregon State (say 1200 SAT).

Iowa State as an Institution qualifies, and it's AAU, like oregon and Arizona, overcomes some deficiency in selectivity. But their Athletic budget is as far short of desired as Washington State. (Note, a G5 you go maybe $15-20M lower on the theory they can build it up $20M with P5 revenues.)

UT, OU and KU hit every target easily. But we all know UT and OU are off the table. KU is very attractive and could probably move stand alone to the B1G or SEC and certainly would compliment UT or OU as a partner in either. But if they are not off the board the P12 should target them (KC market).

Baylor is a strong school but has too strong a religious control, like BYU, and are a non starter with honor code, LGBT, and T9 issues. The P12 Presidents and Chancellors simply would not be willing to associate with them. TCU is not as selective, but has better budget for athletics and if anything better athletics, plus DFW market. Their religious association is very modest, and not restrictive (it's a liberal denomination, as is SMU). But TCU is not a research school. So the P12 would have to bend on that to take them. KU and TCU would be an interesting pair.

ISU, K State, OK State and Tech without Texas are non starters, too many "red" markers and except for Tech having more than 25,000 full time undergrads, don't check off a single "blue" box criteria. West Virginia is the weakest of the lot and too far away to consider anyway.

The same standards of the P12 likely apply for both the SEC and B1G for expansion. So I think you can safely say Baylor, Tech, WVU, ISU, K State, OK State are not going anywhere.

Texas and OU can go anywhere, and KU will likely be on the move too. TCU is the wild card. Definitely out for the B1G. But one wonders about their value for P12, SEC (probably not realistic), and even ACC.

As for the G5 I ran a similar with the Rose ceremony in mind


What should be obvious is that the B12 Rose ceremony only required schools have a top 10 G5 budget and hit the 1200 SAT for AI (same for P12). Tulane and Rice were such strong institutions that they stretched the line (there by the way is a $3.5 M drop after Rice to a bunch of MAC schools). Geography did not play a part. On my score index all fell short of the 16 minimum to get an invite, although Cincy, UConn and BYU came closest. UCF has risen "1" on my listing due to their recent FB success -- their weak endowment is a concern. What is fascinating is ignoring Temple and the two egghead schools, there is surprisingly little value difference in the schools given a Rose.

UNLV and New Mexico are lowly ranked academically that they are non-starters. Believe me if UNLV were not such an awful institution the P12 would be talking to them. SDSU is so far off the budget list I didn't bother to grade them. But they'd probably rank "7" or "8" as an institution.

This data does give one a clue as to who the B12 would look at for replacements (assuming UConn is too far away, the egghead schools and Temple not enough athletic value), and also how slim the pickings are for the AAC to replace any schools sucked up by the B12. For G5 conferences, resources (athletic budget) matters most. ODU, FIU, UMass and Rice standout from the rest of G5 ... obviously that doesn't do a thing for AAC football and except UMass probably no much for Basketball either. If they lose 2, standing pat looks better than lowering standards.

Anyway, what I am trying to show is there is nothing much out there for the P12. Fixing their issues internally makes more sense. (But were I the P12 expansion committee, I'd keep the lines open for Texas should they blunder and find themselves in a B12 without OU or KU and be looking to replace them with some schools just as mediocre as K State and Texas Tech. But I'd more seriously talk with TCU and KU -- most likely they would not add either, but keep options open.

Slim pickings.

And you have the wrong CUSA F#U school. FAU would fit in better than FIU would.

FAU has done better in Football. But to my surprise their budget is SJSU small (use the official numbers reported to the US Government). Also the school score much lower as an academic institution.

The data is what it is. Fans see success on the grid iron, but rarely know anything about the Institution. UNLV and Boise State are similar bad schools.

(02-15-2019 06:36 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 08:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 04:22 PM)YNot Wrote:  How does the PAC realistically get into the Central time zone? Could it pry away any B12 schools before Texas and Oklahoma leave? The only non-P5 schools that appear to meet the academic rigor are Rice and Tulane. Houston and Memphis would move the needle for football and basketball....but don't appear to check the academics or flagship/fan-following boxes.

So, 6-7 more years of the status quo?

They added ASU and UA, I don't think the rigor is an issue. The Pac will add whoever they can from the XII split that isn't named Baylor, WVU and prob Iowa St. The few P5 teams that would be considered are UNLV and Houston.

I very much doubt that. I collected the data on the B12 schools. As Admission Index goes the date is beloiw. The P12 would definitely take any school that was tier 1 or tier 2 AI. If you consider the Presidents and Chancellors attempted to replace OK State with KU you can see 5 of the 6 they were considering were safely above that red red line, and in fact above the green line. Texas Tech was the outlier, but it was based on the requirement of taking the public schools in Texas to get Texas.



Now everything to the right is my own value ranking based on the data. Frank the Tank did similar with the B12 Rose Ceremony, but I don't think he pulled the Equity in Athletics data from the DoE, nor did he pull the HERD R&D numbers. To the point the stuff on the right is subjective. I think it gives you a ball park, and when I ran it against the 20 schools the B12 evaluated it correctly predicted the 11 who got roses and threw out the other 9. (Note the ones who got roses ranged from 11 to 15 on the same scale these B12 and P12 schools use and range from 12 to 25)

As a rule of thumb for expansion, conferences look at the lowest rated existing member ... provided they are not an outlier, such as Washington State (you can't use WSU for P12 minimum, either for budget or for AI, they are just plan bad ... Leach does wonders there).

I think the realistic line is an Athletic Budget (for a P5 school) equal to say Oregon or Colorado (around $81M as reported to the Feds), and AI somewhere between Utah and Oregon State (say 1200 SAT).

Iowa State as an Institution qualifies, and it's AAU, like oregon and Arizona, overcomes some deficiency in selectivity. But their Athletic budget is as far short of desired as Washington State. (Note, a G5 you go maybe $15-20M lower on the theory they can build it up $20M with P5 revenues.)

UT, OU and KU hit every target easily. But we all know UT and OU are off the table. KU is very attractive and could probably move stand alone to the B1G or SEC and certainly would compliment UT or OU as a partner in either. But if they are not off the board the P12 should target them (KC market).

Baylor is a strong school but has too strong a religious control, like BYU, and are a non starter with honor code, LGBT, and T9 issues. The P12 Presidents and Chancellors simply would not be willing to associate with them. TCU is not as selective, but has better budget for athletics and if anything better athletics, plus DFW market. Their religious association is very modest, and not restrictive (it's a liberal denomination, as is SMU). But TCU is not a research school. So the P12 would have to bend on that to take them. KU and TCU would be an interesting pair.

ISU, K State, OK State and Tech without Texas are non starters, too many "red" markers and except for Tech having more than 25,000 full time undergrads, don't check off a single "blue" box criteria. West Virginia is the weakest of the lot and too far away to consider anyway.

The same standards of the P12 likely apply for both the SEC and B1G for expansion. So I think you can safely say Baylor, Tech, WVU, ISU, K State, OK State are not going anywhere.

Texas and OU can go anywhere, and KU will likely be on the move too. TCU is the wild card. Definitely out for the B1G. But one wonders about their value for P12, SEC (probably not realistic), and even ACC.

As for the G5 I ran a similar with the Rose ceremony in mind


What should be obvious is that the B12 Rose ceremony only required schools have a top 10 G5 budget and hit the 1200 SAT for AI (same for P12). Tulane and Rice were such strong institutions that they stretched the line (there by the way is a $3.5 M drop after Rice to a bunch of MAC schools). Geography did not play a part. On my score index all fell short of the 16 minimum to get an invite, although Cincy, UConn and BYU came closest. UCF has risen "1" on my listing due to their recent FB success -- their weak endowment is a concern. What is fascinating is ignoring Temple and the two egghead schools, there is surprisingly little value difference in the schools given a Rose.

UNLV and New Mexico are lowly ranked academically that they are non-starters. Believe me if UNLV were not such an awful institution the P12 would be talking to them. SDSU is so far off the budget list I didn't bother to grade them. But they'd probably rank "7" or "8" as an institution.

This data does give one a clue as to who the B12 would look at for replacements (assuming UConn is too far away, the egghead schools and Temple not enough athletic value), and also how slim the pickings are for the AAC to replace any schools sucked up by the B12. For G5 conferences, resources (athletic budget) matters most. ODU, FIU, UMass and Rice standout from the rest of G5 ... obviously that doesn't do a thing for AAC football and except UMass probably no much for Basketball either. If they lose 2, standing pat looks better than lowering standards.

Anyway, what I am trying to show is there is nothing much out there for the P12. Fixing their issues internally makes more sense. (But were I the P12 expansion committee, I'd keep the lines open for Texas should they blunder and find themselves in a B12 without OU or KU and be looking to replace them with some schools just as mediocre as K State and Texas Tech. But I'd more seriously talk with TCU and KU -- most likely they would not add either, but keep options open.

Slim pickings.

Your colorful chart is nice but you forget 1 important thing, Larry Scott had the permission from PAC 10 Presidents/Chancellors to issue an invite to Texas Tech. In fact, Larry Scott flew to Lubbock with a PAC 10 invite in hand.

Texas Tech would instantly add millions of valued viewers in Texas for a conference that desperately needs it. We would add a 2nd invite( PAC is a 1 bid league this year) to the NCAA basketball tourney and our baseball team would be tops with a preseason top 5 ranking across most baseball publications.

Texas Tech does well academically considering A&M has done everything in their power to keep us down. Give us the same state money A&M gets and you are no longer ridiculing Tech academics.

If you go to the NSF website https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd you will find Universties ranked by research and development dollars. This is an easy guide to finding "like" universities based on how they view each other.

The Pacific 12 goes as follows:

5 Washington
10 Stanford
12 UCLA
26 Cal
27 USC
38 Arizona
44 ASU
48 Colorado
61 Utah
66 WSU
87 Oregon State
159 Oregon

Oregon is a real outlier.

From the B12 the following would fit academically with the P12:

35 Texas
73 Iowa State
78 Kansas
84 Oklahoma
113 Texas Tech

237 Baylor

The University of Baylor and Baylor College of Medicine are separate entities. So in addition to the religious control aspect at Baylor, they don't do much research.

To give some context to that, Wake Forest is 120 and they are tiny. BC is at 187.

(02-15-2019 10:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If you go to the NSF website https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd you will find Universties ranked by research and development dollars. This is an easy guide to finding "like" universities based on how they view each other.

The Pacific 12 goes as follows:

5 Washington
10 Stanford
12 UCLA
26 Cal
27 USC
38 Arizona
44 ASU
48 Colorado
61 Utah
66 WSU
87 Oregon State
159 Oregon

Oregon is a real outlier.

From the B12 the following would fit academically with the P12:

35 Texas
73 Iowa State
78 Kansas
84 Oklahoma
113 Texas Tech

237 Baylor

The University of Baylor and Baylor College of Medicine are separate entities. So in addition to the religious control aspect at Baylor, they don't do much research.

To give some context to that, Wake Forest is 120 and they are tiny. BC is at 187.

And at #7 sits - UC San Diego. Just sayin...

NFS has been updated. I need to update my spreadsheet. It was down during the shutdown, so I went on the year prior data.

But it does not materially impact Texas Tech. Utah comes in at the 7.6 percentile, Washington State 8.1 percentile, Texas Tech 13.2. That is just plain too low for a conference that looks at R&D and expects a top 8 percentile (Oregon State is 10.2, but part of OHSU is also on their campus). I would say a ranking of 10 percentile is roughly the cutoff. But it is not the end all, Admission Index comes into play, as does flagship and other factors.

Note: Oregon's numbers are low, but this is because they have no Engineering department and part of OHSU is integrated into the campus in Eugene (OHSU ranks 69 on HERD). If you factor those in, and the faculty accomplishment levels you understand why Oregon hangs onto AAU status. The leagues have more in depth numbers than I can run off the public sites

Tech's other problem is Admission Index, which is just plain too low. It's the same problem Washington State and to a lesser extent Iowa State suffer. In all three schools it is likely their remoteness from the big urban centers which forces them to compromise student standards in order to fill seats. The faculty are not the issue.

Tech's ace in the hole was piggybacking Texas into the Pac-10. But Texas is not going to the Pac-12. So that path is closed, and Tech has to answer primary criteria. Also that Larry Scott promoted them doesn't carry even half the weight today it did eight years ago. Scott's reputation is much tarnished, he has made far too many blunders and rubbed too many people the wrong way. And as I mentioned Tech was part of a package, a package that Scott found the President's tinkering with, swapping KU for OK State even as he talked with B12 schools. That just isn't much to hang your hat on now. The P12 Presidents ultimately decided Utah had more value than Texas Tech.

Tech's advantages would be as a complimentary school in Texas, but not a first school standing on it's own merrits. They have a big leg up on similar G5 schools like Houston in that they have the P5 athletic infrastructure in place. But they are remote, and like Washington State, need games in the Texas metros to reach alumni (DFW, Houston region, Austin/San Antonio). Their value cut apart from games in those areas is much less.

But yes Tech and TCU having the P5 level athletic infrastructure means the P12 if the expanded in the wake of a B12 exodus, doesn't have to take a G5 school like Colorado State or Houston. Better options from the B12 rump will be there for the picking.

***********************************
The best world scenario for the P12 would be for Rice, UC Davis and UC San Diego to all go big time FBS football with major efforts to win at the highest level and investing in the program to make it happen. They also love UNLV to do that while at the same time the State of Nevada decide to dump $2B into UNLV to turn it into a real research University with top faculty and seriously ramp up the admission requirements. Right now they don't give a hoot about academics or research (who needs research when you are a casino town?), and they get plenty of mediocre California students who decide UNLV is more exciting than Stan State, Cal State East Bay or San Bernadino. UCSD doesn't have football and probably never will, while UCD leadership is pathetic and near sighted. As for Rice, the potential is there, but that has been the case since the Southwest Conference days.

I just don't see help from G5. I do see Rice a probable school on the move after the AAC and possibly MWC lose schools to the B12 reload.

Note: Division-less football reform, which will likely come into being in a few years with the B1G and ACC wanting it, makes expansion much more about who is an individual fit. You really don't have to have an even number anymore. That means a 2nd school of lesser value may not be admitted, whereas the last time around they were in order to balance the numbers.