(03-13-2023 10:24 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:44 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Colorado is interesting.

People say that one of the Reasons that Colorado likes the PAC was the southern cal recruiting.

But anyone who's been watching the overhaul at Colorado right now might be wondering if that's being turned on its head.

From which states has their new FB coach normally recruited?

More importantly, this is NOT about football or athletic recruiting, but rather “regular student” recruiting. California residents made up nearly 10% of the current enrollment at CU. This is 3 times as many residents as the #2 out-of-state source of Illinois and the #3 source of Texas.

CU has around 31,000 undergraduate students. This translates into around 3100 students from California. Total out-of-state cost of attendance at CU this year is approximately $58,000. This means that CU is making around $180 million in tuition and fees from California residents this year. In contrast, they only get 1/3 that amount from Texas residents.

This is a big reason why CU wanted to leave the Big 12 for the Pac-12 in the first place: the State of California is what powers their school financially as an entire institution much more than the State of Texas. Whatever the Big 12 might be offering is a drop in the bucket compared to that $180 million figure that CU is getting pumped in from out-of-state California students every year (and growing).

The football recruiting angle is a red herring. The out-of-state tuition money is where the BIG money is for CU (as they are taking advantage of a great location, meaning they have most of their students paying full price and they don’t have to offer many scholarships) and that supports more exposure in California and the rest of the Pac-12 footprint.

(03-13-2023 10:29 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Utah gains status from rubbing elbows with Cal, Stanford etc.

And the last thing I think they want to do is to have to show up at the nB12 doorstep hat in hand, begging the nB12 schools, including BYU now, for admittance.

Yes, this is the constant theme here.

If the Big 12 were offering Big Ten/SEC money, then it would be a different story, but that’s not happening.

This is what makes conference realignment at the power conference levels a much more complex discussion than the binary metrics of whether one league is earning 10% more than another league or if the football performance is better in one conference versus the other conference.

At the end of the day, the single most elitist group of people in the entire country consists of presidents of AAU and top academic research universities.

So, I’m constantly amazed in these realignment discussions that fans are surprised when these people often make decisions based on elitism. Now, once again, there’s a “price” to trade out that elitism if Big Ten or SEC money comes along (with the bonus of the Big Ten being that you can even step up in elite class), but the Big 12 isn’t offering a dramatic difference (and maybe not even be offering more money once the Pac-12 deals are done).

Frank, I think part of it is posters not recognizing elitism.

But part of it is posters assuming / believing that the PAC media deal will be a complete disaster, even without defections. Scarred veterans of the New Big East fiasco are especially prone to this view.
"Complete disaster" definitions: $30M per school, 80+% Apple TV Or less than $20M per school, 50%+ streaming.

At that point, schools that prefer to stay in the PAC *will* jump to the Big 12. Or the Big 10. Which will reduce the value of the media deal further. Sparking further defections.

Utah may be a special case -- non-major within living memory, AAU, associated with Cal and Stanford, "BYU problem". They're not a school whose alumni are used to being in a power conference for 70 years, and BYU makes them MORE sensitive to academic elitism.

But a Colorado -- cut off from southern California anyway (SDSU lol), close-enough-to-a-century of big-time college football in the Big 12 and Big 8 -- is very likely to jump to the Big 12 rather than be demoted from power-conference or even Big 12- ACC level college football.

Especially a PAC which loses a couple more of their current 10, and is backfilling with either the likes of Colorado State and Rice, or Fresno State and Boise State. That is not the PAC-10 that Coloado joined ten years ago.

Quote:... but even $10 million more per year in the Big 12 really doesn’t do much for the Pac-12 schools if they’re maintaining such a larger big picture academic prestige advantage.

And look, if the Pac-12 truly has a complete tire fire of a TV deal, then even I have said that is the point those Four Corners schools may move.

All I’m saying is that the Pac-12 schools *really* don’t want to go to the Big 12 unless it’s a legitimate “our power conference status is gone if we don’t leave” situation. Otherwise, these Pac-12 schools truly *do* see the Big 12 schools as being beneath them (regardless of how well they play football) and it’s only going to be a last resort action to move there.

1) from the piece cited, ASU is the other school most invested in preserving the PAC.
2) the fans may hate each other but Utah and BYU have no beef at the administrative and maybe more importantly the large donor level. Utah likely would be a yes vote for inviting BYU to the PAC, and BYU being in the B12 is a reason Utah would consider joining rather than a deterrent.
3) Utah is a western school with western donor, alumni, and fan distribution. The location of Cal and Stanford is as important. Reshaping the PAC with MWC teams isn’t the horror for Utah that some people make it out to be. Utah didn’t leave the MWC to avoid those schools. Those affiliations were generally quite positive and Utah would be happy to resume conference affiliation with many of them.

PS:
4) The notion of “elitism” as some abstract imperative misses the point. Enhanced branding through association has real concrete benefits in terms of improving the applicant pool, the pool of professors, and upping OOS tuition revenue. As higher education demand for perceived upper edge Lon schools increases and demand for low tier schools decreases, branding becomes even more important.
5) this board hyperfocuses on the relative position of conferences and dismisses the importance of the relative position of schools within a conference. UNC perspectives are larger shot down. The notion that UNC values its position within the ACC over the position of the ACC relative to other conferences is too quickly dismissed. Likewise there are some PAC schools who would legitimately rather be the nucleus of a depleted PAC than live in the outer orbits of a TX-centric BigXII.

(03-13-2023 10:29 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Utah gains status from rubbing elbows with Cal, Stanford etc.

And the last thing I think they want to do is to have to show up at the nB12 doorstep hat in hand, begging the nB12 schools, including BYU now, for admittance.

Yes, this is the constant theme here.

If the Big 12 were offering Big Ten/SEC money, then it would be a different story, but that’s not happening.

This is what makes conference realignment at the power conference levels a much more complex discussion than the binary metrics of whether one league is earning 10% more than another league or if the football performance is better in one conference versus the other conference.

At the end of the day, the single most elitist group of people in the entire country consists of presidents of AAU and top academic research universities.

So, I’m constantly amazed in these realignment discussions that fans are surprised when these people often make decisions based on elitism. Now, once again, there’s a “price” to trade out that elitism if Big Ten or SEC money comes along (with the bonus of the Big Ten being that you can even step up in elite class), but the Big 12 isn’t offering a dramatic difference (and maybe not even be offering more money once the Pac-12 deals are done).

Frank, I think part of it is posters not recognizing elitism.

But part of it is posters assuming / believing that the PAC media deal will be a complete disaster, even without defections. Scarred veterans of the New Big East fiasco are especially prone to this view.
"Complete disaster" definitions: $30M per school, 80+% Apple TV Or less than $20M per school, 50%+ streaming.

At that point, schools that prefer to stay in the PAC *will* jump to the Big 12. Or the Big 10. Which will reduce the value of the media deal further. Sparking further defections.

Utah may be a special case -- non-major within living memory, AAU, associated with Cal and Stanford, "BYU problem". They're not a school whose alumni are used to being in a power conference for 70 years, and BYU makes them MORE sensitive to academic elitism.

But a Colorado -- cut off from southern California anyway (SDSU lol), close-enough-to-a-century of big-time college football in the Big 12 and Big 8 -- is very likely to jump to the Big 12 rather than be demoted from power-conference or even Big 12- ACC level college football.

Especially a PAC which loses a couple more of their current 10, and is backfilling with either the likes of Colorado State and Rice, or Fresno State and Boise State. That is not the PAC-10 that Coloado joined ten years ago.

Quote:... but even $10 million more per year in the Big 12 really doesn’t do much for the Pac-12 schools if they’re maintaining such a larger big picture academic prestige advantage.

Colorado already said no thanks. They don't want the Big 12.

(03-13-2023 10:33 AM)RobUCF Wrote:  I'd feel alot better about the future of the PAC if it wasn't, as has been stated above, Utah, Colorado, or Arizona State leading the charge to keep the conference together, but instead it was Oregon and Washington. That's where the problem lies.

Sankey said no new schools being added to the SEC. That means the Big 10 won't respond either to add Oregon and Washington.

The problem is that Scheer is the one who reported on the $22 M per school and the mostly streaming details. Others are reporting more. I think the hold up is how much money that they can actually be getting if they add certain schools. I don't know if ESPN would give more if the PAC 12 would add any of the AAC schools if they are already paying them cheaper. Why give anymore money for content that they already have?

Now, ESPN does not have inventory from the MWC, Big Sky or the Dakota schools. Maybe ESPN might give a little boast if they add content that they really don't have to begin with.

(03-13-2023 10:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  1) from the piece cited, ASU is the other school most invested in preserving the PAC.
2) the fans may hate each other but Utah and BYU have no beef at the administrative and maybe more importantly the large donor level. Utah likely would be a yes vote for inviting BYU to the PAC, and BYU being in the B12 is a reason Utah would consider joining rather than a deterrent.
3) Utah is a western school with western donor, alumni, and fan distribution. The location of Cal and Stanford is as important. Reshaping the PAC with MWC teams isn’t the horror for Utah that some people make it out to be. Utah didn’t leave the MWC to avoid those schools. Those affiliations were generally quite positive and Utah would be happy to resume conference affiliation with many of them.

BYU is controversial which why the Big 12 did not invite them in 2016 and should not have been invited now. BYU punishes rape victims by expelling them from school for having sex before they got married. Baylor is another major issue that the PAC 12 schools will never join. With their rape scandals and all that. TCU might be another one as well.

I don't think they mind Cincinnati, Houston or UCF since they are R1, but it is the private schools that they are more concerned about. PAC 12 would invite Boise State before they would invite Baylor, BYU or TCU.

(03-13-2023 10:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:29 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Utah gains status from rubbing elbows with Cal, Stanford etc.

And the last thing I think they want to do is to have to show up at the nB12 doorstep hat in hand, begging the nB12 schools, including BYU now, for admittance.

Yes, this is the constant theme here.

If the Big 12 were offering Big Ten/SEC money, then it would be a different story, but that’s not happening.

This is what makes conference realignment at the power conference levels a much more complex discussion than the binary metrics of whether one league is earning 10% more than another league or if the football performance is better in one conference versus the other conference.

At the end of the day, the single most elitist group of people in the entire country consists of presidents of AAU and top academic research universities.

So, I’m constantly amazed in these realignment discussions that fans are surprised when these people often make decisions based on elitism. Now, once again, there’s a “price” to trade out that elitism if Big Ten or SEC money comes along (with the bonus of the Big Ten being that you can even step up in elite class), but the Big 12 isn’t offering a dramatic difference (and maybe not even be offering more money once the Pac-12 deals are done).

Frank, I think part of it is posters not recognizing elitism.

But part of it is posters assuming / believing that the PAC media deal will be a complete disaster, even without defections. Scarred veterans of the New Big East fiasco are especially prone to this view.
"Complete disaster" definitions: $30M per school, 80+% Apple TV Or less than $20M per school, 50%+ streaming.

At that point, schools that prefer to stay in the PAC *will* jump to the Big 12. Or the Big 10. Which will reduce the value of the media deal further. Sparking further defections.

Utah may be a special case -- non-major within living memory, AAU, associated with Cal and Stanford, "BYU problem". They're not a school whose alumni are used to being in a power conference for 70 years, and BYU makes them MORE sensitive to academic elitism.

But a Colorado -- cut off from southern California anyway (SDSU lol), close-enough-to-a-century of big-time college football in the Big 12 and Big 8 -- is very likely to jump to the Big 12 rather than be demoted from power-conference or even Big 12- ACC level college football.

Especially a PAC which loses a couple more of their current 10, and is backfilling with either the likes of Colorado State and Rice, or Fresno State and Boise State. That is not the PAC-10 that Coloado joined ten years ago.

Quote:... but even $10 million more per year in the Big 12 really doesn’t do much for the Pac-12 schools if they’re maintaining such a larger big picture academic prestige advantage.

And look, if the Pac-12 truly has a complete tire fire of a TV deal, then even I have said that is the point those Four Corners schools may move.

All I’m saying is that the Pac-12 schools *really* don’t want to go to the Big 12 unless it’s a legitimate “our power conference status is gone if we don’t leave” situation. Otherwise, these Pac-12 schools truly *do* see the Big 12 schools as being beneath them (regardless of how well they play football) and it’s only going to be a last resort action to move there.

Agreed on all of that. We just disagree on how apocalyptic the PAC's tv situation is.

(03-13-2023 11:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Sankey said no new schools being added to the SEC. That means the Big 10 won't respond either to add Oregon and Washington.

The SEC may have said they won't expand, but if Oregon said they want in (not saying they'll do this, I'm only stating a hypothetical), then you'd let Oregon in

(03-13-2023 10:57 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:29 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Utah gains status from rubbing elbows with Cal, Stanford etc.

And the last thing I think they want to do is to have to show up at the nB12 doorstep hat in hand, begging the nB12 schools, including BYU now, for admittance.

Yes, this is the constant theme here.

If the Big 12 were offering Big Ten/SEC money, then it would be a different story, but that’s not happening.

This is what makes conference realignment at the power conference levels a much more complex discussion than the binary metrics of whether one league is earning 10% more than another league or if the football performance is better in one conference versus the other conference.

At the end of the day, the single most elitist group of people in the entire country consists of presidents of AAU and top academic research universities.

So, I’m constantly amazed in these realignment discussions that fans are surprised when these people often make decisions based on elitism. Now, once again, there’s a “price” to trade out that elitism if Big Ten or SEC money comes along (with the bonus of the Big Ten being that you can even step up in elite class), but the Big 12 isn’t offering a dramatic difference (and maybe not even be offering more money once the Pac-12 deals are done).

Frank, I think part of it is posters not recognizing elitism.

But part of it is posters assuming / believing that the PAC media deal will be a complete disaster, even without defections. Scarred veterans of the New Big East fiasco are especially prone to this view.
"Complete disaster" definitions: $30M per school, 80+% Apple TV Or less than $20M per school, 50%+ streaming.

At that point, schools that prefer to stay in the PAC *will* jump to the Big 12. Or the Big 10. Which will reduce the value of the media deal further. Sparking further defections.

Utah may be a special case -- non-major within living memory, AAU, associated with Cal and Stanford, "BYU problem". They're not a school whose alumni are used to being in a power conference for 70 years, and BYU makes them MORE sensitive to academic elitism.

But a Colorado -- cut off from southern California anyway (SDSU lol), close-enough-to-a-century of big-time college football in the Big 12 and Big 8 -- is very likely to jump to the Big 12 rather than be demoted from power-conference or even Big 12- ACC level college football.

Especially a PAC which loses a couple more of their current 10, and is backfilling with either the likes of Colorado State and Rice, or Fresno State and Boise State. That is not the PAC-10 that Coloado joined ten years ago.

Quote:... but even $10 million more per year in the Big 12 really doesn’t do much for the Pac-12 schools if they’re maintaining such a larger big picture academic prestige advantage.

Colorado already said no thanks. They don't want the Big 12.

Link? And the juco reference doesn’t count

(03-13-2023 11:14 AM)Huan Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:57 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:29 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Utah gains status from rubbing elbows with Cal, Stanford etc.

And the last thing I think they want to do is to have to show up at the nB12 doorstep hat in hand, begging the nB12 schools, including BYU now, for admittance.

Yes, this is the constant theme here.

If the Big 12 were offering Big Ten/SEC money, then it would be a different story, but that’s not happening.

This is what makes conference realignment at the power conference levels a much more complex discussion than the binary metrics of whether one league is earning 10% more than another league or if the football performance is better in one conference versus the other conference.

At the end of the day, the single most elitist group of people in the entire country consists of presidents of AAU and top academic research universities.

So, I’m constantly amazed in these realignment discussions that fans are surprised when these people often make decisions based on elitism. Now, once again, there’s a “price” to trade out that elitism if Big Ten or SEC money comes along (with the bonus of the Big Ten being that you can even step up in elite class), but the Big 12 isn’t offering a dramatic difference (and maybe not even be offering more money once the Pac-12 deals are done).

Frank, I think part of it is posters not recognizing elitism.

But part of it is posters assuming / believing that the PAC media deal will be a complete disaster, even without defections. Scarred veterans of the New Big East fiasco are especially prone to this view.
"Complete disaster" definitions: $30M per school, 80+% Apple TV Or less than $20M per school, 50%+ streaming.

At that point, schools that prefer to stay in the PAC *will* jump to the Big 12. Or the Big 10. Which will reduce the value of the media deal further. Sparking further defections.

Utah may be a special case -- non-major within living memory, AAU, associated with Cal and Stanford, "BYU problem". They're not a school whose alumni are used to being in a power conference for 70 years, and BYU makes them MORE sensitive to academic elitism.

But a Colorado -- cut off from southern California anyway (SDSU lol), close-enough-to-a-century of big-time college football in the Big 12 and Big 8 -- is very likely to jump to the Big 12 rather than be demoted from power-conference or even Big 12- ACC level college football.

Especially a PAC which loses a couple more of their current 10, and is backfilling with either the likes of Colorado State and Rice, or Fresno State and Boise State. That is not the PAC-10 that Coloado joined ten years ago.

Quote:... but even $10 million more per year in the Big 12 really doesn’t do much for the Pac-12 schools if they’re maintaining such a larger big picture academic prestige advantage.

Colorado already said no thanks. They don't want the Big 12.

Link? And the juco reference doesn’t count

he just makes stuff up

(03-13-2023 09:29 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Arizona State I heard is working behind the scenes to keep the PAC 12 together. Same with Colorado. It would be a defeat for Colorado to come back to the Big 12. What could nix any moves from the California, Washington, Oregon and Colorado is they banned any of their schools to play any schools in red states for passing all these laws to banned certain groups. That would also block any PAC 12 schools from moving. The PAC 12 schools are run by liberal minded people, and they do not agree with the mindset of Conservative schools in the Big 12. Utah is liberal while BYU is not. Colorado is liberal. Arizona and Arizona State are liberal minded. Boise State is liberal minded. Fresno State is more conservative minded. San Diego State is more liberal minded. SMU run by the Methodist church, and Methodists tends to be more Liberal.

Most college leadership is liberal even when their fans and students aren't.

99% of college leaderships are liberal. Schools like Liberty and Hillsdale are the rare exceptions.

Utah is in a precarious situation and its fans don't even realize it. Cincinnati was in a similar spot as Utah when the Big East eventually imploded. We were coming off 2 BCS bowl appearances and the rug was pulled from under us after Pittsburgh lead the charge to take our TV deal onto the open market. Cincinnati was and still is an R1 school with a 40K+ student population, a $1B+ endowment, and is located inside a great market for college football/basketball...it didn't save them.

One thing I realized after all the turmoil is, unless you're a blue chip program, the networks don't really care about you. Utah is in a better spot than Cincinnati was when the BE died however, their only likely conference option outside of the PAC already has a team in the Utah market. If Oregon and Washington get discounted B1G bids and/or the PAC can't land a TV deal that offers schools enough dollars and/or exposure, Utah is at risk.

ESPN already has a pro rata clause but FOX does not. Is FOX willing to pay pro rata for Utah if they already have BYU? Probably, but I don't think it is a 100% guarantee. FOX doesn't seem to have any interest in PAC content so while the armchair realignment experts on this board think it is a home run (including myself), FOX executives could think differently. I think AU and ASU could be in the same boat but at least they are in a much larger state than Utah.

Every team outside the top 15-20ish programs or so should be prioritizing stability in this constantly unstable market. It is wayyy too easy for a program like Utah to find itself in the Big East/AAC version of the PAC. It's happened before and will likely happen again. The barometer to get into a P2 conference is incredibly high now, if Stanford, Oregon, and Washington are having trouble finding homes in the B1G, even at a discounted rate...schools like Cal, Utah, Arizona, ASU, and Colorado don't have much of a chance unless there is some P2 downsizing or separation from the NCAA.

Utah fans seem to think that their program is above that but as a fan of a formerly left-behind school, I can assure you, you're not. Ending up left behind in a PAC-lite with AAC/MWC schools is not an impossible scenario. Every school in the PAC should be prioritizing their own interests, if they come to the conclusion that's sticking together, so be it...but don't rely on the other schools looking out for the conference's best interests instead of their own. That's how you get burned.

Ending up in a PAC-lite with MWC schools isn’t the horror you think it is.

(03-13-2023 10:00 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Utah gains status from rubbing elbows with Cal, Stanford etc.

And the last thing I think they want to do is to have to show up at the nB12 doorstep hat in hand, begging the nB12 schools, including BYU now, for admittance.

I maintain that it makes zero sense for any P12 team to join the Big 12. To join West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF, BYU and Baylor it just makes no sense to me for a variety of reasons.

This is a true statement without context. I certainly see your point regarding academics among other things. However, if you're a PAC 12 school knowing good and well that Washington and Oregon are on the first bus out of town, and you are getting ready to have your Tier I media rights stuck on a streaming platform that is going to greatly reduce your visibility then it maybe different.

Watching the BIGXII make more money, while playing on big networks will be a hard pill to swallow. The day is coming where there will only be the P2 and a 3rd conference that still gets Power conference treatment, and that will be the BIGXII. The ACC and PAC will lose teams that the SEC and BIG want. There is no avoiding that. Better to make sure you have a seat at the adults table regardless of who's sitting at it with you, than be cast down to kids table. Pride cometh before the fall.

(03-13-2023 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, Utah gains status from rubbing elbows with Cal, Stanford etc.

And the last thing I think they want to do is to have to show up at the nB12 doorstep hat in hand, begging the nB12 schools, including BYU now, for admittance.

Yes, this is the constant theme here.

If the Big 12 were offering Big Ten/SEC money, then it would be a different story, but that’s not happening.

This is what makes conference realignment at the power conference levels a much more complex discussion than the binary metrics of whether one league is earning 10% more than another league or if the football performance is better in one conference versus the other conference.

At the end of the day, the single most elitist group of people in the entire country consists of presidents of AAU and top academic research universities.

So, I’m constantly amazed in these realignment discussions that fans are surprised when these people often make decisions based on elitism. Now, once again, there’s a “price” to trade out that elitism if Big Ten or SEC money comes along (with the bonus of the Big Ten being that you can even step up in elite class), but the Big 12 isn’t offering a dramatic difference (and maybe not even be offering more money once the Pac-12 deals are done).

As I’ve said elsewhere, there’s a MUCH bigger power/non-power dynamic in higher education going on beyond sports. If you’re an elite institution, then you’re growing stronger financially and getting more applicants than ever, but if you’re not an elite institution, then you’re generally struggling. People need to understand this backdrop and why the top academic institutions are very reticent to go “slumming” in their minds on any level in this environment, including in athletics, where academic rankings honestly mean more than ever for institutional strength. Once again, it’s one thing to triple your money in the SEC (in which case academic rankings go out the window at that point), but even $10 million more per year in the Big 12 really doesn’t do much for the Pac-12 schools if they’re maintaining such a larger big picture academic prestige advantage.

I don't think you are quite right. Among private schools the elite are doing very well. The "middle class" is struggling and the "poor" are in bad shape. But among public schools, good but not elite schools are doing quite well, such as Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State. Its not like Utah would be joining a league with Southern Illinois or Youngstown St. or Central Michigan, who do face declining enrollment. And in the South and West, where there is population growth, the comparable schools to Southern Illinois are often still growing. There is a different dynamic outside the midwest and northeast where 18-25 year old populations are declining.

(03-13-2023 10:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:24 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:44 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Colorado is interesting.

People say that one of the Reasons that Colorado likes the PAC was the southern cal recruiting.

But anyone who's been watching the overhaul at Colorado right now might be wondering if that's being turned on its head.

From which states has their new FB coach normally recruited?

More importantly, this is NOT about football or athletic recruiting, but rather “regular student” recruiting. California residents made up nearly 10% of the current enrollment at CU. This is 3 times as many residents as the #2 out-of-state source of Illinois and the #3 source of Texas.

CU has around 31,000 undergraduate students. This translates into around 3100 students from California. Total out-of-state cost of attendance at CU this year is approximately $58,000. This means that CU is making around $180 million in tuition and fees from California residents this year. In contrast, they only get 1/3 that amount from Texas residents.

This is a big reason why CU wanted to leave the Big 12 for the Pac-12 in the first place: the State of California is what powers their school financially as an entire institution much more than the State of Texas. Whatever the Big 12 might be offering is a drop in the bucket compared to that $180 million figure that CU is getting pumped in from out-of-state California students every year (and growing).

The football recruiting angle is a red herring. The out-of-state tuition money is where the BIG money is for CU (as they are taking advantage of a great location, meaning they have most of their students paying full price and they don’t have to offer many scholarships) and that supports more exposure in California and the rest of the Pac-12 footprint.

Colorado left the Big 12 not even knowing what the Pac 12 TV contract would be. They actually made less money in the Pac 12. Their president, after leaving, talked about where their alumni were. California easily lead the pack (after Colorado of course). Texas was a distant 2nd. Arizona was a good bit back in 3rd, but had more alumni than the rest of the Big 12 states combined. Washington was next. Historically, Colorado was tied to the plains and relied on land and mineral resources, but their economy is now tied to the west.

(03-13-2023 10:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:24 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:44 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Colorado is interesting.

People say that one of the Reasons that Colorado likes the PAC was the southern cal recruiting.

But anyone who's been watching the overhaul at Colorado right now might be wondering if that's being turned on its head.

From which states has their new FB coach normally recruited?

More importantly, this is NOT about football or athletic recruiting, but rather “regular student” recruiting. California residents made up nearly 10% of the current enrollment at CU. This is 3 times as many residents as the #2 out-of-state source of Illinois and the #3 source of Texas.

CU has around 31,000 undergraduate students. This translates into around 3100 students from California. Total out-of-state cost of attendance at CU this year is approximately $58,000. This means that CU is making around $180 million in tuition and fees from California residents this year. In contrast, they only get 1/3 that amount from Texas residents.

This is a big reason why CU wanted to leave the Big 12 for the Pac-12 in the first place: the State of California is what powers their school financially as an entire institution much more than the State of Texas. Whatever the Big 12 might be offering is a drop in the bucket compared to that $180 million figure that CU is getting pumped in from out-of-state California students every year (and growing).

The football recruiting angle is a red herring. The out-of-state tuition money is where the BIG money is for CU (as they are taking advantage of a great location, meaning they have most of their students paying full price and they don’t have to offer many scholarships) and that supports more exposure in California and the rest of the Pac-12 footprint.

I myself don't believe there will be an realignment until the B1G moves on Oregon and Washington, and the numbers you stated may be completely accurate - but I believe you are making a big assumption here. That is that out-of-state California students go to Colorado because California schools they will not be attending are in the same athletic conference as them. I highly doubt that is a significant factor in how California students make their college choice. Sure, maybe it provides the University of Colorado with more television exposure in California, but that only pertains to sports fans in high school watching games. And while that is the majority of people on this board, in the real world it's a much smaller percentage that would even be watching these games. And a even much smaller percentage that would consider conference alignment in making a decision on a college choice.

(03-13-2023 10:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  1) from the piece cited, ASU is the other school most invested in preserving the PAC.
2) the fans may hate each other but Utah and BYU have no beef at the administrative and maybe more importantly the large donor level. Utah likely would be a yes vote for inviting BYU to the PAC, and BYU being in the B12 is a reason Utah would consider joining rather than a deterrent.
3) Utah is a western school with western donor, alumni, and fan distribution. The location of Cal and Stanford is as important. Reshaping the PAC with MWC teams isn’t the horror for Utah that some people make it out to be. Utah didn’t leave the MWC to avoid those schools. Those affiliations were generally quite positive and Utah would be happy to resume conference affiliation with many of them.

PS:
4) The notion of “elitism” as some abstract imperative misses the point. Enhanced branding through association has real concrete benefits in terms of improving the applicant pool, the pool of professors, and upping OOS tuition revenue. As higher education demand for perceived upper edge Lon schools increases and demand for low tier schools decreases, branding becomes even more important.
5) this board hyperfocuses on the relative position of conferences and dismisses the importance of the relative position of schools within a conference. UNC perspectives are larger shot down. The notion that UNC values its position within the ACC over the position of the ACC relative to other conferences is too quickly dismissed. Likewise there are some PAC schools who would legitimately rather be the nucleus of a depleted PAC than live in the outer orbits of a TX-centric BigXII.

Actually, Utah left a lot of those schools--twice! They did take Air Force, Wyoming and Colorado St. with them once. They dragged New Mexico, UNLV and San Diego St. along as filler. And SDSU is the only one of that group that realistically will be added to the Pac barring a complete meltdown of the conference.

The Big 12 will be fine with or without schools from the Pac 12. If they want to stick together and play on Ion or Apple, more power to them. As I have said before, if they think they have visibility issues now, just wait.

(03-13-2023 11:42 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The Big 12 will be fine with or without schools from the Pac 12. If they want to stick together and play on Ion or Apple, more power to them. As I have said before, if they think they have visibility issues now, just wait.

Correct!