(03-13-2023 12:25 PM)Yosef181 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.

This is going to be a hot take here, but here it is: the Big 12 wants the 4 corners way more than the 4 corners want the Big 12.

The 4 corners wouldn't have to "beg for admittance". If anything, the Big 12 would be the ones begging for the 4 corners to join. That's why we've seen some coaches and ADs from the Big 12 publicly talking about how much they would love the 4 corners.

Point taken, I agree that as of right now, the nB12 wants the 4C schools much more than the 4C schools want the nB12. They want to remain in the nPAC.

But still .... IF the nPAC media deal comes in at a peanuts level, then IMO that power dynamic changes.

If it becomes clear that the 4C schools need the nB12 more than vice-versa, a big if, but if, then a "hat in hand" situation might be in order, IMO.

(03-13-2023 12:26 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 12:19 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 12:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 11:40 AM)RobUCF Wrote:  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.

Hmmm. 57% of CU's student body comes from Colorado. 9.8% comes from California. That leaves 33% of CU's student body that comes from other states, with Illinois (3.4%) and Texas (3.3%) being #2 and #3 out-of-state options. The report at the link below doesn't have state information beyond that, but the other 33% brings much more money to CU than California (9.8%).

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more CU students from Illinois, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Missouri than from California.

https://www.colorado.edu/oda/sites/defau...fall22.pdf

But why would so many Illinois and Texas students go to Colorado?! They don't even have teams in the PAC! /s

lol

A lot of young people leave Illinois to go to college. Half of the students at the University of Dayton come from Illinois and I think about 1/3 of Miami of Ohio's student body are from the Land of Lincoln. I was looking at the out-of-state student at Cincinnati recently and Illinois is just behind Kentucky and Indiana at #4 (and surprisingly Texas was #5).

Tons of Chicago kids at KU as well. Pretty much can't throw a rock without hitting one.

It's very clear that Utah benefits in institutional association being tied to Stanford, Cal and Washington. Oregon, Colorado and Arizona help too. CU institutionally loves being associated with those Pacific Coast schools as well. WSU and OSU are going to stick close to their big brothers as long as possible out of necessity. Oregon and Washington have no interest in the Big 12, so will stick with the Pac-12 until a B1G offer comes, which is probably not happening for the next some years. That really only leaves ASU as a flight risk, but they are tied at the hip to Arizona. Arizona has a basketball faction that has interest in moving, but they have to overcome a string institutional desire to stay wedded to California, the money and out of state student and alumni base of the school.

Utah's position doesn't surprise me. The Pac-12 can take the defection of the Arizona schools and survive. They can bring on schools like San Diego State, Colorado State and SMU as need be to keep in the game.

(03-13-2023 09:49 AM)johnbragg 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.

Colorado could always justify returning by saying that their problem was with Bevo. And by the fact that the PAC lost USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington and power conference status.

Quote: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.

The schools get around that by using private money instead of state money or university money to pay for the travel. The PAC is kicking the tires on inviting SMU, which is in Texas. Cal is playing at Auburn in 2024 and at Florida in 2026.

This is not a problem. OR at least not a big enough problem to drive realignment decisions

Quote: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.

The parts I didn't cross out are true. But big universities in red states are just as liberal at the administrative levels. Outside of a Baylor and a BYU, FBS schools are all going to be pretty blue-pilled.

Fresno STate's fanbase may be more conservative than SDSU's or Colorado's , but I'm pretty confident that their administrators mostly have "In this house we believe" yard signs and not Trump 2024 or pro-military yard sign.

Cal is opening their season Sept. 2nd at UNT in Denton this coming 2023 season.

(03-13-2023 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 12:25 PM)Yosef181 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.

This is going to be a hot take here, but here it is: the Big 12 wants the 4 corners way more than the 4 corners want the Big 12.

The 4 corners wouldn't have to "beg for admittance". If anything, the Big 12 would be the ones begging for the 4 corners to join. That's why we've seen some coaches and ADs from the Big 12 publicly talking about how much they would love the 4 corners.

Point taken, I agree that as of right now, the nB12 wants the 4C schools much more than the 4C schools want the nB12. They want to remain in the nPAC.

But still .... IF the nPAC media deal comes in at a peanuts level, then IMO that power dynamic changes.

If it becomes clear that the 4C schools need the nB12 more than vice-versa, a big if, but if, then a "hat in hand" situation might be in order, IMO.

You're going to have to educate me on that one. What does the "n" stand for? New?

(03-13-2023 12:46 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People who go out of state to another public university typically don’t hop one state over. They typically go to have a much different experience.

My HS in ILL sent more kids to ASU, Utah, USC (for some reason those three were popular- basically once one kid went there tended to be a pipeline with subsequent kids going) than Iowa or Wisconsin or Indiana.

To be sure, what you’ve described seems to be unusual. Most of the high schools in the suburban Chicago area are sending a lot of students to Indiana, Iowa, Purdue, Wisconsin and Missouri in particular. A lot of it is that it’s much harder to get into the University of Illinois today (as is the case with a lot of large state flagships). Some more far-flung places are popular because of lifestyle/weather (such as Colorado, Arizona, ASU, etc.), but the major schools in neighboring states are still the biggest beneficiaries of Illinois sending so many people to out-of-state schools.

I’ve read that the Chicago area is the single most competitive market for college students in America. The combo of the size of the state, a single flagship without a clear co-flagship or no. 2 school, a lot of high-performing students, being in the center of the country (making everywhere relatively easy to drive or fly to from coast-to-coast) and relatively high in-state tuition costs compared to other states have all essentially made Chicago for college student recruiting into the equivalent of Texas/Florida for football recruiting.

(03-13-2023 12:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's very clear that Utah benefits in institutional association being tied to Stanford, Cal and Washington. Oregon, Colorado and Arizona help too. CU institutionally loves being associated with those Pacific Coast schools as well. WSU and OSU are going to stick close to their big brothers as long as possible out of necessity. Oregon and Washington have no interest in the Big 12, so will stick with the Pac-12 until a B1G offer comes, which is probably not happening for the next some years. That really only leaves ASU as a flight risk, but they are tied at the hip to Arizona. Arizona has a basketball faction that has interest in moving, but they have to overcome a string institutional desire to stay wedded to California, the money and out of state student and alumni base of the school.

Utah's position doesn't surprise me. The Pac-12 can take the defection of the Arizona schools and survive. They can bring on schools like San Diego State, Colorado State and SMU as need be to keep in the game.

Is it though? When you were a student looking at colleges, unless you are looking to get into an Ivy College, what conference they played sports in was never really a factor.

The programs/academics, cost/scholarships, campus life, housing accommodations, and game day experience are all much bigger factors as to why students apply.

In the business world, I don't see anyone touting that they went to a PAC school or a B1G school. They tout that they went to Stanford or Michigan. Single school metrics, not conference metrics, are what is important.

Exposure actually does have a significant impact on the number of applications, however. When Cincy went to the BCS bowls and the CFP we saw a massive increase in applications.

The silence you hear out of Washington and Oregon is deafening...

What I don't understand is that the media is implying that 6-8 of the PAC schools seem to be "worth Big XII money" if they move to that conference (or the Big Ten), but they aren't worth that staying in the PAC. Are WSU and OSU really that much dead weight in that conference? Is this just about weeding them out of the P5?

One would think that most of the schools in the Big XII aren't worth what the TV networks are paying them. I just don't see the evidence that leads me to believe that the Big XII should get a better payout than the PAC 10/12.

(03-13-2023 11:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(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.

Sankey said no new schools, "at this time."

The next poster who introduced politics in the CS/CR boards discussion threads will be banned. The Clean up on Aisle 1 (First Page) was extensive. This goes to those who quote a political post and spread its impact.

If you wish to discuss the political aspects about a sports decision do so in the Spin Room!

So your takeaway should be:
1. No Politics on the CS/CR Forum.
2. If a poster introduces politics into a thread report the post and do not quote it, ever!

I would essentially have to nuke half of this thread to clean it up. Transyc didn't start the thread to illicit political discussion. To interject it is thread derailment. To quote it is to be complicit in thread derailment.

(03-13-2023 01:32 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 12:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's very clear that Utah benefits in institutional association being tied to Stanford, Cal and Washington. Oregon, Colorado and Arizona help too. CU institutionally loves being associated with those Pacific Coast schools as well. WSU and OSU are going to stick close to their big brothers as long as possible out of necessity. Oregon and Washington have no interest in the Big 12, so will stick with the Pac-12 until a B1G offer comes, which is probably not happening for the next some years. That really only leaves ASU as a flight risk, but they are tied at the hip to Arizona. Arizona has a basketball faction that has interest in moving, but they have to overcome a string institutional desire to stay wedded to California, the money and out of state student and alumni base of the school.

Utah's position doesn't surprise me. The Pac-12 can take the defection of the Arizona schools and survive. They can bring on schools like San Diego State, Colorado State and SMU as need be to keep in the game.

Is it though? When you were a student looking at colleges, unless you are looking to get into an Ivy College, what conference they played sports in was never really a factor.

The programs/academics, cost/scholarships, campus life, housing accommodations, and game day experience are all much bigger factors as to why students apply.

In the business world, I don't see anyone touting that they went to a PAC school or a B1G school. They tout that they went to Stanford or Michigan. Single school metrics, not conference metrics, are what is important.

Exposure actually does have a significant impact on the number of applications, however. When Cincy went to the BCS bowls and the CFP we saw a massive increase in applications.

I don’t know about that - while it might not be the most prevalent factor in deciding where to go to college, but I do think going to a “Big Ten school” does have a specific connotation in the Midwest just as going to an SEC school has a certain connotation in the South. Sure, if you went to Stanford or Michigan, then you say that you went to Stanford or Michigan because those would be considered elite schools whether they’re in the Big Ten or MAC… but if you’re Iowa or Utah, then that bump from conference prestige is a much more distinguishing factor. The fact is that the conference prestige is much more impactful to a “new money” school like Utah that only got into the AAU in the past few years than a school like Stanford. Also, I’ve been in plenty of workplaces where almost everyone went to a Big Ten school or Notre Dame, so it’s a unifying bond (just as I’m sure there are places in Atlanta where virtually everyone went to SEC and/or ACC schools or you’ll come across some workplaces in New York where almost everyone is an Ivy grad).

Also, whether it makes sense or not to use academics as a sorting mechanism for conferences is besides the point. For certain conferences - the Big Ten, Pac-12, and ACC - it *does* matter to those schools and their university presidents, particularly several that have a fair amount of individual realignment power in the process like Washington and UNC.

So, arguing that academics don’t matter or shouldn’t matter is going to fall on deaf ears with that group. In any sales pitch, just ignoring the target’s biggest concern isn’t going to work in the vast majority of circumstances. Either offer has to be so overwhelming that it overrides the biggest concern (like if the SEC offered a spot to any Pac-12 schools) or there’s a situation where the target truly has no other options. In contrast, a marginally better offer isn’t going to be persuasive when something really important to the core a school and its decision-makers (in this case academics) would be perceived to take a hit.

(03-13-2023 01:56 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  What I don't understand is that the media is implying that 6-8 of the PAC schools seem to be "worth Big XII" money if they move to that conference (or the Big Ten), but they aren't worth that staying in the PAC. Are WSU and OSU really that much dead weight in that conference? Is this just about weeding them out of the P5?

One would think that most of the schools in the Big XII aren't worth what the TV networks are paying them. I just don't see the evidence that leads me to believe that the Big XII should get a better payout than the PAC 10/12.

I think that the networks don't value the PAC because the PAC is limited by geography and kick-off times. The East Coast bias is real because that's where the majority of the population lives. Something like 80% of the US population lives East of the Mississippi. Casual viewership still drives a lot of linear ratings.

Couple that with a waning interest in football on the West Coast, Oregon & Washington being one foot out the door, lack of linear bidders, and limited available linear network TV slots since the PAC is last to market, then you have a recipe for a TV deal that could be significantly worst than the Big 12's in terms of dollars and exposure.

(03-13-2023 01:56 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  What I don't understand is that the media is implying that 6-8 of the PAC schools seem to be "worth Big XII money" if they move to that conference (or the Big Ten), but they aren't worth that staying in the PAC. Are WSU and OSU really that much dead weight in that conference? Is this just about weeding them out of the P5?

One would think that most of the schools in the Big XII aren't worth what the TV networks are paying them. I just don't see the evidence that leads me to believe that the Big XII should get a better payout than the PAC 10/12.

I think I can explain it for you.

Most P5 games are interchangeable. They help ESPN and Fox fill up their schedules on Saturdays. So they need a certain number of decent P5 games.

ESPN fills most of their spots with the SEC and ACC games they already owned walking in to 2021. Then they add the SEC Game of The Week, and an extra SEC game from Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC. But ESPN loses one or two Big Ten games a week that they have now.

When the Big 12 signed their TV deal, ESPN and Fox filled up their TV schedules with Big 12 games. most of them are just interchangeable games--ESPN gets about 4 a week, Fox gets about 2 a week.

Think of most of the games as blenders. If you already have a blender, you're probably not going to buy another blender even if it's on a really good sale. You only need one or two blenders, you only have room for one or two blenders. Even if there's a blender in the supermarket for $5, you're probably not buying it.

Up until now, ESPN has been buying games if the price was right, and figuring out later on how to show them. They're now, in the words of the Disney CEO, "being more selective".

It's not that Baylor games or BYU games are that much more valuable than Arizona games or Oregon State games. It's that ESPN and Fox are already paying for the Baylor games, so they're going to show them.

(03-13-2023 01:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 12:46 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People who go out of state to another public university typically don’t hop one state over. They typically go to have a much different experience.

My HS in ILL sent more kids to ASU, Utah, USC (for some reason those three were popular- basically once one kid went there tended to be a pipeline with subsequent kids going) than Iowa or Wisconsin or Indiana.

To be sure, what you’ve described seems to be unusual. Most of the high schools in the suburban Chicago area are sending a lot of students to Indiana, Iowa, Purdue, Wisconsin and Missouri in particular. A lot of it is that it’s much harder to get into the University of Illinois today (as is the case with a lot of large state flagships). Some more far-flung places are popular because of lifestyle/weather (such as Colorado, Arizona, ASU, etc.), but the major schools in neighboring states are still the biggest beneficiaries of Illinois sending so many people to out-of-state schools.

I’ve read that the Chicago area is the single most competitive market for college students in America. The combo of the size of the state, a single flagship without a clear co-flagship or no. 2 school, a lot of high-performing students, being in the center of the country (making everywhere relatively easy to drive or fly to from coast-to-coast) and relatively high in-state tuition costs compared to other states have all essentially made Chicago for college student recruiting into the equivalent of Texas/Florida for football recruiting.

Assume reciprocity plays a role in this. I looked it up & was surprised to see IL withdrew from their agreement:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/brea...story.html

Texas/Florida are the same & don't participate in their regional agreements. Wouldn't surprise me if other larges states, like California, eventually move that direction. Only a handful of Cal-State schools participate in their agreement. None of the FBS schools, BTW.

Utah is trying to get in the MAC behind the scenes...

Well, it makes sense with how their AD's reaction to the Dennis Dodds article.

It's worth nothing that no other Four Corners AD tried to contradict the article.

(03-13-2023 01:33 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  The silence you hear out of Washington and Oregon is deafening...

Scheer reports that Oregon and UW believe that they'll get Big Ten invites once Warren is gone.

The recent Dennis Dodds article seemed to indicate that Warren might have actually been more of a hindrance than a help for UO and UW getting into the Big 10, since Warren was demanding that Cal and Stanford also be brought along despite those schools being dilutive. I guess we'll see for sure within about the next two months.

(03-13-2023 01:56 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  What I don't understand is that the media is implying that 6-8 of the PAC schools seem to be "worth Big XII money" if they move to that conference (or the Big Ten), but they aren't worth that staying in the PAC. Are WSU and OSU really that much dead weight in that conference? Is this just about weeding them out of the P5?

One would think that most of the schools in the Big XII aren't worth what the TV networks are paying them. I just don't see the evidence that leads me to believe that the Big XII should get a better payout than the PAC 10/12.

It's mostly just that the Big 12 signed its deal earlier.

(03-13-2023 02:16 PM)Poster Wrote:  Well, it makes sense with how their AD's reaction to the Dennis Dodds article.

It's worth nothing that no other Four Corners AD tried to contradict the article.

Utah simply does not want to have to ask BYU for permission to join the conference. They should be careful b/c it was not that long ago they were outside of the P5. If UW and Oregon leave and AZ,Co,AZ St feel they have no choice but to join the Big 12 BYU could essentially lobby to keep them out. I don’t know why Utah thinks they are somehow above being left out in the cold when the realignment shift happens again

(03-13-2023 12:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 12:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 11:40 AM)RobUCF Wrote:  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.

Hmmm. 57% of CU's student body comes from Colorado. 9.8% comes from California. That leaves 33% of CU's student body that comes from other states, with Illinois (3.4%) and Texas (3.3%) being #2 and #3 out-of-state options. The report at the link below doesn't have state information beyond that, but the other 33% brings much more money to CU than California (9.8%).

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more CU students from Illinois, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Missouri than from California.

https://www.colorado.edu/oda/sites/defau...fall22.pdf

Uh - 10% of enrollment for a public university coming from one single out-of-state location is HUGE, especially if it’s not a directly adjacent neighbor (such as Iowa and Indiana schools pulling students from Illinois).

I don’t know how anyone that has been to Boulder and can’t see that it’s way more like California at this point, if only because there are so many freaking people actually from California there now. CU is a clearly West Coast facing school. It also likely has more people from New York and New Jersey than it does from the neighboring plains states based on schools that similarly draw a lot of affluent out-of-state students because of the location and lifestyle (e.g. Michigan, Wisconsin, Vermont, etc.).

The “affluent” part is big here - Colorado is not cheap at all and they’re generally charging out-of-state students full sticker price. This isn’t like, say, Alabama where they’re luring out-of-state students with large merit scholarships. CU is essentially charging a private school price to out-of-state students and getting almost everyone that goes there to pay it. Where is the out-of-state money? It ain’t in Kansas or Oklahoma. It’s from Southern California and the Bay Area. CU doesn’t just need markets, but *wealthy* markets to target.

Colorado (or any other university) could field zero sports and still get students from California.

Same goes for the person who mentioned "Illinois is an exporter"

rolls eyes.

High population states are going to export more students than a low population state. Why? They have more people.

If your school has 100 students, and 9 or 10 came from California, that's nice I guess, but considering their population to the rest of the US, that doesn't seem a lot, when you consider that California is roughly 12% of the US population.

Illinois is 3.9% by the way.

And this without starting to break those numbers down statistically.

So no, let's not get hung up on student recruitment from California.

I think Colorado will get students from that state regardless.

My point was that their new coach is apparently throwing the old recruitment playbook out the window.

So the old beliefs about Colorado's "reasons why" for wanting to be in the PAC may not all be accurate anymore...