Official realignment thread - SEC formally invites OU and Texas to join the conference in 2025

[MtnBuff]

That is something you could say about Washington State when it comes to ADs being in disarray with no relief in sight from their administration due to questionable spending for athletics. Even ASU and Texas' ADs were in disarray under their former ADs. WSU & OSU's fanbases aren't big either but the WSU fanbase is rabid for a small fanbase.

CSU did sell their stadium out for its debut against OSU. WSU, UA, and TT games are the type of games to prove to the Pac-12 and Big 12 that they can draw strong crowds to that stadium. If they can't, it will kill their P5 hopes for a very long time.

Huge difference though. Washington State is already in the conference as is Oregon State and the conference isn't going to kick them out.

In fact as I mentioned before if the conference tried to kick them out there would be some massive political pressure put on Washington and Oregon to use their influence to keep them.

This is the same kind of issue that would be faced trying to split Okie Lite from OU or Kansas State and Kansas. Unless there is simply no choice they are a package deal

Go back a few years and consider when the PAC was expanding to include CU and Utah. There was significant talk about the conference taking Texas and OU. Before anything official even got out the politics were working full speed to try to make sure that Baylor was included (in place of Colorado was their idea) and Baylor isn't even a state school.

If those schools were not already members of the PAC they would likely face a similar set of problems getting into a P5 conference that CSU faces but they don't have to worry about that.

 

[MtnBuff]

It's not going to be about attracting ticket sales and eyeballs in the market. Everyone across the country pretty much has access to every P5 game if they want it. It's going to be about which conferences generate the most intriguing games and put out the best product.

There is a reason why the NFL doesn't give any ****s about the TV market of a particular city. Games played in Green Bay, WI generate far more eyeballs and revenue for the NFL than games played in NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, or SF. This is the way sports content is going, and college football is not going to continue to be some big outlier. The conferences that can brand and market their programs and matchups the best will get the viewers across the country and therefore the big $$ deals.

You couldn't be more wrong. Sure just about anyone can see any game if they want to enough.

The real issue is how many people will make the effort to see them. Your NFL comparison has absolutely no validity because it is culturally a completely different thing. Americans watch the NFL , bet on the NFL, play fantasy NFL, and consume NFL.

College football has some general fans but it is much more about loyalties and rivalries for specific programs. You can put an NFL game on and people all over the country will watch it. Put a college game on and the rating are very dependent on who the teams are and where you take the numbers. Very few college programs are a national brand (exceptions like Notre Dame, Texas, Southern Cal, etc.) Start putting regular Boise games on Saturday afternoon on ABC and million of fans will either be not watching, watching the game on CBS or ESPN, etc. or watching golf.

If this were not true the MWC would have a TV contract that pays them more than a fraction of the worst P5 contract.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

You couldn't be more wrong. Sure just about anyone can see any game if they want to enough.

The real issue is how many people will make the effort to see them. Your NFL comparison has absolutely no validity because it is culturally a completely different thing. Americans watch the NFL , bet on the NFL, play fantasy NFL, and consume NFL.

College football has some general fans but it is much more about loyalties and rivalries for specific programs. You can put an NFL game on and people all over the country will watch it. Put a college game on and the rating are very dependent on who the teams are and where you take the numbers. Very few college programs are a national brand (exceptions like Notre Dame, Texas, Southern Cal, etc.) Start putting regular Boise games on Saturday afternoon on ABC and million of fans will either be not watching, watching the game on CBS or ESPN, etc. or watching golf.

If this were not true the MWC would have a TV contract that pays them more than a fraction of the worst P5 contract.

The MWC doesn't have a big TV contract because they aren't playing for anything meaningful. It's the difference between G5 and P5 and it's a massive difference. The quality isn't there, the competition isn't there. Similar to the Pac 12 right now. The quality isn't there and the level of competition isn't on par with the top programs in the other conferences. Even most West Coast CFB fans are going to tune into Georgia vs Alabama or Ohio State vs Michigan over USC and Oregon.

You are making my point for me. College football viewing used to be limited to your region and TV markets with the exception of the few nationally televised games. Now, you can just as easily watch an ACC game in Colorado as you can a Pac 12 game. The TV markets will not matter going forward like they used to. The Pac 12 has the second and third largest TV markets in the country and can't sniff a reasonable TV deal.

Sports betting is just getting started in the US and CFB is going to be right there with the NFL at the top of the betting charts. It will change viewership habits. I agree that expanding into different time zones is key, but because of timeslots for games and not having marquee Pac 12 matchups being relegated to a 9 or 10pm ET start time.

 

[MtnBuff]

The MWC doesn't have a big TV contract because they aren't playing for anything meaningful. It's the difference between G5 and P5 and it's a massive difference. The quality isn't there, the competition isn't there. Similar to the Pac 12 right now. The quality isn't there and the level of competition isn't on par with the top programs in the other conferences. Even most West Coast CFB fans are going to tune into Georgia vs Alabama or Ohio State vs Michigan over USC and Oregon.

You are making my point for me. College football viewing used to be limited to your region and TV markets with the exception of the few nationally televised games. Now, you can just as easily watch an ACC game in Colorado as you can a Pac 12 game. The TV markets will not matter going forward like they used to. The Pac 12 has the second and third largest TV markets in the country and can't sniff a reasonable TV deal.

Sports betting is just getting started in the US and CFB is going to be right there with the NFL at the top of the betting charts. It will change viewership habits. I agree that expanding into different time zones is key, but because of timeslots for games and not having marquee Pac 12 matchups being relegated to a 9 or 10pm ET start time.

Most teams in college football aren't playing for anything meaningful. With a lousy deal the PAC teams still get more than ten times the media revenue that MWC teams get.

It is because nobody cares about Utah State, New Mexico, CSU, and as much as they have won nobody cares enough to watch Boise.

Nebraska sucks, Tennessee is a disaster, others the same but they still draw much better TV ratings than Boise playing SDSU. That is why the TV money is different.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Their football stadium holds 37,000 people. When they tried to expand to 53,000, they couldn't raise the revenue.

Just for the sake of argument, Martin Stadium only holds 32,000. Now of course being the second smallest stadium isn't great, but I think Boise generates more national TV interest than does WSU due to their success the past 20 years. That said, I'm biased in that I like regional conferences, and Boise is one of the two football programs out west that doesn't have a P5 home. A "natural" fit from a fan standpoint, even if not from an academic (or perhaps money) standpoint.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Along with the correct academic standards the expansion needs to bring enough eyeballs and media markets to pay for the teams that would be joining. CSewe and UNM do not do that. Boise would not do that. UNLV maybe. But getting into TX with Houston or SMU or gettting schools to move from a few other markets in the Big 12 are going to be the moves that have to be made. The revenue has to make sense or you end up with a bigger conference and lower payouts per team. This is about markets and not just the schools.

With a move to streaming, value is not in "markets" as much as pure viewership driven by compelling matchups; you need "brands". The nation isn't going to tune in for UNLV.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

They absolutely dominate their market already, they aren't going to draw significantly larger numbers of fans to the stadium or to TV screens. Yes they have won and won a lot for years but that doesn't translate into national or even regional TV numbers. It's why they are still stuck on backwater TV channels at weird times for most of their games.

Initially they would out recruit a number of current PAC schools. They wouldn't out recruit enough to stay dominant and as soon as they slip back to or below the middle then any recruiting edge that all those winning records brought them goes away and they sink to the bottom of the standings.

Market penetration doesn't matter, national viewership does. They get few nationally televised games outside of their good OOC matchups because no one cares to watch them play Wyo or Air Force, just like no one will tune in to see CU do the same. They generate interest and viewers when matched up against a good P5 team.

All that said, I'm not saying BSU would be a good add, just some of the arguments in this thread don't make sense.

 

[DeNiro]

Boise State elevates the bottom 1/4 of the conference.

 

[Alfred91]

Just for the sake of argument, Martin Stadium only holds 32,000. Now of course being the second smallest stadium isn't great, but I think Boise generates more national TV interest than does WSU due to their success the past 20 years. That said, I'm biased in that I like regional conferences, and Boise is one of the two football programs out west that doesn't have a P5 home. A "natural" fit from a fan standpoint, even if not from an academic (or perhaps money) standpoint.

Like I said, Wazzu is lucky they're grandfathered in. They would never get a sniff these days.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Like I said, Wazzu is lucky they're grandfathered in. They would never get a sniff these days.

Yep. Possibly OSU too. Every conference has them, particularly the ACC. And Vandy sticks out like a sore thumb in the SEC.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Like I said, Wazzu is lucky they're grandfathered in. They would never get a sniff these days.

15/65 P5 programs have stadium capacities below 51k, including CU.

Cincinnati and Houston stadiums hold 40,000. UCF holds 44,000.

Utah stadium holds 45k. TCU holds 50k.

Stadium capacity is not really relevant for P5 admission

 

[InTheBuff]

If BSU ever gets an invite to the PAC I sure as hell hope one of the conditions to join is to make them get rid of the blue smurf turf.
It's such an embarrassing gimmick.

 

[patebuff]

If BSU ever gets an invite to the PAC I sure as hell hope one of the conditions to join is to make them get rid of the blue smurf turf.
It's such an embarrassing gimmick.

That would be the most Pac 12 thing ever to do

 

[Buffalo Brad]

With a move to streaming, value is not in "markets" as much as pure viewership driven by compelling matchups; you need "brands". The nation isn't going to tune in for UNLV.

Well, brands like BSU CSU, UNM will not cut it. You will also need something outside of the current footprint or some compelling match ups. None of what is being mentioned will do that either. Houston, SMU, UNLV maybe but most of the decent brands are in the better conferences and will need to be poached.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Well, brands like BSU CSU, UNM will not cut it. You will also need something outside of the current footprint or some compelling match ups. None of what is being mentioned will do that either. Houston, SMU, UNLV maybe but most of the decent brands are in the better conferences and will need to be poached.

Boise is a bigger brand currently than the three you mention. But sure, Boise likely doesn't cut it either. No one who is good enough is going to be interested in the Pac as is.

 

[WarBuff]

Boise is a bigger brand currently than the three you mention. But sure, Boise likely doesn't cut it either. No one who is good enough is going to be interested in the Pac as is.

I’m trying to imagine USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal Berkeley, and Washington agreeing that Boise is an academic fit. UCLA was whining that CU wasn’t cutting it!

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

I’m trying to imagine USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal Berkeley, and Washington agreeing that Boise is an academic fit. UCLA was whining that CU wasn’t cutting it!

I've never said that they would see BSU as an academic fit. They obviously wouldn't.

 

[WarBuff]

I've never said that they would see BSU as an academic fit. They obviously wouldn't.

Agreed, I’m hearing the opposition to that idea in Charles Emerson Winchester III’s voice.

 

[MtnBuff]

15/65 P5 programs have stadium capacities below 51k, including CU.

Cincinnati and Houston stadiums hold 40,000. UCF holds 44,000.

Utah stadium holds 45k. TCU holds 50k.

Stadium capacity is not really relevant for P5 admission

Stadium revenue is.

CSU home attendance is roughly half of what CU home attendance is. Average revenue per seat for CU is over twice that of CSU (average ticket price plus average seat license.) What this means is that just in revenue from selling seats CU gets four times as much as CSU per game.

I haven't looked them up but I have no doubt that many of these G5 programs are in a similar situation. They aren't going to magically quadruple their game revenue just because they join a P5 conference and since they won't have the same level of on field success (Boise isn't going to consistently win 10 games in the PAC, not close) that interest is going to slide back down.

Simple reality. The P5 conferences are about making money. If adding these programs was going to make the existing conference teams money they would have already been adding them.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Stadium revenue is.

CSU home attendance is roughly half of what CU home attendance is. Average revenue per seat for CU is over twice that of CSU (average ticket price plus average seat license.) What this means is that just in revenue from selling seats CU gets four times as much as CSU per game.

I haven't looked them up but I have no doubt that many of these G5 programs are in a similar situation. They aren't going to magically quadruple their game revenue just because they join a P5 conference and since they won't have the same level of on field success (Boise isn't going to consistently win 10 games in the PAC, not close) that interest is going to slide back down.

Simple reality. The P5 conferences are about making money. If adding these programs was going to make the existing conference teams money they would have already been adding them.

There’s no revenue sharing for ticket and concession/parking/etc. How does that have any bearing on P5 admission, again? Stadium size doesn’t matter

 

[MtnBuff]

There’s no revenue sharing for ticket and concession/parking/etc. How does that have any bearing on P5 admission, again? Stadium size doesn’t matter

It is a very good indication of support for a program that translates into TV ratings.

Again these P5 conferences are interested in making money. If adding G5 schools made sense they would have already done it.

The PAC doesn't care enough about gaining increased viewership in Idaho and from BSU alums to give them a share of conference revenue. The rest of the country doesn't care about Boise. If they did they wouldn't have their games on ESPN 32 at midnight on odd Thursdays.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

It is a very good indication of support for a program that translates into TV ratings.

Again these P5 conferences are interested in making money. If adding G5 schools made sense they would have already done it.

The PAC doesn't care enough about gaining increased viewership in Idaho and from BSU alums to give them a share of conference revenue. The rest of the country doesn't care about Boise. If they did they wouldn't have their games on ESPN 32 at midnight on odd Thursdays.

I disagree with your premise that the TV market matters going forward like it used to. Good teams, national brands, competitive matchups with national implications, good time slots. That’s what will drive viewership and revenue from media contracts. We’ll see

 

[CarolinaBuff]

Houston, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would be an ideal scenario (it won't happen).

Just say it - OU and Texas

 

[MtnBuff]

I disagree with your premise that the TV market matters going forward like it used to. Good teams, national brands, competitive matchups with national implications, good time slots. That’s what will drive viewership and revenue from media contracts. We’ll see

This is the whole thing. Boise isn't a national brand. Neither is any of the other G5 programs being mentioned here. They are a niche brand with a small following.

People don't look at them as a good matchup and the networks don't want them for good time slots.

Nobody with a brain thinks that putting Boise vs. an average conference team is going to draw the same kind of audience numbers that a game with Bama, or even Florida State or Nebraska will draw.

In the big picture Boise doesn't matter. If they did somebody would have picked them up.

Boise can dream as can CSU and a bunch of other schools but they aren't getting an invitation to a P5 conference, nor should they.

 

[skibum]

I guess it depends on how you define brand. They are usually the #1 or #2 recruiting G5 program in the country with Cincinnati. They are more relevant and successful on the national level currently than Oregon State, Arizona, Washington State and maybe Colorado and Cal. Are ASU and Utah really viewed that much more favorably from a pure brand perspective than Boise? Maybe? I think Boise could have similar success as Utah did going from G5 to P5, but with a national brand behind them.

The only reason anyone in the central or eastern time zone ever watched a boise state game was because in the 90s the MWC started playing games on Friday night, and they were the winningest team that played on Friday night.

That's it.

That's the only reason anyone east of I-25 has ever heard of that school or watched any of their games. And, BTW >75% of the US population lives east of I-25.

And now that other, real schools, play on Friday night, nobody outside the region watches any of the games on the gimmicky smurf turf.

They were a good TV draw when the competition was matlock reruns.

Those days are long gone.

 

[MtnBuff]

The only reason anyone in the central or eastern time zone ever watched a boise state game was because in the 90s the MWC started playing games on Friday night, and they were the winningest team that played on Friday night.

That's it.

That's the only reason anyone east of I-25 has ever heard of that school or watched any of their games. And, BTW >75% of the US population lives east of I-25.

And now that other, real schools, play on Friday night, nobody outside the region watches any of the games on the gimmicky smurf turf.

They were a good TV draw when the competition was matlock reruns.

Those days are long gone.

In addition to the people east of I-25 how many people in California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado would watch a Boise game if it wasn't what come on when they randomly turned on the TV. Even when they are playing another MWC school the huge majority of the fans in those states couldn't care less about them.

By the way there was an era when Fresno was the dominant G5 (called them mid-major then) school winning conference championships, frequently beating major conference schools, bouncing up and down the rankings. Did it get them anywhere? Not any further than being the dominant name among mid-majors got CSU during the Sonny Lubbick era.

It is all about how much are you worth in the next series of media contracts. Nobody is standing in line to make these schools rich.

 

[BuffLuke80]

Most of the schools I've seen mentioned don't move the needle at all, football wise anyway. What I mean by that is money. Boise has a fine program, no doubt. If they go through a P5 conference slate, I don't think they'll look like themselves. If we add any teams, it needs to be an institution with money and a following. Who that is, I couldn't tell ya?

 

[PAC MAN]

There’s no revenue sharing for ticket and concession/parking/etc. How does that have any bearing on P5 admission, again? Stadium size doesn’t matter

The size of the athletic budget of said G5 program could be one factor. I agree that stadium size is less of an issue than it used to be. That is why the Folsom Field Champions Center project focused on premium seating and CSU's on campus stadium premium seating pretty much pays for the annual bond payments on that stadium. Boise State doesn't have to expand their stadium to 50K...they just need to produce the revenue to support a large athletic budget in line with P5 conferences. Everyone knows where to find that information.

If stadium sized mattered, then why are WSU, Duke, Wake Forest, Northwestern, Baylor, and Vanderbilt P5 schools then? Only WSU is a public school while the rest are private universities. Just look at the student body size of Tulsa and they are an AAC school which is a high tier G5 conference.

 

[PAC MAN]

It is all about how much are you worth in the next series of media contracts. Nobody is standing in line to make these schools rich.

I believe the Pac-12 media money makes up for about 1/3 of CU's athletic budget. The AD has to raise about 2/3 of that money generally. If CSU's AD budget is close to that 2/3 for CU, then they could have a case to join a P5 conference. That would be about $60-65 million minimum at this time without the current media rights deal factored in. For CSU that figure could be closer to $70 million.

A $15-20 million dollar subsidiary for athletics is a great deal when that leads to hundreds of millions of dollars of research money being granted by the government based on who are in those academic alliances based on the athletic conferences such as the Pac-12, Big 12, and Big Ten. I believe the ACC has one while the SEC schools might be more part of an alliance of 60+ southern schools without having their own SEC academic alliance.

 

[Buffnik]

Houston, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would be an ideal scenario (it won't happen).

I think the best 2-team expansion for the conference would be UNLV and TTU in terms of what's reasonable and makes regional sense.

If the B1G got aggressive with a move on KU and OU, the 4-team move would be trying to add UT and TCU to UNLV-TTU to get to 16.