I know I am saying the Big-12 adding those 4 teams brings stability to the league. So therefore the Pac-12 is screwed for who they want to add because they can't get into Texas.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Conference Expansion - Big 12 is a tire fire
- Thread starter hokiehead
- Start date
Yeah which is pretty much all Scott is concerned with. His sole job for the next 8 years is to bring as much instability to the Big-12 as he can.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
This makes sense to me. Get essentially two extra road trips to So. Cal. Unfortunately, the other Cali school would oppose it.
Agreed. BYU is toxic, and CSU is well ... ****e. And I don't want them as a travel partner. Give me AF or NM over the lambs.
The way we will move the needle is continuing to get the network carried. Sling and Prism are steps in the right direction. The elephant in the room is Scott's inability to make the network a national brand.
Exactly. Sackman's argument:
a couple common themes have evolved over this thread's life. we started with:
1. The financial gap between the Pac 12 and the B1G/SEC is getting bigger; this gap can only be narrowed through Pac expansion.
this argument led to discussion over which, if any, schools the Pac could add that would close the financial gap. Most posters, but not all, agree the only two schools would be OK and Texas. Most posters, but not all, agree those schools are not currently interested in Pac membership.
IMO, the position that the financial gap can be closed through expansion is not a settled issue -- it may very well be possible that there is no expansion scenario for the Pac that will move the needle on finances into SEC/B1G realm.
2. The evolution of the big time college conferences is going to require that the Pac get to 16 member schools; the Pac should expand now to pick our new members before someone does.
Many posters believe that the evolution of 4 or 5 super conferences will force a conference membership size of exactly 16. they assert that if all other big time conferences are at 16 members, those conferences "won't allow" the Pac to remain at 12. This is an interesting position, but requires challenging a few points.
who is this new governing body that will "require" the Pac to expand to 16? the NCAA? a new organization formed of only the new "P5" conferences? Media companies with which the Super-Conferences enter into contracts? I don't think the NCAA has the authority, so we're discussing taking preemptive action as a counter-move against a possible forth-coming requirement from a new, hypothetical, governing body.
if such an evolution does happen, is it really a viable path for the eastern conferences to exclude the Pac schools from their new club if we refuse to expand (i.e. would these "east coast playoffs" truly produce a consensus national champion if the Pac schools were not allowed to participate)? Seems to me like we're discussing how to mitigate a risk with a really low probability here.
And, why couldn't a system exists that allows conferences of different magnitudes? such a system has existed since the start of college athletics but for some reason many posters are ready to assume that the evolution of super-conference will require homogeneity of magnitude. the argument for varying conference sizes is easily backed up by population density.
1. The financial gap between the Pac 12 and the B1G/SEC is getting bigger; this gap can only be narrowed through Pac expansion.
this argument led to discussion over which, if any, schools the Pac could add that would close the financial gap. Most posters, but not all, agree the only two schools would be OK and Texas. Most posters, but not all, agree those schools are not currently interested in Pac membership.
IMO, the position that the financial gap can be closed through expansion is not a settled issue -- it may very well be possible that there is no expansion scenario for the Pac that will move the needle on finances into SEC/B1G realm.
2. The evolution of the big time college conferences is going to require that the Pac get to 16 member schools; the Pac should expand now to pick our new members before someone does.
Many posters believe that the evolution of 4 or 5 super conferences will force a conference membership size of exactly 16. they assert that if all other big time conferences are at 16 members, those conferences "won't allow" the Pac to remain at 12. This is an interesting position, but requires challenging a few points.
who is this new governing body that will "require" the Pac to expand to 16? the NCAA? a new organization formed of only the new "P5" conferences? Media companies with which the Super-Conferences enter into contracts? I don't think the NCAA has the authority, so we're discussing taking preemptive action as a counter-move against a possible forth-coming requirement from a new, hypothetical, governing body.
if such an evolution does happen, is it really a viable path for the eastern conferences to exclude the Pac schools from their new club if we refuse to expand (i.e. would these "east coast playoffs" truly produce a consensus national champion if the Pac schools were not allowed to participate)? Seems to me like we're discussing how to mitigate a risk with a really low probability here.
And, why couldn't a system exists that allows conferences of different magnitudes? such a system has existed since the start of college athletics but for some reason many posters are ready to assume that the evolution of super-conference will require homogeneity of magnitude. the argument for varying conference sizes is easily backed up by population density.
While I tend to agree with you, I think that there's an argument to be made for the Pac-12 to get off their high horse. While there are quite a few quality schools in the conference, ASU, OSU, and Wazzou don't really qualify as major research institutions.
Obviously they are grandfathered in and all of that, but at the same time, there is precedent for a non-Stanford, Washington or UCLA to be in the conference.
I see your point, but also believe you have to take into consideration certain Pac 12 programs bailing on the conference if it refuses to expand to keep up with the "new order". If the Big 10, SEC, ACC and Big 12 end up being on board with the idea of the 16 team super conferences, you don't think the top tier Pac 12 programs would hesitate to say "**** you" to the rest of the conference and bail for what will assuredly be a much bigger pay day? Obviously, that would require the Big 12 not dissolving, but if the Pac 12 decided to be stubborn and not conform, I don't see why the Big 12 could then be the one poaching Pac members instead of the other way around. That is not a scenario Buff fans want to see happen.
Probably, and as much as I hate to admit it and would despise it, if UT and OU wanted to come on board, he would probably jump at the chance. Now, it would have to come with certain ground rules such as semi-neutering UT.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Massive over-exaggeration IMHO.
On the academic side, AAU is a "really nice to have" but not a requirement. B1G cares a lot more about that than the Pac-12 and is pissed that Nebraska losing status resulted in the conference not being able to claim that ever B1G member is an AAU member.
But being mostly AAU is prestigious. Pac-12 has 8: Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington.
I believe that the Pac would like to keep it as majority AAU, if possible.
Tier One is an absolute requirement, though. All 12 members are at that status.
When it comes to conference membership and expansion, the mistake the media and fans make is that we are thinking like sports fans instead of thinking like university presidents and chancellors. Those folks are making the decisions here, not the athletic directors.
1. There are no more AAU members within the Mountain & Pacific time zones that are AAU members.
2. The only non-Pac R1 universities (Tier One doctoral research) within the Mountain & Pacific time zones are CSU and New Mexico. *Of note here is that P5 conference affiliation seems to lead directly to doctoral research dollars that may vault a schools from R2 into R1 status -- KSU is R1, for example.
3. Bordering the Pac-12 region (and ignoring that strip of Oklahoma that separates CO from TX), we have the following AAU schools (also R1): Kansas, Rice, Texas and Texas A&M . In the central time zone but with one flyover state, we have the following additional AAU schools: Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Missouri and Tulane.
4. Bordering the Pac-12 region (ignoring the OK strip again), we have the following non-AAU Tier One schools: Hawaii, Houston, KSU, Nebraska, North Texas, Oklahoma and TTU. In the central time zone but with one flyover state, we have the following additional non-AAU Tier One schools: Arkansas and LSU.
5. If we go with Tier Two (R2) schools within the footprint or just outside it (these are still research intensive doctoral schools), here are the ones that maybe the Pac-12 could make a bet on that affiliation with the other Pac schools would bring them up: Baylor, BYU, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico State, Oklahoma State, San Diego State, SMU, TCU, Tulsa, UNLV, Utah State, UTEP, UTSA, Wyoming.
Based on this, the favorite of the academics would be 4 AAUs but some compromises would be made if we are talking about a state flagship type institution that is R1.
Boise State and Air Force are non-starters due to academic status for doctoral research (R3).
Baylor, BYU, SMU and TCU with the double whammy of academic freedom questions surrounding a faith-based university (we have none of those in the Pac-12) along with them being R2 makes them non-starters.
I think we can pull in some of the considerations that Larry Scott's office would use and rank the candidates:
No Doubt: If Texas and Texas A&M wanted to join the Pac-12, it would be rubber stamped by all parties.
Almost No Doubt: Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas. Oklahoma has everything except AAU, but is highly respected for doctoral research while having a Top 5 prestige football program along with success in other athletics. Nebraska is pretty much Oklahoma but a small step down on these same things. Kansas would cause some conversation due to market and football success but would be approved.
Probably Get Approved: These would have to be packaged with one or more of the above schools, I think. Houston, Texas Tech, New Mexico - or if we go farther east after land bridging with one of the 5 at the top - then we can probably add Missouri and Tulane to the list. (Personally I don't think the line of states that borders the Mississippi River on the west fits within the Pac footprint or culture
Might Get Approved: Academic, market or political questions make it hard for the Pac-12 to go here but under the right circumstances it could happen: Nevada, UNLV, Utah State, Colorado State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, San Diego State and Hawaii. Some of these could look better in 10 years if realignment doesn't happen until the current Big 12 deal expires with a bump to either their on-field or academic cache as needed. I'd keep my eye on UNLV and SDSU, in particular, within that discussion.
So, given the above and assuming I am right, that leaves the Pac-12 with 4 viable options at the present time:
1. Do nothing.
2. Make a play to break up the Big 12 by going after Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech with a big offer.
3. Expand to 14 through a smaller play that might deliver Texas cable systems through the universities of Houston and New Mexico.
4. Throw out all the AAU/R1 stuff and make a play to absolutely own every major city in the Mountain & Pacific while creating a crazy good basketball conference (crippling the MWC in the process) by adding New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV and Boise State... betting that population growth and whatnot will cause this decision to pay huge dividends in the future.
But being mostly AAU is prestigious. Pac-12 has 8: Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington.
I believe that the Pac would like to keep it as majority AAU, if possible.
Tier One is an absolute requirement, though. All 12 members are at that status.
When it comes to conference membership and expansion, the mistake the media and fans make is that we are thinking like sports fans instead of thinking like university presidents and chancellors. Those folks are making the decisions here, not the athletic directors.
1. There are no more AAU members within the Mountain & Pacific time zones that are AAU members.
2. The only non-Pac R1 universities (Tier One doctoral research) within the Mountain & Pacific time zones are CSU and New Mexico. *Of note here is that P5 conference affiliation seems to lead directly to doctoral research dollars that may vault a schools from R2 into R1 status -- KSU is R1, for example.
3. Bordering the Pac-12 region (and ignoring that strip of Oklahoma that separates CO from TX), we have the following AAU schools (also R1): Kansas, Rice, Texas and Texas A&M . In the central time zone but with one flyover state, we have the following additional AAU schools: Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Missouri and Tulane.
4. Bordering the Pac-12 region (ignoring the OK strip again), we have the following non-AAU Tier One schools: Hawaii, Houston, KSU, Nebraska, North Texas, Oklahoma and TTU. In the central time zone but with one flyover state, we have the following additional non-AAU Tier One schools: Arkansas and LSU.
5. If we go with Tier Two (R2) schools within the footprint or just outside it (these are still research intensive doctoral schools), here are the ones that maybe the Pac-12 could make a bet on that affiliation with the other Pac schools would bring them up: Baylor, BYU, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico State, Oklahoma State, San Diego State, SMU, TCU, Tulsa, UNLV, Utah State, UTEP, UTSA, Wyoming.
Based on this, the favorite of the academics would be 4 AAUs but some compromises would be made if we are talking about a state flagship type institution that is R1.
Boise State and Air Force are non-starters due to academic status for doctoral research (R3).
Baylor, BYU, SMU and TCU with the double whammy of academic freedom questions surrounding a faith-based university (we have none of those in the Pac-12) along with them being R2 makes them non-starters.
I think we can pull in some of the considerations that Larry Scott's office would use and rank the candidates:
No Doubt: If Texas and Texas A&M wanted to join the Pac-12, it would be rubber stamped by all parties.
Almost No Doubt: Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas. Oklahoma has everything except AAU, but is highly respected for doctoral research while having a Top 5 prestige football program along with success in other athletics. Nebraska is pretty much Oklahoma but a small step down on these same things. Kansas would cause some conversation due to market and football success but would be approved.
Probably Get Approved: These would have to be packaged with one or more of the above schools, I think. Houston, Texas Tech, New Mexico - or if we go farther east after land bridging with one of the 5 at the top - then we can probably add Missouri and Tulane to the list. (Personally I don't think the line of states that borders the Mississippi River on the west fits within the Pac footprint or culture
Might Get Approved: Academic, market or political questions make it hard for the Pac-12 to go here but under the right circumstances it could happen: Nevada, UNLV, Utah State, Colorado State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, San Diego State and Hawaii. Some of these could look better in 10 years if realignment doesn't happen until the current Big 12 deal expires with a bump to either their on-field or academic cache as needed. I'd keep my eye on UNLV and SDSU, in particular, within that discussion.
So, given the above and assuming I am right, that leaves the Pac-12 with 4 viable options at the present time:
1. Do nothing.
2. Make a play to break up the Big 12 by going after Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech with a big offer.
3. Expand to 14 through a smaller play that might deliver Texas cable systems through the universities of Houston and New Mexico.
4. Throw out all the AAU/R1 stuff and make a play to absolutely own every major city in the Mountain & Pacific while creating a crazy good basketball conference (crippling the MWC in the process) by adding New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV and Boise State... betting that population growth and whatnot will cause this decision to pay huge dividends in the future.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
If I were Scott, this is what I'd do-Id add BYU in football only, and then go hard after Nebraska. BYU is a very good program who could instantly compete in this league (they play several Pac 12 teams a year already), a massive TV presence, and an instant rival with Utah. As far as Nebraska, good football program, better other sports than Houston can offer, decent market in Lincoln/Omaha (I'd argue you'd get more interest there than in Houston with that football team), and it's probably easier for say......the northwest four to get there than Houston.
You could definitely be right but it would be weird to see the ACC, Big-10, SEC and Big-12 sitting at 14 teams with teams in footprint to add (Memphis, UCF, USF, UConn, Notre Dame, Tulane, etc.) and have the Pac-12 completely screwed. At the very least they wouldn't be dealing from a position of strength.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Nik-if you want Kansas or Oklahoma, you've gotta be okay with taking their little brothers too. Politics. I think the Big 12 could survive losing KU. Any play to break it up has to be UT/OU/TT/OSU in my opinion.
I'm not so sure about those political ties being ironclad any more. It's definitely a stronger offer to go for both and it's definitely politically difficult, maybe impossible, for OU or KU to leave a stable Big 12 without the other, but I think that if things are seen as unstable that they could go it alone.
Deleted member 807
Guest
There are structual issues that keep the P12 from a strong position. 75% of the us population reside in the Central and Eastern TZ. Due to population and timezone, the majority of America (and ESPN's advertisers) are satisfied watching ACC/SEC/B1G/B12 matchups. The West has been and will continue to be the after-bedtime conference for the majority of the nation for the foreseeable future. No AD likes having several hundred student athlete traveling >800 miles to compete.
The Pac12 is isolated, and this makes it a weak conference unless you start thinking drastically.
Where money equals power, then follow the money. (This is the game you are playing, taken to an extreme.),
The PAC-16 should grab Notre Dame, Texas, Florida State and Florida.
Then Drop Wazzou and Oregon State, and add Oklahoma and Ohio State.
Then drop Utah, Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado for Michigan, Alabama, Texas A&M and LSU.
Then drop Stanford and ASU for Penn State and Georgia.
At this point the P$16 would be blue bloods that would dominate in the money game, and we can all sleep at night knowing America kicks ass at organizing to optimize profit, even at the expense of throwing away traditions and common sense.
Here is your dream P16 Larry Scott money conference:
USC
UCLA
Cal
uDub
ND
Ohio State
Penn State
Florida State
Florida
Georgia
Michigan
Alabama
LSU
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
There is the conference that plays from a position of power.
Last edited by a moderator:
If the Big 12 were to collapse it would be every school for themselves. Certainly political pressure would be involved trying to force OU and KU to bring along their fellow state schools but when the answer comes down to one getting in or both being left out (which could very easily be the case with the Kansas schools) then that bond would be broken.
The KU-KSU and OU-OSU rivalry aren't any stronger politically than Iowa - Iowa State but the pols aren't going to be able to force the B1G to take Iowa State.
There is a growing gap in money between the SEC/B1G and the PAC. That has nothing to do with the number of schools in the conferences and everything to do with the demographics and psychographics of the areas the schools are in. SEC schools, B1G schools dominate the market in their areas. A number of SEC schools draw bigger attendance and similar or better TV ratings to their local or closest NFL rivals. Outside of Texas and OU nobody in the current or proposed PAC footprint does that, many don't come close. CU and Utah combined don't generate the number of fanatical and paying fans as a number of schools in the SE or MW United States.
Adding the AFA or BYU or UNLV are even Kansas isn't going to change that difference in markets. They just got close to 160,000 people to pay to watch a game from a mile away at a race track, where else in the USA would that happen.
Diluting the product by adding inferior programs isn't going to help matters. Is UNLV on the schedule going to increase home attendance for the rest of the league? Don't think so.
somebody
Well-Known Member
Here's a list of schools of interest, the "R1/R2" research ratings that Nik referred to. I got it from Wikipedia, which references this list generated by Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, whose sources were the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) (the database of The Institute of Education Sciences, the statistics, research, and evaluation arm of the U.S. Department of Education) and the College Board (a conglomeration of over 6,000 schools, colleges, universities and other educational organizations). Note that military academies weren’t listed.
The report classifies institutions in 3 tiers of research activity:
• 115 institutions are classified as "R1: Research Universities (Highest research activity)."
• 107 institutions are classified as "R2: Research Universities (higher research activity)."
• 113 institutions are classified as "Doctoral Universities – Moderate Research Activity."
Schools are listed alphabetically below by level of research and conference (only Pac-12 and Big 12), plus schools of interest in this discussion (all those mentioned in this thread) plus a couple:
Highest research activity (R1):
Higher research activity (R2):
Moderate Research Activity:
The report classifies institutions in 3 tiers of research activity:
• 115 institutions are classified as "R1: Research Universities (Highest research activity)."
• 107 institutions are classified as "R2: Research Universities (higher research activity)."
• 113 institutions are classified as "Doctoral Universities – Moderate Research Activity."
Schools are listed alphabetically below by level of research and conference (only Pac-12 and Big 12), plus schools of interest in this discussion (all those mentioned in this thread) plus a couple:
Highest research activity (R1):
Higher research activity (R2):
Moderate Research Activity:
Sure. The Pac-12 is what the Pac-12 is.
So the question is on what direction the future should take.
One option is to stand pat, satisfied with the status quo.
One option is to expand in a way that brings in those different demographics and psychographics we see in the midwest and south, which would also alter the culture of the Pac in significant ways while likely being the most profitable.
One option is to expand in a way that nails down every state and major city in the MPTZ as a Pac state & city, minimizing the MWC into more of a Big Sky/ Big West/ WCC status by expanding within the footprint through the best mix for the conference of 4 schools from among SDSU, FSU, UNLV, UNR, BSU, BYU, CSU, USU and AFA or making a stronger play toward the Asia-Pacific TVs & international students with UH and maybe SDSU & UNM helping with some expansion into Mexico - honestly, I think it would make a lot of sense to have a PACN-Espanol channel and try to get it on both US carriers along with distribution throughout Latin America. (Within this, the biggest non-Pac states are: Nevada (2.9M), New Mexico (2.1M), Idaho (1.7M) and Hawaii (1.4M). The biggest non-Pac cities are: San Diego (3.3M), Las Vegas (2.1M), Honolulu (1.0M), Fresno (975k - goes to about 1.5M if we include Visalia), Albuquerque (907k), Colorado Springs (700k), Boise City (677k), Reno (451k), etc.
Personally, I like the Pac-12 culture being MPTZ and I like the road trip destinations. I see this region of the country growing. In athletics, this is showing up in basketball. In football, it's also showing up. I think Nevada sent 3 different HS teams to Texas this year for feature games against top competition and kicked ass in all of them. But I don't think any of the schools are ready quite yet. So I'd be sitting down with schools, UNLV and UNM in particular, and laying out for them what it is going to take on academics, facilities and athletic success.
Dodd seems to have his finger on the pulse of this better than anyone. Key points from his column:
- "Those grant of rights aren't going to be extended," an official at one of those schools told CBS Sports. [run through 2024-25]
- There is still no tangible momentum for Big 12 expansion at the moment, several sources said. CBS Sports reported last week there is a 50-50 chance the league won't expand after an elaborate process that started in earnest in July.
- Even if the Big 12 expands, sources say at least Oklahoma and Texas would want to flexibility of exploring their options after the current media rights agreement expires for football 2024 and basketball in 2025. Oklahoma regent Max Weitzenhoffer told CBS Sports in May the school was "within 30 minutes" of leaving for the Pac-10 in 2010.
- (He's got Houston #1 and Cincinnati #2)
How are there so many drastically conflicting reports surrounding this expansion? Multiple sources yesterday said expansion wasn't going to happen, while at the same time, BYU posts their thing, and not it's all but confirmed that 2 teams are being added...
