Not a chance unless they become a research school.
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!
"IF" Pac was going to 16 who would you take?
- Thread starter ScottyBuff
- Start date
aik
Well-Known Member
SEC-bound. Bluegrass rivalry with Kentucky. Academic reputation no issue, and relatively sterling on the police blotter.
Deleted member 807
Guest
The premise of the OP is "who would YOU take."
We all know about the P12's academic/research bias. I understand that Larry Scott's and the school presidents have a different agenda than I do. But at the end of the day, sports conferences are less about research and more about...well...sports.
Yes but you also need to be realistic. The Pac 12 is a good academic conference and every school is a research school that is in the Pac 12, Boise is not. The chancellors would not vote in a non-research school.
Deleted member 807
Guest
I'd point out that Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State are not members of the Association of American Universities (AAU)...just like Boise.
Educate me. What exactly do you mean by "research university"?
Does the fact that Boise does engage in research factor into your thinking?
http://www.boisestate.edu/research/magazine/
aik
Well-Known Member
Interesting to point out the similarities in ASU and Slowhio. Aside from a very sizeable gap in football hardware, both excelled most with short fuse coaches whose undoing was going the Leavitt and Mangino route on players. Oh, and both have huge undergrad enrollment because they let ANYONE in.
OSU football advantage for talent, ASU overall advantage for "talent."
Agreed, I think Delany may view St. Louis as a market they already capture and likely wants to look at the mid-atlantic and then somewhere in the Sun Belt or NE. I would not be shocked if North Carolina and Maryland were their top targets outside of ND. Remember the B1G has the CIC so members that can contribute to help grow that pot of money are very valuable. The money that is available to the schools as part of the CIC may dwarf the athletic money.
As a result if TAMU needs a dance partner and Va Tech refuses to step up and FSU and Clemson are out due to blocks form other schools, than I think Mizzou may be the school that makes the most sense for the SEC, and I think Mizzou would be smart to make the leap rather than holding out for the Big 10. Which of course means you can stick a fork in the Big 12. It will be interesting to see what the ACC does. So far it looks like they have been surprisingly resilient at sticking together. If they can get their mid-atlantic schools to resist the temptation of the B1G then I think they will mostly survive and be in position to cherry pick the remainders of the Big East. KU better hope they elbow out Tech, because I'm not sure they are guaranteed a spot in that last group. It will also depend on who the SEC takes for 15 and 16. Losing FSU and Va Tech, while they are major and moderate football draws respectably, they are replaceable. Plug and play with Pitt and either WVU (questionable academics) or the best left available from the Big East. If the B1G takes the mid-Atlantic schools or UNC...then that leftovers conference is going to look like some weird hodge-podge Frankenstein creation with very little geographic, cultural, or historic cohesion.
Last edited:
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
Agreed that the way the dominoes will fall will depend on the SEC aggressiveness for teams 14-15-16 and who those schools end up being.
SEC has choices, some "easy" targets (Missouri, West Virginia) and some "hard" political ones (VaTech, FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Oklahoma).
B1G has "blocks of choices" for their 3 non-Notre Dame members, believing they need to reserve the last spot for Notre Dame to join under the "seismic change" scenario that forces them into a conference. Kansas-Missouri-Oklahoma, Kansas-Oklahoma-Texas, Maryland-Virginia-UNC, Pitt-Rutgers-Syracuse. I think the B1G would not have to face any of the political pressure that the other leagues would due to the built-up "goodwill" that the conference has on the academic front (ie not even the state politicos would deny their flagship schools entrance to make a point).
I don't get your point about CIC. Maryland and North Carolina are tremendous institutions from a research standpoint. UNC is the academic equivalent of Ohio State, Minnesota, and Illinois with rankings and endowment. Maryland falls a little short in the size of their endowment but not in rankings. Both are well-established AAU members. Penn State has dropped several hints over the last decade or so that Maryland was always a school they would want to be in conference with, and having direct access to Baltimore-Washington DC metro population (TV & recruiting) is a big feather in their cap. It should go without saying that Virginia is a powerhouse in academia (they certainly aren't in football), as well as Duke (if they the Irish would decline).
There is some instability within the ACC as several of those schools listed actually had voted to NOT expand back in 2004, but were overruled when the Virginia Governor micro-managed his university president to get VaTech accepted. Those schools rightly do see themselves as academic heavyweights, but I don't think they view the rest of the ACC membership in that same regard any longer. It is really like the ACC is made up of Big Ten research schools and SEC football factories. The divide could prove fatal for the conference if some of the meal ticket football schools (Florida State, Clemson, VaTech) respond to the SEC interest.
In truth, if the ACC lost UNC-UVA-UMD and maybe even Duke, they could simply raid the BE again and probably be a BETTER football conference with more lucrative TV potential. Let's say that the SEC is able to leverage A&M, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma away from the Big 12 but in the process they fracture the ACC membership trying to lure FSU and Virginia Tech away. If the B1G decides to pursue super-conference status also and goes after the foursome (UMD-UVA-UNC-Duke), then the ACC would have 8 members (BC, VaTech, NC State, Wake, Clemson, GaTech, FSU, and Miami). The Big East members (West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, UConn, Rutgers, and Louisville) would look very attractive and natural fits. Not sure about Cincy, TCU, and USF in that scenario. Cincy might be able to squeeze in but I think USF would encounter resistance from FSU and Miami and TCU doesn't look like such a need at that point. East Carolina would look very attractive to offest the loss of Duke-UNC in the conferences heartland. However that played out that lineup would be a damn good football conference with large TV markets and easily more passionate fanbases for football. With FSU-Miami in the south and WVU-Pitt in the north the divisions would be well balanced.
Anyway, obviously going off on tangents and thread-jacking my own thread.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
I think he means the Carnegie "Tier" of being a doctoral-granting high/very high research university. Boise and Fresno are only categorized as "Master's level" granting schools.
Here are two sets of data that I'd be paying close attention to with regard to Pac-12 expansion:
I. Population growth rates by state: LINK
The US growth rate is at 0.9%. 19 states plus Washington D.C. surpass that. I've put the ones that are within the Pac-12 home state geography in bold. The ones that are potentially in our footprint, I put in italics.
1. Arizona
2. Wyoming
3. Texas
4. Colorado
5. Washington D.C.
6. Alaska
7. North Carolina
8. California
9. Georgia
10. South Carolina
11. Virginia
12. Utah
13. Idaho
14. Nevada
15. Washington
16. Utah
17. Oregon
18. Oklahoma
19. Tennessee
20. South Dakota
Importantly, all 7 Pac-12 home states are represented. 6 of the remaining 13 are potentially part of the expansion geography.
II. Top 50 Media Markets: LINK
The first list (bold) is the Top 75 markets that are currently within our home-state geography. The second is the list (italics) of Top 80 markets that are potentially within our footprint with conference expansion.
2. Los Angeles
6. San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
12. Phoenix
14. Seattle/Tacoma
18. Denver
23. Portland
27. San Diego
35. Salt Lake City
55. Fresno/Visalia
68. Tucson
77. Spokane
5. Dallas/Ft. Worth
10. Houston
21. St. Louis
31. Kansas City
37. San Antonio
43. Las Vegas
44. Albuquerque/Santa Fe
45. Oklahoma City
51. Austin
60. Tulsa
69. Wichita/Hutchinson
73. Honolulu
When you match those together, the #1 priority is clearly that we add the Texas markets. Two Top 10 media markets and another two in the Top 80 along with the #3 population growth rate. Extremely strong now and the trajectory is also extremely strong.
After that, Oklahoma and Nevada are the strongest states that are within the footprint. With Nevada, the question becomes whether the Pac-12 already picks up cable carriers in Las Vegas and Reno. We do. So the revenue isn't really additive. The next best option is clearly Oklahoma.
Next, the question becomes whether the Texas and Oklahoma markets are so strong that they would make us want to bypass high growth states like Nevada and Idaho. They are. Nevada, as previously mentioned, is already within the footprint. Idaho's largest media market (Boise) only ranks at #113. For comparison on relative size, Colorado Springs/Pueblo is #93. It's simply too small to matter as far as bringing revenue that justifies an equal split to the program in that area. It's a loss leader.
So, at the end of the day, what makes most sense is to gain dominance in Texas and Oklahoma. The way to do that is through OU, OSU, UT and TTU. Like it or not, if the Pac-12 needs to become a superconference Pac-16 this is the only direction that really makes sense.
I. Population growth rates by state: LINK
The US growth rate is at 0.9%. 19 states plus Washington D.C. surpass that. I've put the ones that are within the Pac-12 home state geography in bold. The ones that are potentially in our footprint, I put in italics.
1. Arizona
2. Wyoming
3. Texas
4. Colorado
5. Washington D.C.
6. Alaska
7. North Carolina
8. California
9. Georgia
10. South Carolina
11. Virginia
12. Utah
13. Idaho
14. Nevada
15. Washington
16. Utah
17. Oregon
18. Oklahoma
19. Tennessee
20. South Dakota
Importantly, all 7 Pac-12 home states are represented. 6 of the remaining 13 are potentially part of the expansion geography.
II. Top 50 Media Markets: LINK
The first list (bold) is the Top 75 markets that are currently within our home-state geography. The second is the list (italics) of Top 80 markets that are potentially within our footprint with conference expansion.
2. Los Angeles
6. San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
12. Phoenix
14. Seattle/Tacoma
18. Denver
23. Portland
27. San Diego
35. Salt Lake City
55. Fresno/Visalia
68. Tucson
77. Spokane
5. Dallas/Ft. Worth
10. Houston
21. St. Louis
31. Kansas City
37. San Antonio
43. Las Vegas
44. Albuquerque/Santa Fe
45. Oklahoma City
51. Austin
60. Tulsa
69. Wichita/Hutchinson
73. Honolulu
When you match those together, the #1 priority is clearly that we add the Texas markets. Two Top 10 media markets and another two in the Top 80 along with the #3 population growth rate. Extremely strong now and the trajectory is also extremely strong.
After that, Oklahoma and Nevada are the strongest states that are within the footprint. With Nevada, the question becomes whether the Pac-12 already picks up cable carriers in Las Vegas and Reno. We do. So the revenue isn't really additive. The next best option is clearly Oklahoma.
Next, the question becomes whether the Texas and Oklahoma markets are so strong that they would make us want to bypass high growth states like Nevada and Idaho. They are. Nevada, as previously mentioned, is already within the footprint. Idaho's largest media market (Boise) only ranks at #113. For comparison on relative size, Colorado Springs/Pueblo is #93. It's simply too small to matter as far as bringing revenue that justifies an equal split to the program in that area. It's a loss leader.
So, at the end of the day, what makes most sense is to gain dominance in Texas and Oklahoma. The way to do that is through OU, OSU, UT and TTU. Like it or not, if the Pac-12 needs to become a superconference Pac-16 this is the only direction that really makes sense.
They're in a nothing media market and have JUCO-level graduate research. I like the contiguous geography and I like that the football program has a long history of success at every level it has played. But I just don't see them as a cultural fit or a money maker for the Pac.
Deleted member 807
Guest
I want to hear what Tini has to say about the Carnegie rankings. Are they more or less ridiculous than the NCAA in terms of being fair and balanced? Do they change their criteria often? Are those criteria fair based on various regional differences that exist across the country? How exactly is Okie Lite a better school than Boise?
Don't these BSU doctoral program count?
http://earth.boisestate.edu/degrees/graduate/phd-geosciences/
http://earth.boisestate.edu/degrees/graduate/
http://coen.boisestate.edu/ece/ECEPhD.asp
Let's get under why Tini has a hard on for busting Boise's chops while giving SDSU and NMU a pass.
Last edited by a moderator:
somebody
Well-Known Member
Deleted member 807
Guest
C'mon.
Certainly spending time on ESPN message boards must count as research. Moreso when he's one authors a few posts on the subject. The dude is a nationally read expert on why Boise is undeserving of, well, everything.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Coming from the guy who used "payed" instead of "paid." :lol:
But, yeah, Creatini usually just regurgitates **** he's seen on the board without doing any independent thought or research.
I don't think Boise State gets an invite because it's already within the Pac's imprint, in a smaller media market and has a relatively small fan base that knows nothing but success. What happens if the Pac invites BSU and the football program falls apart? Then the Pac is stuck with a school that fields the worst athletics program in the conference, hurts the Pac's academic profile and brings little in terms of media market(s). Oh, and all the school's "fans" are leaping off the bandwagon. Whoops.
To be fair to Creatini, the depth and quality of the graduate programs of even the worst Pac-12 schools (I haven't done the research, but I'm guessing WSU and OSU) far exceeds the depth and quality of BSU's programs. But I'm not sure it matters very much when it comes to conference expansion.
OriginalWhiz
Member
Sorry, but Boise JC isn't nearly as respected as any of those schools academically. Just speaking for OSU, they have a top 25 engineering program. Oregon State is the only school in the nation besides Cornell that is a land-grant, sea-grant, space-grant, and sun-grant university. Linus Pauling, the only man to ever win Nobel Prizes in two different fields, went to OSU. Boise Trucking School...not so much.
OriginalWhiz
Member
Deleted member 807
Guest
@ Nik:
The argument that Oklahoma State University is a part of a package deal to get OU is lame. What does Okie Lite deliver to the P16 that can't be obtained by OU alone? Nada.
Similarly, grabbing TTU as part of a UT deal is also a poor choice. Since UT brings in the major markets of Texas, TTU is redundant.
I believe that the only way that Texas and OU make any sense in the P16 is by isolating them from any built in voting block. The Longhorn Network is also uncompatable with the P16. That's the deal. Love it or lump it.
The P16 can get it's valuable TV markets in Oklahoma and Texas without Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.
This frees up two more opportunities for more expansion. Grabbing the best school in Idaho and the best school in New Mexico (or Nevada) solidifies the geographical footprint of the conference by delivering two more states.
I see no reason that Texas Tech nor Oklahoma State should be admitted as some sort of quid pro quo. When it comes to adding four teams, Larry Scott should not have to make some adjust to satisfy deal to a couple of divas. OU and UT make the cut and join the cast as equals. That's it. No scope creep.
Okie Lite and TTU get no free ride.
The argument that Oklahoma State University is a part of a package deal to get OU is lame. What does Okie Lite deliver to the P16 that can't be obtained by OU alone? Nada.
Similarly, grabbing TTU as part of a UT deal is also a poor choice. Since UT brings in the major markets of Texas, TTU is redundant.
I believe that the only way that Texas and OU make any sense in the P16 is by isolating them from any built in voting block. The Longhorn Network is also uncompatable with the P16. That's the deal. Love it or lump it.
The P16 can get it's valuable TV markets in Oklahoma and Texas without Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.
This frees up two more opportunities for more expansion. Grabbing the best school in Idaho and the best school in New Mexico (or Nevada) solidifies the geographical footprint of the conference by delivering two more states.
I see no reason that Texas Tech nor Oklahoma State should be admitted as some sort of quid pro quo. When it comes to adding four teams, Larry Scott should not have to make some adjust to satisfy deal to a couple of divas. OU and UT make the cut and join the cast as equals. That's it. No scope creep.
Okie Lite and TTU get no free ride.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's probably a solid argument. I'd rather own the geographic footprint by pulling in the states that are currently left out so that we can fill the map. OU, UT, UNM and UNLV would do a fantastic job of that. And if we had to then split East-West, I'd much rather be with Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and UNLV for travel destinations than I would with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech there in place of UNM and UNLV. I'm just not so sure that the numbers or politics work for that to happen.
buffs
Well-Known Member
Two of the better posts from the multiple threads on this topic by far skidmark & buffnik - this is about eyeballs/$'s.
Based on OP's scenario I picked Hawaii. It may also be real choice as Asia looks to be part of Larry Scott's marketing plan (ala Seattle Mariners).
Based on OP's scenario I picked Hawaii. It may also be real choice as Asia looks to be part of Larry Scott's marketing plan (ala Seattle Mariners).
Last edited:
LOL. I think they likely need to put down the crack pipe, but some posters on some of the UT boards are claiming Notre Dame is in play, not just for mythical super conference of the best of the best they would form with UT, but for a PAC invite as well. Though they want 7 conference games instead of 9.
CUFan
Welcome back
Sarcasm font.