If the Pac-12 expanded thru G5 and you had to choose...

[Buffnik]

Yes, I understand that the reason is because the Presidents decide these things and that's what their focus is... But nobody can answer the question of why they believe academic prestige should have anything to do with athletic conference affiliation. What does being associated with Stanford, on an athletic level, have anything to do with CU's academic research? CU was known as a top research University long before they joined the Pac and will continue to be known as such even after the likes of Okie Lite or some other tier 2 academic program joins (hypothetically).

I suspect there is a belief that when the university missions of conference members align due to them being peer institutions, that this makes for a stronger conference better able to work together. I also suspect that these affiliation are also believed to either raise or lower the prestige of the institution. On the prestige note, I do believe that CU's prestige was raised by moving from the Big 12 to the Pac-12.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I don't necessarily agree with that correlation. Are Texas alums more active and valuable because they went to a strong academic institution and are therefore wealthy, or is it because people in Texas love longhorn football? I tend to think it's more the latter. By your logic Northwestern should be more valuable to the BIG than Ohio State, Vanderbilt should be more valuable than Alabama to the SEC, Iowa State more valuable than West Virginia, etc. Stanford has one of the most apathetic fan bases in our conference.

Talking about schools that are already in the conference is kind of non starter since the conferences are probably not going to ever kick them out. I'd guess that the B1G likes having all those AAU schools and I bet they stick together voting on the agenda or topic at hand when they meet. The SEC to a lesser degree obviously.

It's an assumption that all alums went to UT for the good football over the research. Good sports is certainly an attracting variable. But they utlimately probably went there because it was one of the best schools they go into. Much like some kids out there pick Vanderbilt over Alabama and Northwestern over Illinois and Stanford over Cal. At UT that list includes Red McCombs, Michael Dell, Neil deGrasse Tyson, James Baker, Rex Tillerson, and many many other smart and wealthy UT alums.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I suspect there is a belief that when the university missions of conference members align due to them being peer institutions, that this makes for a stronger conference better able to work together. I also suspect that these affiliation are also believed to either raise or lower the prestige of the institution. On the prestige note, I do believe that CU's prestige was raised by moving from the Big 12 to the Pac-12.

Which might go a long way in explaining why BYU finds itself out in the pasture all by themselves.

 

[Buffs35]

I agree that it is as simple as that. They believe their academic research prestige rises or falls based upon association. There are some schools they will consider as peer institutions and some that they will not. They will not allow non-peer institutions into their athletic conference.

On the ground level, academic affiliation is a red herring. My wife is a prof at CU, she conducts the research you refer to and she has never once collaborated with a prof from a fellow Pac-12 school. And she has never been pressured to do so. Most of her colleagues (we can refer to them as bowtie wearing eggheads) couldn't tell you what athletic conference CU is in.

 

[Buffnik]

On the ground level, academic affiliation is a red herring. My wife is a prof at CU, she conducts the research you refer to and she has never once collaborated with a prof from a fellow Pac-12 school. And she has never been pressured to do so. Most of her colleagues (we can refer to them as bowtie wearing eggheads) couldn't tell you what athletic conference CU is in.

I hear that a lot. It's a perception thing, though. I haven't seen anything that suggests athletic affiliation is causing research partnerships. But it does matter to associate with peers. It does change outside perceptions.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I suspect there is a belief that when the university missions of conference members align due to them being peer institutions, that this makes for a stronger conference better able to work together. I also suspect that these affiliation are also believed to either raise or lower the prestige of the institution. On the prestige note, I do believe that CU's prestige was raised by moving from the Big 12 to the Pac-12.

I don't believe that for a second - has CU's prestige really been noticeably increased since we moved? I think moving to a conference with a footprint that more closely aligns with our alumni base was a big driving factor, but i really don't see it as a prestige move. The Presidents are obviously smart people, but how CU's prestige would be improved by adding New Mexico to our conference over BYU escapes me.

 

[ahoelsken]

Air Force won't happen. The liberals in our conference (UCLA, Stanford, Cal) won't allow it, and our league doesn't make sense for them from a scheduling standpoint. They've gotta have four out of conference games a year-Army, Navy, a cupcake, and somebody else (this year they'll play at Michigan). CSU doesn't bring the league anything we didn't when we came in. Houston's academics suck, and the quality of football being played there will probably drop now that Tom Herman has moved on. Not only that, but that market is shared with three pro teams....BEFORE you start talking about all the Longhorns, Aggies, etc who live there. UH football is very low on the totem pole in terms of sports priorities there. Pass. SMU? Same problem(s) with Houston. Sure, DFW is a big market, but its also got four major sports teams.........and another institution in it who is a member of a P5 league already. The only name on that list that does anything for me in terms of a possible addition is UNM.

Two other points-One, Id rather stay paired with Utah. I'm looking forward to seeing where this thing goes now that we've played a football game with them that meant more for us than just pride. Two, the only viable path for expansion for this league is raiding the Big 12. Until that happens, no point in having this conversation.

 

[Bison]

Because CSU leadership was insanely stupid about 60 years ago and didn't take advantage of the opportunities they were presented with. The Big Six could have expanded to Eight with CU and CSU but it didn't. It expanded to seven with CU and finally to eight a few years later with OSU. Let that sink in for a second. CSU could be in the same spot, athletics wise, as OSU now had they been smart enough back in the 1950's.

yeah that was a major screw up by csu. csu would be my preferred travel partner and having both CU and csu in the same conference would be good for college football in the state. it might be the only way college sports stays relevant in this state.

 

[Deleted member 807]

yeah that was a major screw up by csu. csu would be my preferred travel partner and having both CU and csu in the same conference would be good for college football in the state. it might be the only way college sports stays relevant in this state.

Disagree.
College football is relevant in Wisconsin, Nebraska, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas, where only one P5 school dominates the state.

Kansas-Kansas State is an example where it's hard to argue that two P5 schools is actually helping football relevance.

I assert that an equal CSU undermines CFB in Colorado, just like adding a second NFL team in Colorado would undermine support for the Broncos.

When CSU is out of the picture, college football fans across the front range would have more reason to pull for CU beating USC, Oregon, Washington, and other Pac-12 foes.

As it stands now, the RMS is the biggest CFB spectacle in the state, where almost half in attendance either don't care about CU or want to see them lose after Labor Day weekend.

 

[BuffLuke80]

Almost went with Air Force but Utah was my pick.

 

[MtnBuff]

Disagree.
College football is relevant in Wisconsin, Nebraska, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Arkansas, where only one P5 school dominates the state.

Kansas-Kansas State is an example where it's hard to argue that two P5 schools is actually helping football relevance.

I assert that an equal CSU undermines CFB in Colorado, just like adding a second NFL team in Colorado would undermine support for the Broncos.

When CSU is out of the picture, college football fans across the front range would have more reason to pull for CU beating USC, Oregon, Washington, and other Pac-12 foes.

As it stands now, the RMS is the biggest CFB spectacle in the state, where almost half in attendance either don't care about CU or want to see them lose after Labor Day weekend.

Adding a second NFL team in Colorado would mean that there would be an afterthought team in the state. Broncos fans are Broncos fans, not necessarily NFL fans.

Making CSU a P5 team isn't going to change a bunch of people into CSU football fans. They have their fanatical core of fans that stick with them through thick and lots of thin but that core is small. They aren't going to all the sudden get 40,000 people showing up because they are getting beaten by bigger name schools.

Those fans at the RMS aren't football fans, they are "beat CU" fans who mostly couldn't care less about the rest of the season win or lose. Those people aren't going to become season ticket holders for them and they aren't going to discover some lost desire to be big time college football fans.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

If CSU moved into a P5 conference, they would garner a lot more fan support than they currently have. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

 

[MtnBuff]

If CSU moved into a P5 conference, they would garner a lot more fan support than they currently have. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

Relative to what? What does a lot more fan support look like?

Let's say they get a 50% increase in home attendance between the new stadium and moving up in conference, that in most years translates into at or below 30,000 fans per game. A 100% increase would leave them at or below 40,000 which would still put them near the bottom of P5 schools. Factor in that their revenue per ticket is much lower than CU or most P5 schools and they are still on the short end of the stick.

What about CSU translates into a competitive P5 program? Facilities (even with the new stadium,) fan support, history, etc.?

Certainly they would see a boost but the other schools that have moved up have not seen 100% increases or even 50% increases past the first couple years. It is hard to see CSU being a .500 team in a P5 conference with the resources they have available even if they got a full media share (which they likely wouldn't right away.)

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Nein.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

I can see points either way on this one. On the one hand, Colorado doesn't have a ton of talent and it's nice to be the only P5 team in the state. But if the Rams were a P5 team and built a decent to good team, the resulting rivalry could be a lot of fun for fans of the state, and might make college football a bigger player in the area. That, no doubt, would be fun.

 

[Buffnik]

I can see points either way on this one. On the one hand, Colorado doesn't have a ton of talent and it's nice to be the only P5 team in the state. But if the Rams were a P5 team and built a decent to good team, the resulting rivalry could be a lot of fun for fans of the state, and might make college football a bigger player in the area. That, no doubt, would be fun.

It would be more valuable to add New Mexico. It's an additional state and major metro for media purposes. And in terms of super metros, it secures the growing Front Range that's too small to justify more than 2 schools and stretches from Albuquerque up to Cheyenne.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

NM would be fine. I just doubt they will ever, ever have a decent football program. Hoops are nice though.

 

[BuffLuke80]

The Pit is a cool venue. I agree about the football part. That said, Albuquerque has grown quite a bit. I haven't been there in a awhile mind you.

 

[MtnBuff]

NM would be fine. I just doubt they will ever, ever have a decent football program. Hoops are nice though.

UNM could very much be a decent program if they had the right kinds of support including from the school administration. Albuquerque is a much larger metro area than a lot of P5 schools draw from and Lobos football, like basketball, is the only game in town.

If they ever got serious and became good they are close enough to Texas to recruit well out of there. NM is a fairly poor state but they have some big money alums and supporters who would gladly jump on to support a quality program.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

I'll trust you on that. It's mostly recruiting that is on my mind; they would really, really have to spread out in order to get a decent class. And of course, would need significant facility upgrades before they could really even begin that.

I doubt the PAC ever looks at them. Wouldn't be disappointed if they did though.

 

[MtnBuff]

I'll trust you on that. It's mostly recruiting that is on my mind; they would really, really have to spread out in order to get a decent class. And of course, would need significant facility upgrades before they could really even begin that.

I doubt the PAC ever looks at them. Wouldn't be disappointed if they did though.

They would need the administration to decide to be serious about football long term. Facilities would a big part of that as would overall football budget. They would also have to quit looking for a quick fix and hire an athletic staff and football staff with the expectation of a multi-year program build.

I think that given the rest they would not be a hard place to recruit to. They are right next to Texas, easy to sell the far enough from home to be independent but close enough that your family and friends can come see you pitch. They have also pulled a lot of kids in past years from SoCal. The climate is a huge plus and the city can be fun for young people.

I don't know how they would fit academically into the PAC but the same could be said for most of the schools that are being thrown around.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Using USN&WR as a quick reference point, they'd be the lowest ranked team in the PAC by quite a ways, down at #176, far below ASU, OSU and WSU. That likely makes them a no-go from the start, unfortunately.

 

[Duff Man]

I do not see UNM as having much football potential at all.

 

[Buffnik]

Using USN&WR as a quick reference point, they'd be the lowest ranked team in the PAC by quite a ways, down at #176, far below ASU, OSU and WSU. That likely makes them a no-go from the start, unfortunately.

The presidents don't care about USN&WR.

1. State Flagship
2. Carnegie Tier 1 Research
3. ARWU 201-300 global rank
4. Endowment of $421MM
5. Not an AAU member

#1 and #2 are favorable, #3 & #4 are at or near the bottom of the Pac-12. #5 is something that would make a school an auto-take.

Also working against UNM is a state population under 3 million, athletics that aren't going to add prestige in football (G5 bowl team, but nothing special), poor in-state recruiting grounds, a poor state economy that makes it questionable what direction the university is heading, and a low number of full-time faculty that could threaten its Tier 1 research status.

 

[PAHIBuff]

If New Mexico or UNLV dropped every sport except basketball (I know that's not possible), no one in NM or NV would care. The only G5 teams that are viable for P5 are BYU and Boise State.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Agreed. And though we all know neither will ever happen, for a variety of reasons, I wish Boise and BYU could join the PAC. Great football additions.

 

[Buffnik]

If New Mexico or UNLV dropped every sport except basketball (I know that's not possible), no one in NM or NV would care. The only G5 teams that are viable for P5 are BYU and Boise State.

Pretty much true.

That said, the Pac-12 does need to increase its basketball prestige & fan support.

 

[MtnBuff]

If New Mexico or UNLV dropped every sport except basketball (I know that's not possible), no one in NM or NV would care. The only G5 teams that are viable for P5 are BYU and Boise State.

PAC would never, and that means never, take BYU. Just not a cultural fit.

Boise has had good teams but no they aren't viable as a P5 team. Boise is a smaller market than Albuquerque with little surrounding market to pull from. Boise has been a consistent winner, arguably the best G5 program in the country and they have only averaged about 33,000 per home game. New Mexico is well below that averaging about 20,000 but they have been historically bad. Put together some decent seasons and in their market I can see them building significantly.

Neither is really up to PAC level in terms of support but this thread is about if you are forced to add somebody.

And I agree on UNLV, I don't see what they add of any value other than a basketball program that used to be good.

 

[fwbuff]

UNM could very much be a decent program if they had the right kinds of support including from the school administration. Albuquerque is a much larger metro area than a lot of P5 schools draw from and Lobos football, like basketball, is the only game in town.

If they ever got serious and became good they are close enough to Texas to recruit well out of there. NM is a fairly poor state but they have some big money alums and supporters who would gladly jump on to support a quality program.

The only parts of Texas that UNM is actually close to are the relatively talent-poor areas of the Panhandle and El Paso (which we all know Jeffcoat already has on lock down!). Los Angeles is actually almost as close, or in most cases closer to, Albuquerque than most of the talent hotbeds in Texas.

I would think Arizona and southern California would be higher recruiting priorities.

 

[Buffnik]

The only parts of Texas that UNM is actually close to are the relatively talent-poor areas of the Panhandle and El Paso (which we all know Jeffcoat already has on lock down!). Los Angeles is actually almost as close, or in most cases closer to, Albuquerque than most of the talent hotbeds in Texas.

I would think Arizona and southern California would be higher recruiting priorities.

Took a look at their roster. Looks like they recruit statewide in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, California and New Mexico. No reason to think they'd change the footprint if they went from G5 to P5. They'd just recruit all of those places more effectively.