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

[Bison]

The Pac-12 is not kicking any school out, especially ASU. I stopped reading there.

Idaho and Montana would like a word with you on that especially Idaho who was left holding the PCC bag back in 1959 (Montana left before meeting a similar fate) while the four CA schools and Washington formed a new conference that eventually became the Pac-8. That is one reason for the deep dislike of UW by UO, OSU, and WSU fans. Oregon State & Washington State has been long rumored of getting the boot even long before CU & Utah joined. ASU wouldn't be kicked out but they have been reaching out to the Big 12 and get out just like Montana did before it was too late. The nine AAU schools in the Pac-12 are not obligated to renew the Grant of Rights with those three non-AAU schools. You should be well versed in how the Big 12 came together while some SWC members were left holding the SWC bag because that is not that much different than Idaho holding the PCC bag.

The Pac-12 has long been in lockstep with what the Big Ten does and if it was possible for both conferences to have AAU only members, the Pac-12 is on the verge of achieving what the Big Ten was like before Nebraska joined. Nebraska might be able to re-join the AAU down the road but there is no real path for ASU, OSU, and WSU in the Pac-12. An AAU only Pac conference is something that the CA schools plus UW have long desired.

This isn't the Special Education Conference we are talking about.

 

[torero]

Idaho and Montana would like a word with you on that especially Idaho who was left holding the PCC bag back in 1959 (Montana left before meeting a similar fate) while the four CA schools and Washington formed a new conference that eventually became the Pac-8. That is one reason for the deep dislike of UW by UO, OSU, and WSU fans. Oregon State & Washington State has been long rumored of getting the boot even long before CU & Utah joined. ASU wouldn't be kicked out but they have been reaching out to the Big 12 and get out just like Montana did before it was too late. The nine AAU schools in the Pac-12 are not obligated to renew the Grant of Rights with those three non-AAU schools. You should be well versed in how the Big 12 came together while some SWC members were left holding the SWC bag because that is not that much different than Idaho holding the PCC bag.

The Pac-12 has long been in lockstep with what the Big Ten does and if it was possible for both conferences to have AAU only members, the Pac-12 is on the verge of achieving what the Big Ten was like before ****braska joined. ****braska might be able to re-join the AAU down the road but there is no real path for ASU, OSU, and WSU in the Pac-12. An AAU only Pac conference is something that the CA schools plus UW have long desired.

This isn't the Special Education Conference we are talking about.

Yes, events from 62 years ago are very relevant to this situation.

 

[Bison]

From a cultural fit of universities in the west that are Carnegie Tier 1 in research intensity, the options are CSU, Nevada, UNLV and New Mexico.

If we went by football & MBB, then Boise State, BYU and SDSU are all better options in the West.

That's the problem for the P12.

Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education®

The Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education® are the nation’s leading framework for categorizing diverse U.S. higher education institutions.

carnegieclassifications.iu.edu

Hawaii is VHRU too so they should be included with CSU, UNR, UNLV, and UNM in that regard.

I think those schools would be considered in the 2030s if not 2040s for Pac-12 expansion if it becomes pretty clear at that time that Texas & OU aren't coming. I don't see how Texas would want to give up the influence and power it has over the Big 12 along with OU especially after how Nebraska's influence has really faded away in the Big Ten. That is why I think the Nubs will be back in the Big 12 before long and keeps Texas & OU in the Big 12 for good.

I think after the Pac-12, Big Ten, and Big 12 have their new contracts in place, it might provide a clearer path forward where all the P5 conferences are going.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

It's embarrassing that the main priority for Pac 12 athletic conference expansion is where these institutions rank on the academic scales.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Idaho and Montana would like a word with you on that

L. O. L.

You know damn well that is not a remotely valid comparison. And if you don't know that, you've got much bigger problems.

 

[Bison]

Yes, events from 62 years ago are very relevant to this situation.

So are OSU & WSU's athletic budget struggles to finish projects and being deep in the red because of those projects even before COVID-19 hit. That's why Washington state's legislators got involved with the finances of UW & WSU's athletic departments not that long ago. I have talked with some WSU fans online and those money issues is one of the reasons why Mike Leach left for Mississippi State. OSU also had issues with finishing the renovations of their Valley Football Center and their inability to finish the other side of their stadium is well chronicled. They are aiming to do that by Fall 2023 after it becomes more clear what the new media rights deal will be like. Both schools went ahead with their big athletic construction projects with the idea that the P12N would be printing money. It seems like OSU might be about to make that same mistake again. If they screw up again, the OR state legislature could get involved like the WA state legislatures did. Both state legislatures could decide that both OSU & WSU can no longer justify using athletics as an advertising expense and both schools will have to leave the Pac-12 on their own. That is all before the fallout from COVID-19 and its impact on athletic budgets are much better known.

 

[Bison]

It's embarrassing that the main priority for Pac 12 athletic conference expansion is where these institutions rank on the academic scales.

That is why expansion isn't going to happen anytime soon in the Pac-12. The last expansion for the PAC before CU & UU was back in late 1976 when the Pac-8 approved both AZ schools after USC threatened to go independent.

 

[Bison]

L. O. L.

You know damn well that is not a remotely valid comparison. And if you don't know that, you've got much bigger problems.

Go do the research and prove it to me then.

 

[ahoelsken]

That is why expansion isn't going to happen anytime soon in the Pac-12. The last expansion for the PAC before CU & UU was back in late 1976 when the Pac-8 approved both AZ schools after USC threatened to go independent.

This is like the first accurate statement you've made in this thread.

 

[patebuff]

From a cultural fit of universities in the west that are Carnegie Tier 1 in research intensity, the options are CSU, Nevada, UNLV and New Mexico.

If we went by football & MBB, then Boise State, BYU and SDSU are all better options in the West.

That's the problem for the P12.

Yep. For the pac 12 to move the needle, they will need to expand east of Colorado.

 

[patebuff]

It's embarrassing that the main priority for Pac 12 athletic conference expansion is where these institutions rank on the academic scales.

This is the same conference that thought Olympic sports had some sort of untapped revenue potential with tv contracts.

 

[Buffs35]

Yep. For the pac 12 to move the needle, they will need to expand east of Colorado.

Yep.

Kansas, UNLV, Tulane and Houston.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Go do the research and prove it to me then.

Data is used to make a claim, not to refute an unfounded claim. So show us your "research" and data indicating your unfounded view is correct.

 

[MtnBuff]

You can talk all you want about academic rankings and the rest and the conference presidents will do so to try to do to stake out some level of moral superiority but when it comes down to it any decisions made will be about money, about money, and about money.

In the case of Arizona State they are not a drag on the conference financially and their academics are improving. In terms of the single most important factor for the conference they are at least in the middle if not higher in terms of drawing TV ratings. They aren't even in a discussion about being dropped.

They wouldn't be anyways because of politics. If ASU leaves the PAC then Arizona goes as well, the politicians aren't going to allow them to be split.

That same thing applies for WSU and OSU. Try to kick out one of those and the political pressures start fast and hard. The PAC can't afford to lose the Ducks or the Huskies so the Beavers and the Cougars stay. It would be almost impossible to split them.

And as to academic ratings and reputation the B1G loves to tout the same thing. Then they admitted Nebraska. They knew what Nebraska was, is, and will be academically but they also knew that even a losing Nebraska draws TV ratings (and sells an amazing number of tickets in every stadium they visit.)

Yep.

Kansas, UNLV, Tulane and Houston.

Nope, nope, nope, and nope.
Kansas would be a remote possibility due to their ability to generate dollars through basketball but their football is and always has been so bad that it doesn't make up for the lack of a substantial TV market.

The other three just ask as significant question. Would any of those schools increase the value of the conference media contracts enough to justify a full share of conference media distributions? Answer. Not even close.

UNLV doesn't draw well for athletics, most of the fans in Vegas are from other places and have other allegiances, and now the Raiders will be the focus of attention. For college football the PAC already has that market, they don't need UNLV to pull ratings.

Tulane and Houston are in major markets, especially Houston but again nobody there cares. There are multiple other schools in Texas that draw better TV ratings in the Houston market that UH does. Tulane, you have to be kidding.

Financially the only schools that really make sense for the PAC would be adding Texas and Oklahoma which would also likely mean taking Oklahoma State as part of the deal plus a partner for Texas, likely TTU.

That isn't likely because UT and OU can make more money staying in the B12 and if they wanted to move other conferences would take them in an instant and likely pay them a lot more money.

 

[SINKRATZ]

So is the Pac12 kicking OSU, WSU, and ASU out because they aren’t AAU members or because they’re struggling to fund construction projects? I trying to follow along the stream of consciousness here.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Go do the research and prove it to me then.

I can’t believe I’m even encouraging this nonsense discussion, but here you go from the Wiki page for the PCC...

Unlike Washington State, Oregon and Oregon State, Idaho did not pursue AAWU admission

The AAWU would become the Pac8 in 1968. They were not left holding the bag, they didn’t pursue staying in the new conference.

Also I will echo that suggesting the PAC would even consider kicking ASU out is completely moronic.

 

[Buffs35]

You can talk all you want about academic rankings and the rest and the conference presidents will do so to try to do to stake out some level of moral superiority but when it comes down to it any decisions made will be about money, about money, and about money.

In the case of Arizona State they are not a drag on the conference financially and their academics are improving. In terms of the single most important factor for the conference they are at least in the middle if not higher in terms of drawing TV ratings. They aren't even in a discussion about being dropped.

They wouldn't be anyways because of politics. If ASU leaves the PAC then Arizona goes as well, the politicians aren't going to allow them to be split.

That same thing applies for WSU and OSU. Try to kick out one of those and the political pressures start fast and hard. The PAC can't afford to lose the Ducks or the Huskies so the Beavers and the Cougars stay. It would be almost impossible to split them.

And as to academic ratings and reputation the B1G loves to tout the same thing. Then they admitted ****braska. They knew what ****braska was, is, and will be academically but they also knew that even a losing ****braska draws TV ratings (and sells an amazing number of tickets in every stadium they visit.)


Nope, nope, nope, and nope.
Kansas would be a remote possibility due to their ability to generate dollars through basketball but their football is and always has been so bad that it doesn't make up for the lack of a substantial TV market.

The other three just ask as significant question. Would any of those schools increase the value of the conference media contracts enough to justify a full share of conference media distributions? Answer. Not even close.

UNLV doesn't draw well for athletics, most of the fans in Vegas are from other places and have other allegiances, and now the Raiders will be the focus of attention. For college football the PAC already has that market, they don't need UNLV to pull ratings.

Tulane and Houston are in major markets, especially Houston but again nobody there cares. There are multiple other schools in Texas that draw better TV ratings in the Houston market that UH does. Tulane, you have to be kidding.

Financially the only schools that really make sense for the PAC would be adding Texas and Oklahoma which would also likely mean taking Oklahoma State as part of the deal plus a partner for Texas, likely TTU.

That isn't likely because UT and OU can make more money staying in the B12 and if they wanted to move other conferences would take them in an instant and likely pay them a lot more money.

Pac is 3rd tier. No one that has options is coming to the Pac's rescue.

 

[Alfred91]

From a cultural fit of universities in the west that are Carnegie Tier 1 in research intensity, the options are CSU, Nevada, UNLV and New Mexico.

If we went by football & MBB, then Boise State, BYU and SDSU are all better options in the West.

That's the problem for the P12.

3 schools that will never be in the Pac: BYU, Boise, and Air Force. Those are all non-starters. SDSU makes some sense academically (at least more than Boise) but makes little sense in expanding the footprint. CSU and UNM are better academically, but their fanbases are non existent and their athletic spending miniscule in comparison to P5 schools.

Frankly, of the schools listed, only UNLV makes any sense, and even then, I'm not sure.

 

[Alfred91]

It's embarrassing that the main priority for Pac 12 athletic conference expansion is where these institutions rank on the academic scales.

Yeah but... adding Boise would be laughed at by any P5 conference anywhere.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Yeah but... adding Boise would be laughed at by any P5 conference anywhere.

Not from an athletic standpoint.

 

[Alfred91]

Not from an athletic standpoint.

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

 

[White_Rabbit]

They need to get into Texas and I don't see how Houston isn't a great fit

idk who else is a great fit, but I'd start there if I were the P12

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

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

Well, P5 money might be able to change that. I’m not advocating specifically for BSU, btw, just that I think it’s super lame that academic prestige is such a hang up for athletic conference expansion. Old people being stuck in the past

 

[Alfred91]

Well, P5 money might be able to change that. I’m not advocating specifically for BSU, btw, just that I think it’s super lame that academic prestige is such a hang up for athletic conference expansion. Old people being stuck in the past

Yes and no. Alumni like to say they graduated from a Big Ten, ACC, or Pac-12 school. Adding schools that have basically no entrance requirements at all risks pissing off those people.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Yes and no. Alumni like to say they graduated from a Big Ten, ACC, or Pac-12 school. Adding schools that have basically no entrance requirements at all risks pissing off those people.

Eh, I think that’s a stretch. I’ve never heard anyone brag about graduating from a conference because there’s an extremely wide gap between Washington State and Stanford. Or Duke and Florida State. Or Northwestern and Nebraska.

 

[Buffs35]

I love when people dismiss certain schools saying they don't draw enough, as if being elevated to a P5 conference won't increase interest in their teams.

 

[Buffalo Brad]

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.

 

[hokiehead]

I love when people dismiss certain schools saying they don't draw enough, as if being elevated to a P5 conference won't increase interest in their teams.

it's a factor to consider. e.g. Rutgers saw a small bump when they first joined the B1G, but has regressed since. Louisville didn't increase attendance notably after joining the ACC. I haven't mined the data, but I suspect UU might be exception.

 

[Not Sure]

I think it’s far less about TV markets than it was the last time. I think the bigger issue is improving the overall competitiveness of the conference. Better programs translate to higher ratings, regardless of the home market of those teams (Clemson is in a minuscule TV market, for example). The conference needs to do whatever it can to elevate the overall competitiveness of its member schools. Do that, and the rest will take care of itself. I don’t think any new schools are required to pull that off. Just do a better job with the schools we have. CU needs to do it’s part, but so do schools like USC, UCLA and Washington.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I think it’s far less about TV markets than it was the last time. I think the bigger issue is improving the overall competitiveness of the conference. Better programs translate to higher ratings, regardless of the home market of those teams (Clemson is in a minuscule TV market, for example). The conference needs to do whatever it can to elevate the overall competitiveness of its member schools. Do that, and the rest will take care of itself. I don’t think any new schools are required to pull that off. Just do a better job with the schools we have. CU needs to do it’s part, but so do schools like USC, UCLA and Washington.

Correct. TV viewership isn’t going up, but winning games and being good is what drives an audience. People from Colorado watch a ton of SEC and BIG football because those are marquee programs playing at a high level. Boise is THE national G5 brand along with UCF, and sometimes Houston and Cincinnati. People will stream/tune in to watch competitive football games that mean something.