Pac-12 expansion is now inevitable

[Buffs35]

It's wonderful that we are smart in the Pac 12, but as an average college football fan, I could give two sh*ts about academic rankings. I just don't want a school to be a joke, with the ability to get anyone in (a la Kansas State Junior College). I don't pump my chest when CU loses by 30 because we have more academic all-Americas than the competition.

I just want winning teams, hot co-eds, and great craft beer. Academic ranking is a tertiary concern.

 

[newkid]

It's wonderful that we are smart in the Pac 12, but as an average college football fan, I could give two sh*ts about academic rankings. I just don't want a school to be a joke, with the ability to get anyone in (a la Kansas State Junior College). I don't pump my chest when CU loses by 30 because we have more academic all-Americas than the competition.

I just want winning teams, hot co-eds, and great craft beer. Academic ranking is a tertiary concern.

Sure, two very different conversations. Both relevant in some way. But yes, getting back to football, an extra bump in revenue isn't why the Pac's contenders have not won a National championship recently. The distance between UCLA and a National Title is not money.

 

[sackman]

I just want winning teams, hot co-eds, and great craft beer. Academic ranking is a tertiary concern.

I'm not sure you understand the word "tertiary".

 

[onealcd]

It's wonderful that we are smart in the Pac 12, but as an average college football fan, I could give two sh*ts about academic rankings. I just don't want a school to be a joke, with the ability to get anyone in (a la Kansas State Junior College). I don't pump my chest when CU loses by 30 because we have more academic all-Americas than the competition.

I just want winning teams, hot co-eds, and great craft beer. Academic ranking is a tertiary concern.

Academics are more about those that graduated from the school. For example I am also a Florida fan but I don't care about how good of a school that is. I did graduate from cu so it does matter when we are getting killed that atleast it is a good school academically. I would think that sentiment would be the same among other college football fans with the exception of those who went to **** schools in the first place like ASU.

 

[sackman]

I find it difficult to believe we have that high a ranking when our acceptance rate is somewhere around 85%.

 

[newkid]

I find it difficult to believe we have that high a ranking when our acceptance rate is somewhere around 85%.

Those rankings linked here are not traditional academic rankings. They're more about your global influence. Do you do a lot of research? Do you contribute in a broad range of fields. Do academics around the world respect your faculty etc. Which was my earlier point, the big schools in the ACC are fantastic, but not too relevant globally. And Scott obviously has a boner for global expansion. The P12 can, in theory, do that. No other conference can.

 

[torero]

I'm not sure you understand the word "tertiary".

I laughed. But quaternary is admittedly not commonly used.

 

[sackman]

I laughed. But quaternary is admittedly not commonly used.

 

[Highlander]

I stand corrected

 

[DeNiro]

Those rankings linked here are not traditional academic rankings. They're more about your global influence. Do you do a lot of research? Do you contribute in a broad range of fields. Do academics around the world respect your faculty etc. Which was my earlier point, the big schools in the ACC are fantastic, but not too relevant globally. And Scott obviously has a boner for global expansion. The P12 can, in theory, do that. No other conference can.

Is this a circle back to the Canadian school conversation?

 

[Mick Ronson]

athletic conference has nothing to do with academic ranks. so we are saying that Duke is not "globally relevant" while Wazzou might be? academics around the world don't stay at CU because the cost of living versus the pretty low compared to peer schools salary at CU is crap. larry scott has nothing to do with what faculty salaries are.

no other conference can do it?

what does that even mean?

Those rankings linked here are not traditional academic rankings. They're more about your global influence. Do you do a lot of research? Do you contribute in a broad range of fields. Do academics around the world respect your faculty etc. Which was my earlier point, the big schools in the ACC are fantastic, but not too relevant globally. And Scott obviously has a boner for global expansion. The P12 can, in theory, do that. No other conference can.

 

[CVBuff]

USNWR gets lots of press for ranking institutions to help parents and students choose a school. Click bait and inaccurate, but well known. The metrics they use has academic excellence as only one factor. More respected rankings of global prestige in academics are available through other services, including a newer USNWR Global rankings and Shanghai rankings. The PAC 12 does very well in these rankings historically, with 5 of the top 20 schools in the world. University presidents in the PAC 12 care who they associate with academically, which is one reason why Utah and not BYU was considered for expansion and why CU was a natural fit (Utah around 100th, BYU 5-600th). CU is around 35th. Research dollars dwarf AD dollars. The PAC 12 presidents seem to put a lot of value on these rankings and Tier 1 research attainment in deciding expansion candidates. I think that makes Texas, OU and KU about the only BIG 12 candidates for new members unless they bend the rules. As long as a few full professors are running round the halls of a university, I don't think academic standing plays any role in BIG 12 expansion.

 

[Buffnik]

USNWR gets lots of press for ranking institutions to help parents and students choose a school. Click bait and inaccurate, but well known. The metrics they use has academic excellence as only one factor. More respected rankings of global prestige in academics are available through other services, including a newer USNWR Global rankings and Shanghai rankings. The PAC 12 does very well in these rankings historically, with 5 of the top 20 schools in the world. University presidents in the PAC 12 care who they associate with academically, which is one reason why Utah and not BYU was considered for expansion and why CU was a natural fit (Utah around 100th, BYU 5-600th). CU is around 35th. Research dollars dwarf AD dollars. The PAC 12 presidents seem to put a lot of value on these rankings and Tier 1 research attainment in deciding expansion candidates. I think that makes Texas, OU and KU about the only BIG 12 candidates for new members unless they bend the rules. As long as a few full professors are running round the halls of a university, I don't think academic standing plays any role in BIG 12 expansion.

Yep. AAU membership and/or Top 100 in the ARWU ranks is what the university presidents look at. For the Pac-12, I think that a school could get a yes vote on joining the conference if it is classified as an R1 (Carnegie classification for highest level of doctoral research).

In our footprint, AAU/Top 100 ARWU only includes Texas and Rice. Kansas is on the AAU list. With KU, UT or Rice, the conference could geographically bridge to AAU members Iowa State, Missouri and Tulane. That's it, guys.

So now we get to the 115 R1 options and which are within the footprint or close enough to it but don't make the other lists. (All 12 current members are R1.) Within the Carnegie classifications, also keep in mind that Pac-12 university presidents will consider how much of the research activity is in agriculture, which is devalued by them and is what keeps a lot of these R1 schools from being considered for AAU membership.

1. Colorado State
2. Kansas State
3. Texas Tech
4. Hawaii
5. Houston
6. Nebraska
7. New Mexico
8. Notre Dame
9. Oklahoma

Most of the schools we talk about within the footprint are R2 (107 nationally, high level of research). Good for doctoral research, but not up to the level of the rest of the Pac-12. Could be considered as a tag-along with others if the other school brought enough. But they would be expected to come up.

1. Baylor
2. BYU
3. Oklahoma State
4. San Diego State
5. SMU
6. TCU
7. UNLV
8. Nevada
9. Utah State

Then there are the R3 schools (moderate research activity). These are probably non-starters, no matter who they came with.

1. Air Force
2. Boise State

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_universities_in_the_United_States

From the standpoint of G5 programs within the footprint, the best fits are CSU, Hawaii and New Mexico.

 

[newkid]

athletic conference has nothing to do with academic ranks. so we are saying that Duke is not "globally relevant" while Wazzou might be? academics around the world don't stay at CU because the cost of living versus the pretty low compared to peer schools salary at CU is crap. larry scott has nothing to do with what faculty salaries are.

no other conference can do it?

what does that even mean?

I'm not sure what you're even arguing, and I know you didn't understand my point. Earlier in this thread, other posters started comparing academics between us and other conferences, specifically the ACC. Someone said they're pretty similar. I said, our top tier is flat out a bigger deal than theirs world wide. I then pointed out that the reason why that would matter is because the Pac12's global push would not be possible without global brands. The global push is what Scott has been working on for 3 years. Whether that ever pays off is another topic.

I'm not arguing anything else.

 

[fwbuff]

Yep. AAU membership and/or Top 100 in the ARWU ranks is what the university presidents look at. For the Pac-12, I think that a school could get a yes vote on joining the conference if it is classified as an R1 (Carnegie classification for highest level of doctoral research).

In our footprint, AAU/Top 100 ARWU only includes Texas and Rice. Kansas is on the AAU list. With KU, UT or Rice, the conference could geographically bridge to AAU members Iowa State, Missouri and Tulane. That's it, guys.

So now we get to the 115 R1 options and which are within the footprint or close enough to it but don't make the other lists. (All 12 current members are R1.) Within the Carnegie classifications, also keep in mind that Pac-12 university presidents will consider how much of the research activity is in agriculture, which is devalued by them and is what keeps a lot of these R1 schools from being considered for AAU membership.

1. Colorado State
2. Kansas State
3. Texas Tech
4. Hawaii
5. Nebraska
6. New Mexico
7. Notre Dame
8. Oklahoma

Most of the schools we talk about within the footprint are R2 (107 nationally, high level of research). Good for doctoral research, but not up to the level of the rest of the Pac-12. Could be considered as a tag-along with others if the other school brought enough. But they would be expected to come up.

1. Baylor
2. BYU
3. Oklahoma State
4. San Diego State
5. SMU
6. TCU
7. UNLV
8. Nevada
9. Utah State

Then there are the R3 schools (moderate research activity). These are probably non-starters, no matter who they came with.

1. Air Force
2. Boise State

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_universities_in_the_United_States

From the standpoint of G5 programs within the footprint, the best fits are CSU, Hawaii and New Mexico.

Houston would also be in that R1 group. For some reason, I thought they were AAU, but I didn't find them listed on the website.

 

[Buffnik]

Houston would also be in that R1 group. For some reason, I thought they were AAU, but I didn't find them listed on the website.

Thanks. Edited.

 

[onealcd]

So chip brown reporting that Texas is reluctant to add more than two teams but also doesn't want to extend their grant of rights so there may be a negotiation on that. Seems like they are determined to bolt in 2024 so the PAC would have a couple years to get everything sorted out. Says it's the main three and then Memphis emerging as candidate number four with a possibility for BYU football only membership. Also consider the source on this.

 

[Buffnik]

So chip brown reporting that Texas is reluctant to add more than two teams but also doesn't want to extend their grant of rights so there may be a negotiation on that. Seems like they are determined to bolt in 2024 so the PAC would have a couple years to get everything sorted out. Says it's the main three and then Memphis emerging as candidate number four with a possibility for BYU football only membership. Also consider the source on this.

I think the play by the existing 10 is a money grab. $20 million from the networks per added school while they pay these G5 additions much less than $20 million per year. Then, the addition of a championship game that would add another $25-30 million in revenue.

Now that those plans and that contract has been revealed, we're starting to hear leaks from ESPN and FoxSports that they are not happy at all. They signed a bad deal and they don't want to honor it. In their view, games against former G5 teams reduces the value of the Big 12 broadcasts.


One really strong possibility is that the networks will be forced to support the pro rata increase now, but this will cause them to not support the Big 12 in 2025 when the existing contract expires. Which, of course, would lead to a collapse of the Big 12 as a P5 conference. Watch the Grant of Rights very closely with this expansion. If the existing 10 do not extend it beyond 2025 (and why would they if the media contract doesn't go beyond 2025?), then we can all pretty much plan for the 16 team superconferences to be the ACC, B1G, Pac and SEC in 9 years with what's left of the Big 12 being a really good G6 conference.

 

[onealcd]

I think the play by the existing 10 is a money grab. $20 million from the networks per added school while they pay these G5 additions much less than $20 million per year. Then, the addition of a championship game that would add another $25-30 million in revenue.

Now that those plans and that contract has been revealed, we're starting to hear leaks from ESPN and FoxSports that they are not happy at all. They signed a bad deal and they don't want to honor it. In their view, games against former G5 teams reduces the value of the Big 12 broadcasts.


One really strong possibility is that the networks will be forced to support the pro rata increase now, but this will cause them to not support the Big 12 in 2025 when the existing contract expires. Which, of course, would lead to a collapse of the Big 12 as a P5 conference. Watch the Grant of Rights very closely with this expansion. If the existing 10 do not extend it beyond 2025 (and why would they if the media contract doesn't go beyond 2025?), then we can all pretty much plan for the 16 team superconferences to be the ACC, B1G, Pac and SEC in 9 years with what's left of the Big 12 being a really good G6 conference.

Would be an awesome basketball conference to watch for 8 years if Memphis and Cincy were added though. Really wish they could add UConn on basketball only or something like that lol.

 

[Buffnik]

Would be an awesome basketball conference to watch for 8 years if Memphis and Cincy were added though. Really wish they could add UConn on basketball only or something like that lol.

They might add UConn. Big 12 said that geography is not a criteria. Could see them go with Houston, UConn, Cincinnati and UCF to grab the Ohio & Florida recruiting grounds & media markets, UConn for the NY media market, and Houston to fight back against SEC ownership of SE Texas within that huge media & recruiting ground (also satisfying Texas state politics).

 

[onealcd]

They might add UConn. Big 12 said that geography is not a criteria. Could see them go with Houston, UConn, Cincinnati and UCF to grab the Ohio & Florida recruiting grounds & media markets, UConn for the NY media market, and Houston to fight back against SEC ownership of SE Texas within that huge media & recruiting ground (also satisfying Texas state politics).

I was just talking about the scenario Brown laid out with BYU, Cincy, HOuston and Memphis.

 

[BuffHerd]

It seems much of the chatter in this thread links a need for P12 expansion to expansion of the B12; yet most agree there are few suitable expansion targets for the P12. Maybe we can table this discussion until The expanded B12 implodes, then pick any pieces we may want. Texas will to it see that any additions are at a disadvantage and further strain the conference. Just like SWC, just like Big12, history will repeat.

 

[Buffnik]

It seems much of the chatter in this thread links a need for P12 expansion to expansion of the B12; yet most agree there are few suitable expansion targets for the P12. Maybe we can table this discussion until The expanded B12 implodes, then pick any pieces we may want. Texas will to it see that any additions are at a disadvantage and further strain the conference. Just like SWC, just like Big12, history will repeat.

I think that's the plan. Wait for it to implode. Target UT since they check all the boxes for the presidents (AAU, Top 100 ARWU, R1 Carnegie) while bringing a monumental bump to conference prestige, media & recruiting. Then grab 1 or 3 others who check at least one of those boxes which UT wants to come with them. Buy LHN from ESPN while guaranteeing those future revenues to UT as that is rebranded as the PACN-Texas regional network.

It's the move that the Pac-12 has to be patient and hold out for because it's just too damn big to eliminate the conference from that consideration.

We may not like it. We may be justifiably afraid of it. But it is the homerun move for the conference.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I think the play by the existing 10 is a money grab. $20 million from the networks per added school while they pay these G5 additions much less than $20 million per year. Then, the addition of a championship game that would add another $25-30 million in revenue.

Now that those plans and that contract has been revealed, we're starting to hear leaks from ESPN and FoxSports that they are not happy at all. They signed a bad deal and they don't want to honor it. In their view, games against former G5 teams reduces the value of the Big 12 broadcasts.


One really strong possibility is that the networks will be forced to support the pro rata increase now, but this will cause them to not support the Big 12 in 2025 when the existing contract expires. Which, of course, would lead to a collapse of the Big 12 as a P5 conference. Watch the Grant of Rights very closely with this expansion. If the existing 10 do not extend it beyond 2025 (and why would they if the media contract doesn't go beyond 2025?), then we can all pretty much plan for the 16 team superconferences to be the ACC, B1G, Pac and SEC in 9 years with what's left of the Big 12 being a really good G6 conference.

The original deals pay $2.6 billion over 13 years, or about $20 million per school annually. Expansion by two schools, theoretically, would force ESPN and Fox combined to pay an additional $40 million per year in rights fees. Expansion by four teams could mean another $80 million per year.

Both networks, according to sources, are digging their heels in against paying those kinds of increases based on expansion with schools outside the power five.

The drive to expand is fueled by the opportunity to almost immediately generate more money for its schools. The conference’s TV deals run through 2024-25 and the Big 12 already trails the rest of the power five conferences in revenue, so expansion stands out as the only way for the Big 12 to increase revenue.

Any newcomers to the league wouldn’t be expected to receive a full share of TV revenue for multiple years, meaning more money for the 10 existing members.​

Typical Texas. More for me, less for you.

With the cord cutting trend I am sure thats part of why Fox and ESPN would like to avoid this because they in turn are not likely to receive new revenue to cover those additional costs.

Morgan Stanley analyst Benjamin Swinburne on Tuesday reiterated his "cautious" industry view. "Fundamentally, we expect continued deceleration in subscription revenue growth across TV networks, while TV advertising’s renaissance versus digital meets with some idiosyncratic headwinds and tough compares," he wrote. And FBR & Co. analyst Barton Crockett on Tuesday updated his stance on sector stocks, saying "the data remains supportive of the notion of persistent pressure" in the industry. Link​

 

[SuperiorBuff]

I think that's the plan. Wait for it to implode. Target UT since they check all the boxes for the presidents (AAU, Top 100 ARWU, R1 Carnegie) while bringing a monumental bump to conference prestige, media & recruiting. Then grab 1 or 3 others who check at least one of those boxes which UT wants to come with them. Buy LHN from ESPN while guaranteeing those future revenues to UT as that is rebranded as the PACN-Texas regional network.

It's the move that the Pac-12 has to be patient and hold out for because it's just too damn big to eliminate the conference from that consideration.

We may not like it. We may be justifiably afraid of it. But it is the homerun move for the conference.

How can you still say that the Pac should ever target UTerus? They have ruined 2 conferences, are on the verge of a third, and have pissed off two of the largest sports networks in the process. They are a syphilis infected, puss oozing cancer.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

My crystal ball says that 10 years from now, OU and UT are in the ACC. And I'm ok with that.

 

[Buffnik]

My crystal ball says that 10 years from now, OU and UT are in the ACC. And I'm ok with that.

I can't see OU doing that. They know where their bread is buttered in recruiting. Very similar to CU, but on a higher tier.

 

[SuperD]

No idea what they're for, but somebody has pointed out in a couple of expansion threads on other boards that CSU has apparently erected a couple of big event style tents in front of their new stadium construction area according the construction cam.

 

[onealcd]

No idea what they're for, but somebody has pointed out in a couple of expansion threads on other boards that CSU has apparently erected a couple of big event style tents in front of their new stadium construction area according the construction cam.

I would think it is a press thing for the beginning of fall camp.

 

[SuperD]

Lol...there is a actually a thread over on OU's 247 board claiming that "Colorado is actually very interested in coming back...and that we have a group of boosters working to pool the money for the buyout and make up for the lost television money."