Pac-12 expansion is now inevitable

[Shldr2Shldr]

That's a false equivalency.
Expansion for the sake of expansion just splits the pie more ways and doesn't add value at all. The only schools that add value carry risks that we shouldn't be taking.

We are what we are. Concentrate on improving the brand. The rest will eventually fall into place.

We wouldn't add teams just to add teams. They wouldn't bring people in just to split the same pie 16 ways instead of 12. The Pac-12 would expand to the Pac-16 in order to increase its profile and its leverage in the next round of TV negotiations, leading to splitting a much larger pie 16 ways.

 

[Buffnik]

Agreed, I'm just trying to find solutions that doesn't involve Texas, and not getting anywhere.

Most valuable programs in the west are: BYU, SDSU, Boise State, Fresno State, Air Force, UNLV, New Mexico and CSU (probably in that order). But that's kind of looking at it in a vacuum. Since all of those schools are located in places where the Pac-12 already has media distribution, we have to look at who moves the needle nationally in football. That's Boise State, BYU and to a lesser extent SDSU and Air Force. From there, you look at which schools are respected as research institutions that would enhance what the presidents and chancellors care about. That's SDSU along with probably New Mexico (Intel has major facility there) and maybe CSU.

Personally, it wouldn't upset me at all to see SDSU and Boise State added to go to a Pac-14. Easy adds to the South and North. Yeah, it would make scheduling a lot more wonky, but I could live with it. (Wouldn't give them a full share, either, so consider that in the math. Utah was on a graduated scale over several years and was getting a smaller share.)

 

[buffaholic]

KU, OU, Houston, and anyone not named Texas or **** Bailer.

I could see KU, OU, Houston, but only with Texas. There's no expansion into Big12 country without Texas folks, no matter how much of a bully she has been. It's the big kahuna and without Texas, this becomes a waste of time.

a. I don't necessarily feel that the Ag schools make any sense (OSU, KSU, ISU, TTU, nor aTm btw)
b. The Religiously affiliated schools in Texas are non-starters. (Baylor and TCU) along with BYU.
c. West Virginia is in the wrong part of the country.
d. I hate Nebraska, and the TV share isn't worth nearly as much as adding a 2nd Texas school.

And if you are serious about really improving revenues and optimizing your franchise, I think you have to look at what does OSU and WSU bring vs other alternatives.

 

[skibum]

That's a false equivalency.
Expansion for the sake of expansion just splits the pie more ways and doesn't add value at all. The only schools that add value carry risks that we shouldn't be taking.

We are what we are. Concentrate on improving the brand. The rest will eventually fall into place.

Holy ****, sacky is engaging the argument!

There are probably ways to expand that add value. There are a lot of ways to expand that don't.

You never exclude an option just because you don't like it. The most profitable companies usually grow both organically and through acquisition.

That's what expansion is: growth via acquisition.

Expansion for the sake of expansion is a bad idea. But, standing still may be an even worse idea.

If the Pac-12 revenues continue to falter in comparison to other conferences (especially if they falter in comparison to the Big 12), we'll be in a tough spot. And think about that: do we really want to vie with the Big12 for "worst P5 conference" status?

 

[SD Buff]

My thoughts.

1. The PAC will be significantly behind the B1G and SEC with or without DirecTV distribution at our current rates. Maybe DirecTV would be the domino effect to get more National carriage though? That is really the only way we can close the gap with the current revenue model.
2. The Big 12 adding a Championship Game and staying at 10 is going to push them comfortably ahead of the PAC in conference distribution. I'll continue to argue their respective Tier 3 TV RIGHTS deals aren't anywhere as lucrative as the propaganda - but those schools aren't at a disadvantage distribution wise.
3. The Grant of Rights expire for most everyone eight years from now. That's really not all that long to wait rather than going through the expense of challenging the GORs to move conferences. IMO - we won't see anything until 2024 - unless the Big 12 adds G5 schools.
4. In 2024 - all bets are off. We could see consolidation. We could see a split from the NCAA. We could see a collectively bargained NFL type TV contract with a NFL like league structure. But I think we'll see one last shuffling of the decks one way or the other.

Still keep a fairly active read from OU and UT fans. General feeling has been the UT spin on the Pacific time zone being unfriendly to student athletes and fans has become rather pervasive. Still see some who want a PAC 16 with OU/Lite/UT/TTU and a pod system. If we are stuck with a PAC 16 - no matter how little I want Texas in the PAC - that iteration of a PAC 16 will make the most money and the most sense.

But if OU and UT move to the Big 10 - there is not a damn thing the PAC can do other than watch the conference distribution gap grow wider. The power gap. The National narrative gap. It won't be a good thing. So once again, Texas has all the leverage.

Bottom line. If Texas isn't coming to the PAC - the PAC has zero reason to expand with anyone. No other combination of schools is likely to lift the boat. Not the orphans from the Big 12 and certainly not G5 from within the footprint.

Why does it all matter? Because Purdue for example is going to have 20 million more a year to play with. That matters when it comes to facilities, coaches salaries, carrying varsity sports, branding, etc.

PAC Presidents may be content owning 100% of a media company. And who is to say they are wrong, the long play is certainly still possibly very lucrative. But I hope they aren't sitting on their hands when it all goes down. At least have their eye on the ball.

 

[sackman]

Holy ****, sacky is engaging the argument!

There are probably ways to expand that add value. There are a lot of ways to expand that don't.

You never exclude an option just because you don't like it. The most profitable companies usually grow both organically and through acquisition.

That's what expansion is: growth via acquisition.

Expansion for the sake of expansion is a bad idea. But, standing still may be an even worse idea.

If the Pac-12 revenues continue to falter in comparison to other conferences (especially if they falter in comparison to the Big 12), we'll be in a tough spot. And think about that: do we really want to vie with the Big12 for "worst P5 conference" status?

So expansion is one of several options to increase conference value? That's hardly the same as saying our hand is being forced.

 

[buffaholic]

Most valuable programs in the west are: BYU, SDSU, Boise State, Fresno State, Air Force, UNLV, New Mexico and CSU (probably in that order). But that's kind of looking at it in a vacuum. Since all of those schools are located in places where the Pac-12 already has media distribution, we have to look at who moves the needle nationally in football. That's Boise State, BYU and to a lesser extent SDSU and Air Force. From there, you look at which schools are respected as research institutions that would enhance what the presidents and chancellors care about. That's SDSU along with probably New Mexico (Intel has major facility there) and maybe CSU.

Personally, it wouldn't upset me at all to see SDSU and Boise State added to go to a Pac-14. Easy adds to the South and North. Yeah, it would make scheduling a lot more wonky, but I could live with it. (Wouldn't give them a full share, either, so consider that in the math. Utah was on a graduated scale over several years and was getting a smaller share.)

I feel like you are over-valuing some of these smaller schools.
SDSU is considered a joke of an academic institution by the locals.
Boise State is not going to move the needle in any way, especially academically. But small population. All 50k fans go to every game, so no TV viewers.
Intel is barely alive in NM with many feeling that Intel will close it down soon. It is a manufacturing facility. It's a minor part of the landscape.
UNM fits for other reasons, but don't believe their population growth is enough to move the needle.
Las Vegas has some population, but much of it is retired folks from elsewhere or younger people who are unlikely to stick. Most having no affiliation with UNLV. Getting traction in that community will be near impossible.

 

[SINKRATZ]

We wouldn't add teams just to add teams. They wouldn't bring people in just to split the same pie 16 ways instead of 12. The Pac-12 would expand to the Pac-16 in order to increase its profile and its leverage in the next round of TV negotiations, leading to splitting a much larger pie 16 ways.

I actually think there's value in strengthening our dominance of the west coast markets.

Sure, schools like New Mexico or Boise aren't bringing huge media markets in the short-term, but there's something to be said for capturing the most attractive properties in the western US as a longer term play to block expansion from other conferences that could weaken the Pac 12's media options and recruiting territory going forward.

Imagine the Big 12 going after schools like BYU, New Mexico, Boise, SDSU, UNLV, or (gasp) CSU. Another conference entering the west coast markets is bad for the Pac 12.

I actually wouldn't mind a scenario that saw the Pac12 add BYU and CSU to provide some more natural rivalries, then grab the Oklahoma schools.

 

[buffaholic]

Bottom line. If Texas isn't coming to the PAC - the PAC has zero reason to expand with anyone. No other combination of schools is likely to lift the boat. Not the orphans from the Big 12 and certainly not G5 from within the footprint.
.

/Thread

 

[Liver]

our Buffs are not in a position of strength right now. if p12 expansion happens, and i happen to think it is inevitable (gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by some others here aside), we are not going to be driving the train.

ut is a prize from a ratings/markets perspective, and they have a very strong department, and they have great academics. they would add a ton, financially, to the p12. i understand the ut hate and i share it but wishing something so, won't make it so.

i believe the p12 would also be willing to take oklahoma, which has worked hard to improve its rep, academically, and from a cheating perspective. and, kansas, for the basketball tradition and the medium ok academics. so, then, would the conference hold its nose a bit to take okie state? i think so, to get ou and to close out the 16 teams.

that is a very strong conference, adding a midwest bb power who draws a national audience, and establishing a great footprint in the southwest, including the goldmine of the state of texassssssss.

as far as alignment goes, i think we get screwed into a p12 east block. (CU, utah, texas, ku, okie state, ou, and arizona and asu). the west block (usc, ucla, stanford, cal, oregon, oregon st, wash, and wsu) will be driving the train on this, sadly.

the conference will work. everyone is going to go to 16 teams eventually. ut likes to wave their big flaccid bull dong around, but i believe that usc, ucla, cal, and stanford, working together, will be able to control the direction of the conference, for better or worse.

if you want more say on the freight train of tv revenue driven realignment, then hope against hope we quickly become a power in football again and that we move up another few notches in bb.

 

[skibum]

Imagine the Big 12 going after schools like BYU, New Mexico, Boise, SDSU, UNLV, or (gasp) CSU. Another conference entering the west coast markets is bad for the Pac 12.

Try this: imagine the Big 12 going after schools like ASU, UA, CU and Utah. That's the real worry.

And it's a legitimate worry if Big12 revenues/distributions start to seriously out-pace Pac12 revenues/distributions.

 

[Buffs35]

Pretty pessimistic thread. At least no one can watch our crappy conference!

How is Tex-ass a possibility? I always thought they would never give up an unequal piece of the pie.

From a fans perspective, I would hate to add places like Stillwater and Lubbock back into the equation for away games, especially if CU would be relegated back to the east.

Best case - no expansion and get on real TV
Okay - Air Force, UNLV, Houston, SDSU
Bad - OU, (KU or OSU), TT, Tex-ass

As others have said, CU has no power in driving which teams are added. I fear adding Oklahoma and Texas schools will essentially bring back the top teams of the Big 12, and replace the crappier teams with U$C, UCLA, Oregon and Stanford. Ouch.

 

[Tractor]

Or imagine the big 12 going after USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington.

NOW where does that leave CU?

We want to be on the right side of the negotiations table.

 

[Buffnik]

I feel like you are over-valuing some of these smaller schools.
SDSU is considered a joke of an academic institution by the locals.
Boise State is not going to move the needle in any way, especially academically. But small population. All 50k fans go to every game, so no TV viewers.
Intel is barely alive in NM with many feeling that Intel will close it down soon. It is a manufacturing facility. It's a minor part of the landscape.
UNM fits for other reasons, but don't believe their population growth is enough to move the needle.
Las Vegas has some population, but much of it is retired folks from elsewhere or younger people who are unlikely to stick. Most having no affiliation with UNLV. Getting traction in that community will be near impossible.

And that's the problem. There are no perfect fits within the existing footprint (though I'd point out that SDSU is a Tier 1 research institution).

You don't want to lose your DNA as a conference. That is a conference killer.

For conference DNA, I'd say the following:

1. Western US, so nothing east of St. Louis.
2. University in a growing, dynamic community.
3. University is research-based, especially in high-value technologies (aerospace, computer science, medical, etc.).
4. Not just a football school - strength in Olympic Sports.

From that starting point, you start looking at expansion targets based on what it could mean for media revenue gains, exposure, and recruiting geography.

Within that, it's a relatively short list and I don't know that any school checks all the boxes. Here are the two obvious ones:

1. University of Texas at Austin -- AAU Member, Tier 1 research, Austin, TX media, TX recruiting, national prestige, . Maybe the most valuable program in the nation, no matter what we might think/know about them. Would certainly change the culture of the Pac-12 to as much southwest in flavor as it is pacific currently. 46 NCAA national championships with 9 more that weren't from NCAA (4 in football, 5 in Olympic).

2. University of Oklahoma -- Tier 1 research, Oklahoma City with significant reach into Dallas, national prestige. 25 National Championships plus another 7 MNCs in football.

From there, I think a case could be made to add 2 more from a host of schools that wouldn't necessarily move the needle on revenue but would check enough boxes to make sense. Kansas, Missouri, Texas Tech, Houston, New Mexico, SDSU, Boise State.

The big question, I think, is what the hell does the Pac-12 do if it doesn't land Oklahoma and/or Texas and expansion is necessary within a new D1 landscape? There is simply no path to competitive revenue if we see a B1G, ACC and SEC each with 16 teams. B1G snagging KU and OU with the SEC or ACC snagging UT would be a nightmare scenario for the Pac-12.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

The big question, I think, is what the hell does the Pac-12 do if it doesn't land Oklahoma and/or Texas and expansion is necessary within a new D1 landscape? There is simply no path to competitive revenue if we see a B1G, ACC and SEC each with 16 teams. B1G snagging KU and OU with the SEC or ACC snagging UT would be a nightmare scenario for the Pac-12.

This situation would leave the Pac-12 in the current Big XII's situation. Picking over the scraps with no real plan or direction. Would eventually leave the Pac-12 in a very bad position.

 

[onealcd]

Or imagine the big 12 going after USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington.

NOW where does that leave CU?

We want to be on the right side of the negotiations table.

That leaves CU in the Big-10 lol

 

[leftybuff]

ut has shown themselves to be the poison pill time and again, if they get their bevo nose in the P12 tent, we, and the rest of the conference will regret it.

 

[Liver]

the p12 could get screwed, for sure, especially right now when looking at the tv revenue.

i'm not entirely sure if all the schools/fans in the p12 even care if everyone goes super-conference 16 and the p12 is left out.

i've talked with more than one fan (mostly older folks, i think) here who don't even watch the other conferences. they don't know which schools are in which conferences. they know the b1G conference because of the rose bowl. and, they know in general that the sec has some good teams. but, something i have heard A LOT from p12 footprint fans:

"i'd rather we win the rose bowl than the national championship"

"i'd rather we beat [insert arch historical conference rival here] than play in the playoffs."

"we've got the best talent in college football anyway, who cares what they are doing back east."

etc.

but, even with all this provincialism in the footprint (especially usc, ucla, cal, and stanford fans), i think the p12 will make a run at expansion and i think they will focus on powers who expand the footprint so that they can go to the targets with a new tv deal that demonstrates real money.

 

[buffaholic]

You don't want to lose your DNA as a conference. That is a conference killer.

For conference DNA, I'd say the following:

1. Western US, so nothing east of St. Louis.
2. University in a growing, dynamic community.
3. University is research-based, especially in high-value technologies (aerospace, computer science, medical, etc.).
4. Not just a football school - strength in Olympic Sports.
.

If that's the DNA, why not apply it retroactively and boot out OSU and WSU?

 

[onealcd]

If that's the DNA, why not apply it retroactively and boot out OSU and WSU?

Because that is almost impossible to do.

 

[Buffnik]

ut has shown themselves to be the poison pill time and again, if they get their bevo nose in the P12 tent, we, and the rest of the conference will regret it.

UT's ability to dominate has a lot to do with being within its region. So much of the SWC and Big 12 was tied to the politics within the state of Texas. That allowed UT to dominate the other Texas-based programs and give it a voting bloc that could vote down any initiative it didn't like. That dynamic would not exist in the Pac. Too many prestigious universities to take a back seat to anyone.

Also - LHN is failing. ESPN just announced more cuts, eliminating the studio show. LINK Only broadcasting live events now, it looks like, and it's losing millions every year. UT is making a lot of money from it (about $11MM a year), but they are never going to get to the big numbers they anticipated when they signed the deal because it won't become profitable and that clause of "70% of profits to UT once ESPN earns its investment back" will never materialize. More likely that ESPN will scuttle LHN as part of its cost-cutting measures and look for a way to keep its rights to UT football games in some way. That is where the Pac-12 can step in.

 

[Buffnik]

If that's the DNA, why not apply it retroactively and boot out OSU and WSU?

Members since 1915 and 1917, respectively. Been there since the start. They're part of the DNA, even if they don't measure up in certain aspects. The Pac wouldn't add comparable members in 2016 onward, but wouldn't ever eliminate those schools. Completely outside the realm of possibility.

 

[skibum]

If that's the DNA, why not apply it retroactively and boot out OSU and WSU?

Because that is almost impossible to do.

Unless they go full Bailer, then you could probably do it. Chances of anyone but Bailer or Pedo State having the complete lack of morality required to go full Bailer are pretty minimal though.

 

[Buffs35]

If that's the DNA, why not apply it retroactively and boot out OSU and WSU?

I think they are more likely to kick CU out than do that.

 

[BlackNGold]

I guess I don't see the Big 10 deal as some sort of expansion driver. The Big 10 was at the end of their deals(ESPN in football and CBS in BB) and it was the time to renegotiate - the negotiation with Fox has been going on for a long time. Realignment may happen before the next round of negotiations on TV rights but those are years into the future. The Big 12’s contracts with ESPN and Fox expire after the 2024-25 season. The Pac-12 deal expires in 2023-24. The SEC and ACC have agreements that go into the 2030s.

 

[Gary Indiana]

To me the addition of BSU, Houston, Texas, and OU makes the most travel and economic sense from a revenue standpoint.

Boise will be easy travel partner for Oregon and Washington schools. Houston will bring a huge market, Texas will obviously bring a big market and they keep their rivalry with OU as well.

 

[CitizenKane]

Best case - no expansion and get on real TV
Okay - Air Force, UNLV, Houston, SDSU
Bad - OU, (KU or OSU), TT, Tex-ass
.

I tend to agree with the best case scenario. The quickest way for the PAC12 to increase revenue is to shut down the PAC network, which they've managed terribly and bid out full TV rights for conference sports. Not sure where things are at contractually to allow this to happen but given the TV markets within the PAC footprint this would immediately result in the PAC seeing big revenue increases. The PAC network was a dream that just isn't succeeding. For more revenue this is far and away the BEST choice.

From an expansion perspective there are a lot of options that are viable. SDSU (Though no one in San Diego cares about SDSU at all, nor really any sport at all, so your ratings would suck, but you could at least sell that you had the market). Texas A&M (Actually why haven't all of you focused more on this?!?!). Texas (I think that burp was chunky), SMU (Nope, its a little bit of vomit), Rail-her (jet puking now) or Houston (wait aren't they just like SDSU, no one in their own market cares about them?).

 

[sackman]

**** texas

 

[MtnBuff]

Texas will go east before joining the PAC. They will not accept a role as an equal at the table with Wazzou and Oregon State, etc.

The unfortunate fact is that the PAC12 footprint isn't as lucrative for college football as some other conferences have. That doesn't mean expansion can't improve that but you have to balance the increased value vs. the cost of the share to the school.

Sure a school like SDSU adds some TV viewers. I seriously doubt that the value of those viewers comes close to the share that they would take of the overall pie, the rest of the conference loses.

A school like Oklahoma has a smaller media market but they are dominant in it. They also draw a lot of viewers in Texas and other surrounding states where they have big alumni bases. The value of the Sooners could easily be much larger than the share they take out.

All other candidates you have to answer the same question. Boise, UNLV, etc. all look like nos. Kansas, TTU, etc may be a positive but not certain.

 

[onealcd]

Every conference has bottom feeders like OSU and WSU. Also, WSU has a pretty big presence in the Seattle area, they are not UW but they do have a good following they are just far away from their alumni base so attendance doesn't reflect that.