I didn't read the methodology yet, but am not shocked that they rank their conference ahead of everyone except the 2 obvious leaders. Are they trying to prove relevance? I ask because I seem to have read a lot that suggests this expansion is motivated by panic.
It seems that geography paid a big part in his analysis. The west is big and half empty compared to the population density of the rest of the US.
I would say this is valid because it ties in a lot to attendance, traveling to road games within the conference, interaction between fan bases, your media exposure of other conference programs, etc.
When I have talked about "Pac-12 Culture" in this thread, I have been talking about this along with Tier 1 research as something that makes the Pac-12 what it is. Also, in-state rivalries have historically been important for the overall conference buzz. Frankly, this is one of the best arguments for the Pac-12 to look at CSU if it decides to expand. Utah State is an R2, but otherwise would fit the conference model. Then, Nevada + UNLV in the future if they obtained Tier 1, effectively giving the conference dominance over every state with a population of over 3 million people within the MPTZ and having strong in-state rivalries.
The other scenario is to target the major metros in the West. The stick out like crazy within a sea of nothing as you link the west on the interstate highways. San Diego, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Boise, Reno, Colorado Springs. Some combination of SDSU, UNLV, UNM, BSU, UNR and AFA would also make an expanded Pac-12 feel like it was culturally maintained but grown.
Conversely, chasing the money with programs in the Central TZ changes culture in significant ways. Maybe in a good way, maybe not. But if, for example, a Pac-16 means the addition of OU, UT, UH and TTU then I think we'd have to admit that while the money would be much better and the R1 criteria would make the presidents happy, it would significantly alter conference DNA in other ways. Maybe we don't want that and maybe the Pac-12 doesn't need that. At some point, isn't there a diminishing return on what a bigger media contract means for the ability of the conference to fund sports, build facilities and hire great coaches? It's not like we're seeing the Pac-12 suffer in any of those areas.