San Diego State has terrible fan support. Even when they are winning nobody comes to see them. They don't draw TV ratings either.
They also aren't a good fit in terms of academically.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Conference Expansion - Big 12 is a tire fire
- Thread starter hokiehead
- Start date
San Diego State has terrible fan support. Even when they are winning nobody comes to see them. They don't draw TV ratings either.
They also aren't a good fit in terms of academically.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Not a market expert, but wouldn't mind getting away from even more California weight in this conference. Don't USC and UCLA kind of lock down SoCal already? SDSU did have a top 25 football program this year (until exposed as a fraud) and their hoops is always solid, but it's hard to see SDSU happening. Need to either lock up other western states or move into the midwest. One of these days New Mexico is going to experience growth, IMO. Being between booming AZ and TX, it's a matter of time. Although I'm hardly pressing for UNM at the moment. Long way to go before they're remotely worthy. Personally, OU or KU are the ones that hold any appeal to me, but we know the baggage they bring with little brother. I honestly wouldn't care much about TT, ****ty academics aside, they're harmless enough. We'd undoubtedly be in a division with them though along with the Arizona schools.
Really, I'm happy with where we are. OU and KU are the only ones that pique any interest.
Agree with the bolded part. I don't see any of the current MWC schools as being a worthwhile option, ever. The conference needs to get into the Central time zone and pull in a couple of major drawing cards at the same time. Otherwise remain 2nd tier to the Big 10 and SEC on a consistent basis, and even the ACC to some extent.
**** that.
The only thing in the Central Time zone worth a crap is Notre Dame and a few programs already in the B1G that will never leave. Everything after that involves compromises on academics. Compromises on what they can bring in terms of sports. Compromises on ideologies. Perhaps on religion. Certainly on geography by expanding the footprint. The rust belt is contracting population wise while the west is growing. Texas is probably the only thing in the CT really worth a look. And we all know what kind of poison comes with that bed fellow.
Lots of teams in the Pac are in "pairs". Which is irrelevant for Football and maybe basketball. But when you look at the down ballot sports like Womens soccer, Volleyball, Softball, etc., there is still a significant cost for them to visit the other members to complete their schedules while distinctly lacking revenue from tickets of TV. Looking at a few schedules around the conference you'll notice they tend to play both "pairs" on a back to back basis over 3 or 4 days.
Everyone bitches about CSU. But if your going compromise CSU seems easy to me in terms of a pair and the financial relief they could bring. That being said, they are not ready today and probably will not be ready in the next five years either. But I could see a scenario 10 years down the road with Fort Collins still growing like it has and CSU starts to make more sense. They are, after all, academically no worse than Oregon in most rankings.
So CSU will be ready to be in a P5 conference in 10 years because more people will live there? You could say that about pretty much all college towns. I am indifferent about CSU being in a P5, but this makes no sense to me.
More people, more kids. Those kids have to go to college somewhere. There are tech jobs in that town as well. Startups. Your going to see donations. A friend of mine (CU grad) moved from Boulder County to start a business up there a decade ago because it was cheaper and growing faster. CSU is improving the campus beyond the stadium.
Im just saying they could be and that economics could be a factor. And Im talking about CSU as a compromise selection not a Texas, Oklahoma, or Notre Dame caliber selection. With people cutting the cord the bottom could fall out of the money that makes big TV contracts such a huge lucrative factor today. Or at least stall the TV growth. We dont know what the future is there. I know Im not the only one saving $1000 a year now. Somewhere there is a media CEO losing sleep about that.
Is UU any better or more prestigious than CSU? If so its probably not by much. Yet they are a MWC with a small stadium that got let in (and on that note they should send Romney and the USOC a thank you card). UU is there mostly because they needed four teams to enter (CU, UU, UT, and OU). My guess is CSU would be included with someone else for convenience reasons and to bring in a pair. We'll see what happens.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
UU having a past of BCS bowl and National Championship game appearances in basketball made them a tad more prestigious than CSU will ever be, IMO.
We shall see. Utah has world class facilities for all sports and has tremendous support throughout their state. CSU and Utah are not in the same hemisphere in that regards. Utah has done an amazing job the past 10-20 years to set themselves up to get into a P5. The Olympics did wonders for that School and they keep investing in their athletics department.
Thats why I said theyre not ready now but they could be down the road. Building the stadium is a good start. Having a president that takes a longer view than some of their past guys did is also a good start. Theyve got a ways to go.
I agree. My point was that, in all the lists Ive seen, the conference has to make a compromise and settle for team X, Y, or Z to add them. There is no stand out program in the current foot print. In the Texas part of the central time zone there are a few options after the big fish.
And we dont have to go to 14 or 16 either. Until we actually have to.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
I like it just at 12. I think these mega conferences are too much. I don't see the point in being in a conference where you face fellow members once a decade. However, I'd probably be ok with Oklahoma joining, if it wasn't for the political matters of Okie Lite tagging along. Nothing against Okie Lite, but they just aren't a fit in a league of Stanford and UCLA. Obviously I want no part of Texas. There's a lot of sentiment in the ACC (at least among a huge segment of fans, who knows what idiot commish John Swofford thinks) that the Northeast expansion (specifically Boston College) was a mistake. Old rivalries have been crushed for lifeless games in front of 25,000 apathetic Northeast fanbases in the name of locking down media markets.
I have to say - the valid reasons for standing pat are more varied and sensible than the reason to expand which seems to be, "cause everyone else is".
When and if the Pac can find partners that A) move the needle, B) don't have ****-tons of baggage, and C) want to be a part of the conference, then by all means, go for it.
I don't see anyone that fits that profile, and I doubt that anyone else actually does either.
When and if the Pac can find partners that A) move the needle, B) don't have ****-tons of baggage, and C) want to be a part of the conference, then by all means, go for it.
I don't see anyone that fits that profile, and I doubt that anyone else actually does either.
Last edited:
I agree with both. Im pretty happy with 12 as well. It's a good point that when you go to 14 the schedule becomes less interesting.
The only thing I dont agree with is the inclusion of OU. I dont think they add anything to the P12. Culturally they are a better fit where they are. Academically they are decent at best but not very exciting. There brand is the only thing they really have along with some strong history as a power.
I see that argument for having a team in Nevada. UNLV will be very attractive in 5 years or so.
FIFY
We don't know what they'll be like athletically or academically. As of right now, they definitely fit into "don't move the needle category".
curious. for those who see the future of big time college football consisting of super conferences all playing for the same NCAA title, all playing the with the same scheduling criteria, all playing with the same scholarship rules, all playing with the same rules on player conduct, satellite camps, etc...
is there a valid role for conferences in this future of college football?
Asked differently, if all schools are playing for the same title and playing by the same rules both on and off the field, what value is added by maintaining semi-autonomous conferences in this scenario (versus just splitting into divisions who all report into the NCAA, or whatever the future governing organization is)?
It seems to me, that if the Pac (or B1G, or ACC, or whatever) is forced to adopt the same policies and rules as everyone else that there's no point any longer in trying to maintain a "Pac culture", much less a "Pac governing body". In this scenario, it seems like the conferences would just add another layer of administrative overhead (without adding corresponding value to the system).
Anybody seeing something here that I'm not seeing?
is there a valid role for conferences in this future of college football?
Asked differently, if all schools are playing for the same title and playing by the same rules both on and off the field, what value is added by maintaining semi-autonomous conferences in this scenario (versus just splitting into divisions who all report into the NCAA, or whatever the future governing organization is)?
It seems to me, that if the Pac (or B1G, or ACC, or whatever) is forced to adopt the same policies and rules as everyone else that there's no point any longer in trying to maintain a "Pac culture", much less a "Pac governing body". In this scenario, it seems like the conferences would just add another layer of administrative overhead (without adding corresponding value to the system).
Anybody seeing something here that I'm not seeing?
Deleted member 807
Guest
Yes. I suspect that a structure made up of 4 super-conferences is wishful thinking, kind of like the thinking of Egyptian President Nasser's vision for a Pan-Arabian state.
There are many tribes in CFB who would oppose a 64-team cartel that is built to fit in a tidy playoff bracket.
The media money has played a powerful role in shaping our existing structure. But with media markets in a state of upheaval, the future of ever increasing revenue streams becomes less and less of a guarantee. Schools like CSU and BYU may take to the courts and to congress to make NCAA less of an oligopoly. Getting 64 college presidents to agree on something proposed by the NCAA, conference commissioners, and media conglomerates is no where near a slam dunk.
mostly agree, I think an exodus of the P5 schools from the NCAA is equally likely.
- Allow teams to play one non revenue regional scrimmage game for practice in late summer.
- Game 1 of the season is a conference game on day 1. Game 1-8 of season are conference slate.
- Last 3-4 games pit conferences best teams against each other in a "play in" style tournament for playoff seating. Lower teams play in a tournament series sponsored by the bowls to set up bowl games matchups.
I have no interest in college football becoming like all the other sports with the regular season a bland precursor to a playoff.
There are going to be changes though.
It would not be a surprise if the eventual outcome is for a group of the major schools (P5 plus some basketball powers) to simply abandon the NCAA entirely and form their own governing body.
This would take away their subsidies of lower divisions and also take the lower division schools out of being able to influence the big schools through general NCAA rules.
Randy.Watson
Well-Known Member
Thoughts on adding Rice to the Pac?
They fit academically and gets the conference into the biggest market in TX. Rice already has a 70,000 seat stadium. They would need a few years to catch up athletically, but they seem to be a good fit in most other aspects.
They fit academically and gets the conference into the biggest market in TX. Rice already has a 70,000 seat stadium. They would need a few years to catch up athletically, but they seem to be a good fit in most other aspects.
Nah, quinoa is all the rage right now.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Rice plays at Stanford this season.
Could it be an audition?
The most interesting aspect would be a battle of the bands.
heh. hehehehehehe. No. that's all I got.
Randy.Watson
Well-Known Member
Sound logic. I guess I never thought about it that way.
It's what I'm known for.
Rice doesn't move the needle at all.
How many people would tune in to watch a Rice-Washington State game?
I like the thinking out of the box, but it still goes back to the same old thing - teams that would be interested in coming in, and that don't have tons of baggage, don't move the needle.
There's no one out there that fits that Goldilocks description, and as such, no reason to discuss it.
How many people would tune in to watch a Rice-Washington State game?
I like the thinking out of the box, but it still goes back to the same old thing - teams that would be interested in coming in, and that don't have tons of baggage, don't move the needle.
There's no one out there that fits that Goldilocks description, and as such, no reason to discuss it.