Pac-12 Expansion Candidates - Academic Criteria

[ScottyBuff]

I got no real major areas of disagreement with your post Scotty. Quite the opposite really. It was a pleasant read and logical.

About the only quibble I'd offer is that Boise State is also on a very solid growth track and has a lot more proven track record than UNLV or Nevada-Reno does.

I'd add that the financial considerations aren't necessarily always considered correctly. Typically when I read threads of this sort they generally boil down to "does (fill in the blank) school add 'X' and/or $35M value by itself". I think this is an imperfect look at the math. Very few schools by themselves add that sort of value by themselves to a TV contract. Wazzu I am fairly certain doesn't add that sort of value by itself, but it's value is multiplied by pairing it with Washington and thereby capturing the whole state and the rivalry.

It's admittedly a bit of a "Moneyball" viewpoint...but I don't think expansion threads are always really asking the right questions when they analyze the metrics.

(Okay, it's botha Moneyball viewpoint and a biased homer viewpoint. Mea Culpa buff bros.)

Gotcha. I'd be curious as to your thoughts on whether the Pac-12 has too much "overlap" in the metro markets compared to other conferences, and therefore cannot monetize their media rights to the same extent as the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and even Big 12 do?

Alone amongst the conferences, the Pac-12 truly has the "travel partner" pairings that work great in logistics and rivalry building but also cannibalize the media markets:

USC/UCLA in LA
Stanford/Cal in Bay Area
Oregon/Oregon State in Portland
Wahington/Wazzou in Seattle
Arizona/Arizona State in Phoenix/Tucson

The ACC has this in the North Carolina Tri-Cities market with Duke, UNC, and N.C. State, the Big Ten with Michigan/Michigan State in Detroit and possibly with Illinois/Northwestern in Chicago, the Big 12 has it with Kansas/Kansas State in the KC market, and the hodgepodge allegiances in the DFW market. However, none of them have it to the extent that the Pac-12 does.

While the rivalry angle is a good one for an in-person fan viewing perspective it is hard to ignore that this could also be a contributing factor in the Pac-12's lower media rights revenue.

While I agree that we are painting with large brush strokes here (I'd love to get ahold of the details, but they aren't published freely); the main question was the candidates for expansion criteria for a conference that is losing ground financially to its peers. Certainly Boise, Nevada, and UNLV are on good growth trajectories however they simply don't command enough media market share (either through actual ratings or access to a large untapped DMA) currently, to allow the Pac-12 to increase their revenue per school via expansion.

 

[Buffnik]

Re: ScottyBuff's post from earlier in the thread:

I don't generally like to get involved in these sorts of discussions as a guest on other teams' boards but I'd argue that the TV Market metric can be a highly misleading one because there is a broad delta between the number of TV sets in a market or geography and what is actually delivered.

Houston, for example, has a media market that is very attractive looking but how far down are they on the sports selection of the population in question? The question isn't just "what is the available media market" but also "does the team actually deliver that market and translate it into eyeballs on the screen" which equals larger TV contracts?

Houston has a total population of about 2.3 million people. How much of that population would their program actually deliver and convert into people watching games? Idaho, the state, has about 1.7 million people in it and maybe I'm going full homer here but I suspect with NO OTHER viable sports viewing options, and a substantially more successful product combined with a conference upgrade that you'd get more actual viewership from adding Boise State than you do adding Houston, particularly when you factor in national interest outside of just the local markets generated by a consistently and repeatedly successful at the national level program.

It's counter-intuitive, but I think the arithmetic of TV markets goes deeper than just the number of TV sets in a arbitrarily defined geographical area. To Scotty's credit, he touches on this with his tabulating the population of Mormons and articulating that this is a metric that is not limited to BYU's specific TV market but that also serves to make my point that just looking at TV Market's in a vacuum gives a limited picture without proper context and a broader perspective.

You also have to look at what is actually realistic. Schools like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, etc. may not really be on the table to join the P5 conference that is struggling the most. (No offense intended.) I'm not saying that they AREN'T but I'd argue are somewhat unlikely.

Cable's been paying "in market" and "out of market" rates, so the base size of the market does matter a lot.

However, your argument does get into a few other factors that do matter.

1. What in market and out of market rates does your conference network command? Programs with national cache drive up those rates and popular programs within a market help, particularly, drive a higher in market rate.

2. Advertising rates. That's not just based on reach. Nielsen ratings of how many people are watching determines the ad dollars.

3. Leverage. Pac-12 does not have enough fans who will choose Dish over DirecTV or drop DirecTV because it doesn't carry the Pac-12 Networks. In the west, it's Boise State and BYU fans who would harass a DirecTV and make a consumer decision based on carriage of PACN. I think you'd also get that with the former Big 12 schools, but you wouldn't with anybody else.

That passion from #3 is something I believe the conference needs an infusion of. I also believe that in the long-term, there's something valuable with a model that's more cohesively sticking to western culture and covering the PTZ & MTZ.

Here's the thing, though:

BYU would need to amend its policies on homosexuality and would need to allow academic freedom. I think if it would model its policies and plans on Notre Dame in these areas that it would have a shot at Pac membership, but it would be tough.

Boise State is simply nowhere close on the academic side. @nocoolnamejim -- is there a will at Boise State and the investment dollars to grow the graduate programs and increase doctorate level faculty in the sciences? I know this doesn't happen overnight, but is Boise State dedicated to becoming a first class research institution? I took a look at the Strategic Plan and it appears that this is the mission right now.
Goal 3: Gain distinction as a doctoral research university.

STRATEGIES:

• Recruit, retain, and support highly qualified faculty, staff, and students from diverse backgrounds.
• Identify and invest in select areas of excellence with the greatest potential for economic, societal, and cultural benefit.
• Build select doctoral programs with a priority toward transdisciplinary programs in professional and STEM disciplines.
• Build infrastructure to keep pace with growing research and creative activity.
• Design systems to support and reward interdisciplinary collaboration and transdisciplinary degree programs.

I also looked at the Master Plan to see if there are buildings going up and colleges being added. There's definitely expansion of STEM program infrastructure, but it seems like it's not emphasized as much as I'm used to seeing when looking at the CU Master Plans. I often see things like housing, Greek life and athletics facilities listed before I come to academic building plans. Is the emphasis and passion really there to become a doctoral research university of distinction within the STEM disciplines?

I'd love to see these 2 schools in the Pac, but I just don't know if they're on the path they would need to be for the current presidents to welcome them in.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

On the academic side, I want to remind everyone that CSU gets a lot of research dollars and is mentioned as a university the AAU would be considering for membership. If CSU was able to join the AAU, you can be assured that they would get a Pac-12 invitation.

They do really well in research nowadays, which is great for Colorado (the state), seeing as (unfortunately) they do a much better job of serving in-state students. However, I've never heard they might be looked at for AAU status. Any link on that?

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Rice is becoming more intriguing to me as I look into them.

47k capacity football stadium that's expandable to 70k and was just upgraded with new field turf and a new field house.

.

Average attendance at Rice is 20k. They don't have the fan base to ever do much better, either; it's a tiny school and most alumni are not sports-obsessed.

Rice has its advantages, just want to clear up that talking about their attendance/ stadium size in any positive light whatsoever is misguided.

 

[Buffnik]

Gotcha. I'd be curious as to your thoughts on whether the Pac-12 has too much "overlap" in the metro markets compared to other conferences, and therefore cannot monetize their media rights to the same extent as the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and even Big 12 do?

Alone amongst the conferences, the Pac-12 truly has the "travel partner" pairings that work great in logistics and rivalry building but also cannibalize the media markets:

USC/UCLA in LA
Stanford/Cal in Bay Area
Oregon/Oregon State in Portland
Wahington/Wazzou in Seattle
Arizona/Arizona State in Phoenix/Tucson

The ACC has this in the North Carolina Tri-Cities market with Duke, UNC, and N.C. State, the Big Ten with Michigan/Michigan State in Detroit and possibly with Illinois/Northwestern in Chicago, the Big 12 has it with Kansas/Kansas State in the KC market, and the hodgepodge allegiances in the DFW market. However, none of them have it to the extent that the Pac-12 does.

While the rivalry angle is a good one for an in-person fan viewing perspective it is hard to ignore that this could also be a contributing factor in the Pac-12's lower media rights revenue.

While I agree that we are painting with large brush strokes here (I'd love to get ahold of the details, but they aren't published freely); the main question was the candidates for expansion criteria for a conference that is losing ground financially to its peers. Certainly Boise, Nevada, and UNLV are on good growth trajectories however they simply don't command enough media market share (either through actual ratings or access to a large untapped DMA) currently, to allow the Pac-12 to increase their revenue per school via expansion.

On this, I'd also be curious to know what people who know the broadcast industry think in terms of what direction things are going. (Sorry for the long post here, but I got going a bit.)

Home markets and national brand appeal drove the last round of realignment.

As we go to more a la carte viewing options (maybe driven by whether a customer opts for the Pac-12 app on his/her platform) and less forced bundling, do those same factors dominate?

With that, there are 2 very different considerations. One is the value of the Tier 1 rights that ESPN, FoxSports and maybe some new players bid for. The other is the carriage and rates for Pac-12 Networks (and its likelihood of being purchased as an app or ability to drive a sports bundle) across platforms. Might we start moving back toward regionalization? I think delivering matchups between Top 25 ranked teams, traditional national interest rivalries and games between "name" programs always carries significant value. But is there value to a college football fan in Florida to want to watch a regional rivalry game like Washington-Washington State in the Apple Cup? Does the pageantry and history behind a game like that matter? Would we get some momentum from CU-CSU and Utah-BYU that adds extra value to the Pac-12, particularly if both programs were ranked as compared to if a ranked CU was playing a ranked Texas Tech? Rivalry games do tend to sell. And with tv viewership, we like to talk about more time zones meaning expansion of game times and tv slots. There is value there. But it also has the negative effect of reducing home market viewership. Fewer casual fans of a team in the Central Time Zone are going to tune in when they're playing a night game on the west coast and they are going to bitch about that game not finishing until after midnight for them.

I tend to think regionality matters when I consider what makes college football different than other sports. That passion, pageantry and a full stadium does matter. Heck, even the NFL tries to play that up with its rivalries like Bears vs Packers and it does seem to move the needle even when the teams are mediocre and neither has a ton of star power that year. So I think this matters. I also think what matters more is the likelihood that a program will be ranked. People watch when a team is in the Top 25. In the west, Boise State, BYU and San Diego State have value from that standpoint because they have a history of delivering good teams. There is value in that which goes well beyond home tv markets.

Last, I touched upon the home attendance thing and whether the stadium is rocking. That does seem to translate into tv interest. But more importantly, it seems that live attendance figures are struggling. Maybe that needs to become a point of emphasis? It can certainly be helped by scheduling more compelling non-conference home games. Nobody likes buying season tickets and having 2 or 3 of the 6 or some home game you bought being against doormats. It sucks the value from the product you're buying. Beyond that, having opponents within a 3 hour drive probably (or at least a 2 hour flight) makes a difference with fans attending along with having fans of the opponent who live in the town your school is in - along with it being a desirable travel destination for a long weekend. That also results in significant cost savings for a conference with travel for non-revenue programs.

So, I guess where I continue to land is that I would prefer an expanded Pac to cover the major western states & metros while capturing the best teams and rivalries -- sticking to the Mountain & Pacific time zones. I hope that this is economically feasible and that it is a better long-term play than trying to make the "Pac" sprawl. Those Big 12 schools we talk about are on the I-35 corridor. That's 500 miles east of Boulder. It's 1,000 miles east of Salt Lake City, Phoenix or Tucson. I think we have an inherent issue in the Pac-12 with so much relatively empty space between our institutions. It's how the west is. Seems like it would be better to cinch that up a bit by looking at the major metros we skip (Boise, Reno, Las Vegas, San Diego, Albuquerque) and by looking to ease travel weeks for sports with local pairings (Boulder + Fort Collins, Salt Lake City + Provo) rather than compounding this issue by adding another 500 - 1,000 mile gap of real estate.

 

[Buffnik]

They do really well in research nowadays, which is great for Colorado (the state), seeing as (unfortunately) they do a much better job of serving in-state students. However, I've never heard they might be looked at for AAU status. Any link on that?

Colorado State is one of several promising AAU candidates. The university received $209-million in federal research funds in 2008. Yet Mr. Frank says Colorado State isn't making the pursuit of AAU membership or higher perches in common university rankings a top priority.
"We're worrying about doing our job better and dealing with rankings and memberships as they come," says Mr. Frank.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/As-AAU-Admits-Georgia-Tech-to/65200

To put it in perspective, CSU does more research than AAU members such as Kansas, Indiana, Missouri, Michigan State, Purdue, Rutgers, Rice, Tulane, Iowa State and Oregon. http://www.nanoscience.gatech.edu/zlwang/news/chronicle of higher ed.pdf

 

[Buffnik]

Average attendance at Rice is 20k. They don't have the fan base to ever do much better, either; it's a tiny school and most alumni are not sports-obsessed.

Rice has its advantages, just want to clear up that talking about their attendance/ stadium size in any positive light whatsoever is misguided.

I did read in one article that the 70k capacity their stadium had was greater than the number of living alumni Rice had. The fact that school is tiny (under 5k undergrads) is maybe the biggest negative on its viability for a P5 conference.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Houston Fall Viewing Hierarchy:

1 - UT/aTm
2 - Texans with Deshaun Watson
3 - High School Football
4 - Texans without Deshaun Watson
5 - University of Houston
6 - ....
7 - The Food Network
8 - ...
9 - ...
10 - Rice University

 

[Not Sure]

From a purely geographical standpoint, the best candidates are BYU, UNLV, CSU and SDSU. I considered UNM, but they wouldn’t have a viable travel partner in that system. They’re kind of stuck.

The question becomes whether the addition of those four schools adds value to the conference. I’m willing to listen to arguments that they would, but I’m skeptical.

 

[Buffnik]

From a purely geographical standpoint, the best candidates are BYU, UNLV, CSU and SDSU. I considered UNM, but they wouldn’t have a viable travel partner in that system. They’re kind of stuck.

The question becomes whether the addition of those four schools adds value to the conference. I’m willing to listen to arguments that they would, but I’m skeptical.

I think the only way they could is if there's a structural change.

When the NCAA said that if you could have a conference championship game for football if you had 12 teams in 2 divisions, that drove a lot of revenue that made it worthwhile to go from 10 to 12 teams. (Now that they changed it to being able to do it with 10, it actually benefits the 10 member Big 12 over the 12 member Pac-12).

The real value is in a handful of programs and their big rivalry games. So just like NBC pays a ton for Notre Dame, ESPN and FoxSports pay big money to get conferences but what they're really paying for with most of that check is Ohio State & Michigan, Texas & Oklahoma, Florida State & Miami or USC. There are a bunch of 2nd tier programs that are valuable (Pac-12 has about 9 of them, for example), but those programs aren't driving the contracts.

So, if there's a rule change that makes it so a 16-team conference can hold a semi-final round to determine its football champion, then I could see the programs you mention making the Pac more valuable. It would be less about their innate value and more about the increased volume of games that can be televised, that 33% increase in games & teams making it much more likely that there are nationally relevant games for the networks to choose among each week, and -- most importantly -- that there would be those 2 huge value games for the semi-final round of the conference football championship that could well be worth $50-$100M per year in broadcast rights, ticket sales, sponsorships, etc. I think that's the real impetus for any expansion unless it's an opportunity to grab an Oklahoma, Texas or Notre Dame that would move the needle based on their innate value as elite properties.

fwiw, that's the math the Big 12 & its network partners did when they concluded that there were no G5 programs they could add to go to 12 teams that wouldn't cost everyone money. And while they had escalators built into their media deal, their partners would lose money if there were additions and they had to pay more. So pressure was put on the NCAA to change the rules and allow a 10-member conference without divisions to hold a football championship game. That competitively ridiculous solution was what made the most money for all involved.

 

[MtnBuff]

The fact that people have gone to even thinking about schools like Rice, Tulane, SMU, etc as members of the PAC12 shows that the horse is now not only dead and beaten but now qualifies as compost.

This stuff is why @sackman would go nuts that a thread like this exist. If he is lurking he is probably at a point of drinking the left over IPAs just to block it out of his mind.

No Boise doesn't add enough value to compensate for a media share, no CSU doesn't even get close, no the PAC presidents are not going to consider BYU because of their religious beliefs (which they are not going to compromise sufficiently to make them acceptable.)

If Texas were agreeable to being an equal partner they would bring more than enough financial value to be acceptable. They also fit academically. Only issue is them being Texas which is a problem. They would likely bring Oklahoma with them which also would be a financial positive.

Past those two the rest of the possibles mentioned here has slim to no chance. I know everybody loves Vegas but the people in Vegas don't love college football, not happening. I like the future of New Mexico, but not happening.

Utah and the Arizona schools were averaging over 40k per game before they left the WAC (now MWC.) These other schools don't

 

[nocoolnamejim]

Gotcha. I'd be curious as to your thoughts on whether the Pac-12 has too much "overlap" in the metro markets compared to other conferences, and therefore cannot monetize their media rights to the same extent as the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and even Big 12 do?

Alone amongst the conferences, the Pac-12 truly has the "travel partner" pairings that work great in logistics and rivalry building but also cannibalize the media markets:

USC/UCLA in LA
Stanford/Cal in Bay Area
Oregon/Oregon State in Portland
Wahington/Wazzou in Seattle
Arizona/Arizona State in Phoenix/Tucson

The ACC has this in the North Carolina Tri-Cities market with Duke, UNC, and N.C. State, the Big Ten with Michigan/Michigan State in Detroit and possibly with Illinois/Northwestern in Chicago, the Big 12 has it with Kansas/Kansas State in the KC market, and the hodgepodge allegiances in the DFW market. However, none of them have it to the extent that the Pac-12 does.

While the rivalry angle is a good one for an in-person fan viewing perspective it is hard to ignore that this could also be a contributing factor in the Pac-12's lower media rights revenue.

While I agree that we are painting with large brush strokes here (I'd love to get ahold of the details, but they aren't published freely); the main question was the candidates for expansion criteria for a conference that is losing ground financially to its peers. Certainly Boise, Nevada, and UNLV are on good growth trajectories however they simply don't command enough media market share (either through actual ratings or access to a large untapped DMA) currently, to allow the Pac-12 to increase their revenue per school via expansion.

Great question on the overlap. Fun discussion point.

It's also one that I, in the interest of being intellectually honest, am forced to acknowledge that there's probably no clear answer from looking at the data. There's just to many variables at work to be able to come to a firm conclusion with any sort of real confidence. I have a couple of theories, but they're just that: theories. And not even scientific theories which at least are tested and measured and have a lot of evidence behind them. These are just theories in the common way most people understand the word: things pulled out of one's nether regions.

But if you want my opinion, it's mostly based on two thoughts.

First. that performance on the field is cyclical to a certain extent. Teams and conferences rise and fall within a given range. The Pac-12 has been on a down cycle of late. It sucks, but the upside is that it could very well be a temporary fluctuation in the "market" and not necessarily a long term trend and the conference will enter an "up" cycle eventually. Without attempting to give any offense, this is largely the argument that I've seen a large portion of this board give for the Buffs' future football prospects: they've been in a downturn recently with the exception of a great 2016 season but the underlying fundamentals are solid and eventually that situation will turn itself around because the underlying fundamentals are all there.

Put more bluntly: the Pac-12 hasn't done great on the field lately relative to their P5 peers so naturally viewership is suffering. Just like teams that are going through a down stretch makes fans tune out, it's logically consistent that same principle applies to conferences. But if the Pac-12 starts having some "up" years again I think viewership will rise again and the conference would then have more bargaining power. Success breeds momentum which can lead to more success.

Second, and this one is going to be a bit controversial so I apologize in advance, but the Pac-12 might be suffering based on how football viewership as a whole skews and where the decline in viewership is coming from.

What I mean by this is that football viewership is something that I think probably skews just a bit to the right politically and, by and large, the institutions in the Pac-12 tend to skew a bit in the opposite direction to various degrees. As an example of this, I look at the dropoff in NFL viewership after President Trump targeted the National Anthem protests and the league's response. They were in a no-win situation. Support the protests and anger people on the right. Don't support the protests and anger some people on the left. They chose to, more or less, ban them by passing a rule forbidding not standing during the anthem and telling anyone who didn't want to stand that they had to stay in the locker room.

Now, I don't want to turn this thread political, but the response by the league is telling in determining what action they felt would lose them the fewest viewers.

Presumably they keep close tabs on their viewer demographics and consulted that data before making their choice. I also know that NFL viewership was already declining prior to the controversy, but the controversy seemed to cause the decline to be steeper. The idea I'm tossing out there is that it could just be that the fanbases of the schools in the Pac-12 just aren't as into football as some of the fanbases in some of the other P5 conferences.

Thoughts on these two ideas?

Edit: To more directly address your point about overlap. I don't think the pairings you listed are a problem by and large. I think they are probably a good thing because of how natural a fit most of the pairings are together.

But I do think the concept can be taken to far. I don't, for example, think that adding Colorado State to the conference to pair with Colorado would really move the needle or add much value and I don't think the conference needs Colorado State to deliver the state's football viewing population.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

Cable's been paying "in market" and "out of market" rates, so the base size of the market does matter a lot.

However, your argument does get into a few other factors that do matter.

1. What in market and out of market rates does your conference network command? Programs with national cache drive up those rates and popular programs within a market help, particularly, drive a higher in market rate.

2. Advertising rates. That's not just based on reach. Nielsen ratings of how many people are watching determines the ad dollars.

3. Leverage. Pac-12 does not have enough fans who will choose Dish over DirecTV or drop DirecTV because it doesn't carry the Pac-12 Networks. In the west, it's Boise State and BYU fans who would harass a DirecTV and make a consumer decision based on carriage of PACN. I think you'd also get that with the former Big 12 schools, but you wouldn't with anybody else.

That passion from #3 is something I believe the conference needs an infusion of. I also believe that in the long-term, there's something valuable with a model that's more cohesively sticking to western culture and covering the PTZ & MTZ.

Here's the thing, though:

BYU would need to amend its policies on homosexuality and would need to allow academic freedom. I think if it would model its policies and plans on Notre Dame in these areas that it would have a shot at Pac membership, but it would be tough.

Boise State is simply nowhere close on the academic side. @nocoolnamejim -- is there a will at Boise State and the investment dollars to grow the graduate programs and increase doctorate level faculty in the sciences? I know this doesn't happen overnight, but is Boise State dedicated to becoming a first class research institution? I took a look at the Strategic Plan and it appears that this is the mission right now.
Goal 3: Gain distinction as a doctoral research university.

STRATEGIES:

• Recruit, retain, and support highly qualified faculty, staff, and students from diverse backgrounds.
• Identify and invest in select areas of excellence with the greatest potential for economic, societal, and cultural benefit.
• Build select doctoral programs with a priority toward transdisciplinary programs in professional and STEM disciplines.
• Build infrastructure to keep pace with growing research and creative activity.
• Design systems to support and reward interdisciplinary collaboration and transdisciplinary degree programs.

I also looked at the Master Plan to see if there are buildings going up and colleges being added. There's definitely expansion of STEM program infrastructure, but it seems like it's not emphasized as much as I'm used to seeing when looking at the CU Master Plans. I often see things like housing, Greek life and athletics facilities listed before I come to academic building plans. Is the emphasis and passion really there to become a doctoral research university of distinction within the STEM disciplines?

I'd love to see these 2 schools in the Pac, but I just don't know if they're on the path they would need to be for the current presidents to welcome them in.

Great post. I agree on nearly all points.

I think the short answer to your question is yes. The university knows it's not going anywhere without improving it's academic profile quite substantially first. The last time the Big-12 was considering expansion and looking at available candidates, Boise State, despite all it's football and basketball success, national interest, and decent cultural fit, didn't even make the first cut of the top-12 candidates and the biggest reason given was the academics. I'm quite sure that the university leadership got the message loud and clear.

If Boise State was eliminated from consideration from the Big-12 based on it's academic standing, it's fair to say that this would go doubly for the Pac-12 where academics are an even bigger factor. Stanford, just as an example, is never going to be okay with the negative academic halo effect impact of being associated with Boise State unless BSU ups their game considerably.

The school still has a long way to go but it is improving very quickly in this area. One example: https://news.boisestate.edu/update/...y-in-nations-signature-classification-system/

I agree completely with you that the school just isn't there yet and therefore just isn't a viable candidate at this time. Hopefully we'll get there in time though. I'd love to be able to see games between Boise State and Colorado and chat with you guys about them.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

From a purely geographical standpoint, the best candidates are BYU, UNLV, CSU and SDSU. I considered UNM, but they wouldn’t have a viable travel partner in that system. They’re kind of stuck.

The question becomes whether the addition of those four schools adds value to the conference. I’m willing to listen to arguments that they would, but I’m skeptical.

I think BYU does but I'd question the other three.

BYU delivers just about everything you could want in a P5 expansion candidate. They've got solid+ academics, a large fanbase, is a perfect travel partner and traditional rival for a team already in the conference, have a quality tradition in football and basketball, etc.

Flat out, the only things really holding them back is the cultural fit issues and that they aren't really in a talent rich state for recruiting.

SDSU is a fine fit and has done well with both football and basketball, but does the conference really need another California school in it? My thought is that SDSU doesn't move the needle for the conference viewership wise.

CSU...kind of the same thing. I doubt they bring along any new fans that Colorado doesn't already pull and, no offense, I don't think many people out of your two schools really care about this particular rivalry.

UNLV is a great market and has a solid basketball program but is a craptastic football program. I doubt the conference wants to add a bottom feeder when they're already struggling against the other P5 conferences.

 

[Not Sure]

I think BYU does but I'd question the other three.

BYU delivers just about everything you could want in a P5 expansion candidate. They've got solid+ academics, a large fanbase, is a perfect travel partner and traditional rival for a team already in the conference, have a quality tradition in football and basketball, etc.

Flat out, the only things really holding them back is the cultural fit issues and that they aren't really in a talent rich state for recruiting.

SDSU is a fine fit and has done well with both football and basketball, but does the conference really need another California school in it? My thought is that SDSU doesn't move the needle for the conference viewership wise.

CSU...kind of the same thing. I doubt they bring along any new fans that Colorado doesn't already pull and, no offense, I don't think many people out of your two schools really care about this particular rivalry.

UNLV is a great market and has a solid basketball program but is a craptastic football program. I doubt the conference wants to add a bottom feeder when they're already struggling against the other P5 conferences.

A couple things: first, I did say that this was purely from a geographical perspective. When viewed through the lens of what makes sense geographically, those schools fit the bill. Second, I also said that I’m skeptical that these schools would add value. Now, perhaps what Nik is saying is correct, and we should let natural rivalries and regional matchups flourish and let the economics work themselves out. Frankly, I could live with that. It appeals to my old school college football mentality. However, I don’t think the University Presidents and ADs share my sense of sentimentality.

 

[somebody]

I wonder what current research comparisons say. That graph is from 2008 and include Nebraska as a member (they were removed in 2011).

 

[newkid]

I can't imagine for a second that the California schools would allow a school like Nevada. If folks here seriously think that would be OK'd, I don't think the conference cultural assimilation is yet complete.

 

[Buffnik]

I was thinking about this some more and I think that the most likely scenario for major realignment remains the Big Ten deciding to expand.

Pretty much every scenario for that involves targeting the Big Twelve.

The main targets are AAU members that are large land grant universities.

I don't think they'd see value in Iowa State despite it fitting the profile and geographic footprint because they've already got Iowa and it's not that big of a state.

They'd look at Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas from the Big 12.
They'd look at Missouri from the SEC.
They'd look at Virginia, North Carolina and maybe even Georgia Tech from the ACC, along with Notre Dame as the exception to the criteria.

I'm not sure we'll see movement until the Big Ten moves. And if they do, the big question is whether they go to 16, 18 or 20.

I think the Big Ten ends up going to 16 through Kansas and Missouri as they're the most natural fits and I don't believe that UNC & UVA have any interest in leaving the ACC. Kansas and Oklahoma are a very possible pair, too, but I still think that OU is unable to politically make the move without OSU and they would probably see it as a program killer to lose its ties to the state of Texas.

And I do think that this will happen. Which would cause the SEC to get aggressive. ACC, I believe, sits there looking at West Virginia (Pitt's big rival) as the addition that comes with Notre Dame.

If the Big Ten decides to go to 18 or 20, though, all bets are off. However, that might be the best scenario for anyone who wants the Pac to remain a western conference. With that much expansion and realignment, Texas Tech could be the only Big 12 school the Pac ends up taking. (SEC wants TCU and covets the Oklahoma pair.)

 

[onealcd]

I was thinking about this some more and I think that the most likely scenario for major realignment remains the Big Ten deciding to expand.

Pretty much every scenario for that involves targeting the Big Twelve.

The main targets are AAU members that are large land grant universities.

I don't think they'd see value in Iowa State despite it fitting the profile and geographic footprint because they've already got Iowa and it's not that big of a state.

They'd look at Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas from the Big 12.
They'd look at Missouri from the SEC.
They'd look at Virginia, North Carolina and maybe even Georgia Tech from the ACC, along with Notre Dame as the exception to the criteria.

I'm not sure we'll see movement until the Big Ten moves. And if they do, the big question is whether they go to 16, 18 or 20.

I think the Big Ten ends up going to 16 through Kansas and Missouri as they're the most natural fits and I don't believe that UNC & UVA have any interest in leaving the ACC. Kansas and Oklahoma are a very possible pair, too, but I still think that OU is unable to politically make the move without OSU and they would probably see it as a program killer to lose its ties to the state of Texas.

And I do think that this will happen. Which would cause the SEC to get aggressive. ACC, I believe, sits there looking at West Virginia (Pitt's big rival) as the addition that comes with Notre Dame.

If the Big Ten decides to go to 18 or 20, though, all bets are off. However, that might be the best scenario for anyone who wants the Pac to remain a western conference. With that much expansion and realignment, Texas Tech could be the only Big 12 school the Pac ends up taking. (SEC wants TCU and covets the Oklahoma pair.)

Could be a good time for a power move and hopefully the pac and the big are still aligned well at that point. Missouri and Kansas would be about as perfect as it gets for us from a realignment standpoint. That would mean West Virginia and Notre Dame to the ACC and the sec fighting over the big 12 scraps with the pac 12 which I don’t think is that bad for us at all. Personally I would rather have Texas, TCU, OU and oSU but to get the two big boys Texas tech almost has to be included.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Here is an interesting article on the next round of media negotiations and how Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google could begin to exert influence in that area; especially with the potential consolidation into two major network players in ABC/Disney and Comcast/NBC (since either of them is likely to acquire Fox sports networks).

“Conference realignment will come,” he said, “but probably not in the way you’re thinking.”
“Netflix and Amazon spent a combined $10.8 billion on content last year.”
When conference TV rights begin to expire in six or seven years, my Amazon source says that Amazon and Netflix could easily be prepared to spend ten times what the networks are projected to have available.
“Instead, we would want to identify 30 or 40 teams that command the biggest audience. That may be by reputation or location, but generally we all know that there are members in every one of these conferences that frankly don’t move the needle.
“We would not want to pay for broadcast rights for a team with a fraction of the audience when we could use most of our available cash to tie down high profile teams.
Another change, TV markets will not be as big of a factor as overall fan bases. In other words, a Michigan fan may live in Los Angeles or Miami. Their overall following will mean more than just getting the fragmented Chicago TV market locked up. Some teams, such as Notre Dame, and other 'name brand' schools like Ohio State, Oklahoma and Alabama, will also rise in value, as seen by streaming providers.
“Don’t sign anything -- don’t agree to anything!” my Amazon friend says. “And, don’t rely on your current conference alignment to be a life preserver; If and when the Titanic begins to list, it’s every man for himself.”​

Based on this type of thinking, it could mean that all of the "big dogs" act more like Texas and Oklahoma to use their conference for non-revenue sports, filling out football schedules and creating the platform to reach a "conference championship" but have stand-alone media rights for OTT distribution direct to their own fanbase through the FAANG players.

The Pac-12 owning their own network, content, and inclusive of OTT for their schools could be in a very advantageous situation or in a very precarious one if the big Pac-12 schools don't "re-up" in that model.

This model could also work really well for an independent school like BYU with a fanbase that is wide spread and in many fragmented media markets but are loyal followers. How could an MSO (like Comcast or ABC) reach those fans through the traditional cable subscription service and packages effectively? They can't, which is why they don't get valued properly.

The article names less than 30 programs as "most likely" to be in that mix with USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona State as the "big dogs" in the Pac-12 which are basically the schools with consistent live attendance exceeding 50k and also with large alumni and fanbases. CU (#40 in WSJ "value ranking"), Utah (#39), Cal (#37), and Stanford (#36) would be in the mix for the "top 40" programs. BYU ranks #60 and is the highest of the "G5" programs just ahead of #61 Central Florida and Boise State at 63. Of course this is just "football program rankings" the big basketball schools would have added value there. Factoring in basketball values, CU would rank #48

 

[Deleted member 807]

Should USC drop out of the Pac-12? Probably not, but the idea isn’t crazy.

Trojans not happy that Rutgers, Maryland and Vanderbilt get bigger checks.

 

[ScottyBuff]

If you use the WSJ valuation for Football and Basketball there is a combined $31,496,775,000 valuation for those college sports programs.

To lock up 80% of that value, that would require $25.2 billion. Going by rankings that would include the top 48 programs.

CU is ranked #48 with a combined value of $249 million (Ohio State is #1 with $1.654 billion).

 

[Buffnik]

Here is an interesting article on the next round of media negotiations and how Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google could begin to exert influence in that area; especially with the potential consolidation into two major network players in ABC/Disney and Comcast/NBC (since either of them is likely to acquire Fox sports networks).

“Conference realignment will come,” he said, “but probably not in the way you’re thinking.”
“Netflix and Amazon spent a combined $10.8 billion on content last year.”
When conference TV rights begin to expire in six or seven years, my Amazon source says that Amazon and Netflix could easily be prepared to spend ten times what the networks are projected to have available.
“Instead, we would want to identify 30 or 40 teams that command the biggest audience. That may be by reputation or location, but generally we all know that there are members in every one of these conferences that frankly don’t move the needle.
“We would not want to pay for broadcast rights for a team with a fraction of the audience when we could use most of our available cash to tie down high profile teams.
Another change, TV markets will not be as big of a factor as overall fan bases. In other words, a Michigan fan may live in Los Angeles or Miami. Their overall following will mean more than just getting the fragmented Chicago TV market locked up. Some teams, such as Notre Dame, and other 'name brand' schools like Ohio State, Oklahoma and Alabama, will also rise in value, as seen by streaming providers.
“Don’t sign anything -- don’t agree to anything!” my Amazon friend says. “And, don’t rely on your current conference alignment to be a life preserver; If and when the Titanic begins to list, it’s every man for himself.”​

Based on this type of thinking, it could mean that all of the "big dogs" act more like Texas and Oklahoma to use their conference for non-revenue sports, filling out football schedules and creating the platform to reach a "conference championship" but have stand-alone media rights for OTT distribution direct to their own fanbase through the FAANG players.

The Pac-12 owning their own network, content, and inclusive of OTT for their schools could be in a very advantageous situation or in a very precarious one if the big Pac-12 schools don't "re-up" in that model.

This model could also work really well for an independent school like BYU with a fanbase that is wide spread and in many fragmented media markets but are loyal followers. How could an MSO (like Comcast or ABC) reach those fans through the traditional cable subscription service and packages effectively? They can't, which is why they don't get valued properly.

The article names less than 30 programs as "most likely" to be in that mix with USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona State as the "big dogs" in the Pac-12 which are basically the schools with consistent live attendance exceeding 50k and also with large alumni and fanbases. CU (#40 in WSJ "value ranking"), Utah (#39), Cal (#37), and Stanford (#36) would be in the mix for the "top 40" programs. BYU ranks #60 and is the highest of the "G5" programs just ahead of #61 Central Florida and Boise State at 63. Of course this is just "football program rankings" the big basketball schools would have added value there. Factoring in basketball values, CU would rank #48

Well, sure. There's a reason that all the pro sports leagues are around 30 teams. That's all you need to capture the markets. But you're not gonna get there with college football. You might get to 64 (4 conferences of 16 teams). Even for the super elites, while they care a lot about the money, they also care a lot about playing a schedule that allows them to average at least 9 wins a year. They also care about tradition. And they do have to worry about what the 10 other varsity sports they offer will do for a schedule. Plus, and this is the absolute key, it's the university presidents who have the final say on this -- not an entrepreneurial owner. No one making decisions is motivated by personal wealth and pressures from shareholders.

The big thing that these opportunities give to the USCs of the world is leverage. That leverage will result in an end to equal sharing of conference revenues.

 

[CUFan]

I would suck for college football to further contract for two reasons: (1) Then it looks more like the NFL, which sucks. (2) CU could easily be left out with our only hope being the assumption we can carry the Denver market, which may not be so certain since few people are actually from Colorado anymore.

 

[AeroBuff99]

If enrollment becomes the driving factor creating # of potential loyal eyeballs, then here is your list of most valuable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment

School (main campus only)	Enrollment
Texas A&M University	68,603
University of Central Florida	66,180
Ohio State University	59,837
Florida International University	56,851
University of Florida	52,367
University of Minnesota	51,848
University of Texas at Austin	51,525
Arizona State University	51,164
Georgia State University	51,000
University of South Florida	50,577

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

With Michigan State, Indiana, and Penn State close behind based on past enrollments. TAMU has grown the most increasing by 20,000 since 09-10 year, UT has remained consistent around 51k or so, UCF is +13k since 09-10. ASU is down 11k from its peak in 13-14, but is steady for the last 3 years.

 

[Buffnik]

If enrollment becomes the driving factor creating # of potential loyal eyeballs, then here is your list of most valuable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment

School (main campus only)	Enrollment
Texas A&M University	68,603
University of Central Florida	66,180
Ohio State University	59,837
Florida International University	56,851
University of Florida	52,367
University of Minnesota	51,848
University of Texas at Austin	51,525
Arizona State University	51,164
Georgia State University	51,000
University of South Florida	50,577

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

With Michigan State, Indiana, and Penn State close behind based on past enrollments. TAMU has grown the most increasing by 20,000 since 09-10 year, UT has remained consistent around 51k or so, UCF is +13k since 09-10. ASU is down 11k from its peak in 13-14, but is steady for the last 3 years.

Size of the alumni associations would go with that to complete the picture. Found this from 2016. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-largest-college-alumni-association

1. Penn State University, 354,595
2. University of California, Los Angeles, 311,234
3. University of Texas, 302,469
4. Arizona State University, 301,038
5. UC Berkeley, 297,719
6. Ohio State University, 291,413
7. New York University, 285,776
8. Michigan State University, 276,737
9. Texas A&M University, 271,984
10. University of Washington, 267,497
11. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 261,702
12. University of Michigan, 260,076
13. University of Florida, 257,918
14. University of Toronto, 257, 760
15. Purdue University, 247,140
16. University of Maryland, 242,547
17. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 240,680
18. University of Southern California, 240,021
19. Indiana University Bloomington, 227,266
20. Boston University, 211,997
21. San Jose State University, 200,760
22. Cambridge University, 194, 056
23. Harvard University, 186,328
24. University of Oxford, 173,187
25. Stanford University, 167,230

Here’s a decent version 1 of LinkedIn’s largest alumni groups.

 

[PAHIBuff]

I get academic status matters to the decision makers. But the world of NCAA sports has changed, and not for the better IMO.

Texas and CSU make the most sense IMO. After that UNLV and Kansas. BYU would be too big of a cultural jolt...a small, religious school and large, vocal, secular universities is a recipe for disaster.

Just FYI - BYU has 33,517 students. It's acceptance rate is 53.5%.

 

[Bufffan68]

Just FYI - BYU has 33,517 students. It's acceptance rate is 53.5%.

Not sure how that’s relevant to my point...

 

[Bufffan68]

Size of the alumni associations would go with that to complete the picture. Found this from 2016. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-largest-college-alumni-association

1. Penn State University, 354,595
2. University of California, Los Angeles, 311,234
3. University of Texas, 302,469
4. Arizona State University, 301,038
5. UC Berkeley, 297,719
6. Ohio State University, 291,413
7. New York University, 285,776
8. Michigan State University, 276,737
9. Texas A&M University, 271,984
10. University of Washington, 267,497
11. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 261,702
12. University of Michigan, 260,076
13. University of Florida, 257,918
14. University of Toronto, 257, 760
15. Purdue University, 247,140
16. University of Maryland, 242,547
17. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 240,680
18. University of Southern California, 240,021
19. Indiana University Bloomington, 227,266
20. Boston University, 211,997
21. San Jose State University, 200,760
22. Cambridge University, 194, 056
23. Harvard University, 186,328
24. University of Oxford, 173,187
25. Stanford University, 167,230

Here’s a decent version 1 of LinkedIn’s largest alumni groups.

Some of those schools have lower enrollments but very active alums...that ratio for colleges would be interesting.

 

[ScottyBuff]

The big thing that these opportunities give to the USCs of the world is leverage. That leverage will result in an end to equal sharing of conference revenues.

That's the big take-away I got from that perspective as well. The Pac-12 before expansion and Larry Scott had a similar distribution model to the Big 12 where the bigger/popular schools received more of the TV money so it isn't out-of-touch with the USC's of the world to push for something like that.

While I don't agree with the article that conference realingment will be that seismic; what could happen is that "everyone is equal" mentality of the last round will change and the bigger programs will "Texas-up" and demand more control and revenue and the smaller schools will not have much leverage. CU is not in the "top 30" power programs and therefore would need go on a 3 year run of huge success in both major sports to be try and close the gap.

I also think that this is what it would take to get Notre Dame to fully join a conference - the ability to value their fanbase independently and connect with them directly; in addition to being able to play a "national schedule".

If Texas and Oklahoma decided to do to the BIG XII what Notre Dame did to the ACC and use them for non-football sports affiliation with a "scheduling agreement" rather than full football membership, they could then maximize their media rights within the conference and as individuals (having their cake and eating it too).

The gap is so huge from Texas/Oklahoma and even the #3 Big XII school (Kansas) that those two schools account for well over half the value of the entire conference. Notre Dame would account for 20% of the ACC value if they were a full member.

The only other school with that much "weight" in their current P5 conference is Ohio State in the Big Ten. I don't think they could pull it off as the Big Ten has such a strong leadership that I doubt even "The Ohio State University" could use that leverage against them in that way. But maybe even Ohio State is tired of getting as much TV revenue as Rutgers (who are worth around 1% of the conference total; the lowest of any P5 program).

None of the Pac-12 schools exceed 14% of total valuation; however you could argue that USC is severely undervalued due to their affiliation with the Pac-12 and being regionalized in their exposure. No single SEC school exceeds 12% of the total conference value, so they truly are a well-balanced conference of "equals" in regards to revenue/value; as are the rest of the ACC (non-Notre Dame).

Amongst the G5 schools, Boise State (18% of MWC), UConn (17% of AAC), and Florida International (19% of Sun-Belt) are the ones with highly skewed values compared to their conference. BYU carries a similar total valuation to UConn (higher than Boise) but of course is independent so there isn't a weighting to them amongst conference mates, but if they were in the MWC it would be even more top-heavy than Boise State. In Basketball-only leagues: Gonzaga (87% of WCC), Dayton (44% of A-10), and VCU (28% of A-10) are the outliers.

However, if Texas/Oklahoma pursued this along with Notre Dame; how far behind would USC, Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Washington, North Carolina, Penn State, Stanford, and Oregon be from expecting the same treatment.