What's new
  • Are you enjoying this unexpected coaching search as much as the administrators at Allbuffs? Do you too want to get the latest and most tenuous rumors delivered to you? Then consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including Barzil, Barzil 2, and super secret Barzil, along with neat avatars for your user! Also no more annoying ads from absinthe. COOL! 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. Make it happen!

Realignment Starting - UConn

leftybuff

Unreconstructed Luddite
Club Member
Sort of.

Hear me out on this one. There's a method to my madness. (WARNING: Long post coming.)

Pull out the elite programs, UT and OU, because they're going to draw a big number from their local market along with their megaregion and national eyes. Those schools are among a group of unicorns that everyone is chasing. NU is pretty much the same, just with a much smaller population within its local sphere of influence, so also pull them out. Besides, they're part of a CU rivalry that would have huge value to the conference as an event - so that separates them for extra value to the Pac-12. With UT + OU as a package, they become extra valuable because it would bring a rivalry game that's going to draw a top tv rating every year nationally for the weekend it's on as an event.

So that leaves us with programs like KU, KSU, ISU, Mizzou, OSU, TTU, TCU, Baylor and maybe UH.

What I'm looking at is the likelihood of a program's games to create an event -- local level, megaregion level or national level.

Those are modified by the populations contained in the local level and mega region in which the school's located.

Before I go on, here's the megaregion map below:


The Pac-12 currently controls 5 of the emerging megaregions: Cascadia, Northern California, Southern California, Arizona Sun Corridor and Front Range.

Here's my theory on how we should start valuing different football programs for the Pac-12 or other conferences:

The strength of Pac-12's influence is compromised within its megaregions, and as a conference whole, by the large amount of unaffiliated open space between its megaregions and the fact that the major metros on the edges of its controlled megaregions is often the home of a G5 program that has a significant local following (distance and disruption between or within megaregions dilutes fan passion is a big part of my theory). How does the Arizona Sun Corridor sphere of influence overlap and tie together with the Front Range sphere of influence if New Mexico (or maybe Texas Tech) isn't part of the Pac-12? Without that, the connection and the passions that come with that are diluted. Same with Southern California having the population centers on the edges of its megaregion (San Diego and Las Vegas) the home of G5 programs that prevent its connection and overlap with Arizona Sun and Front Range. Northern California and Cascadia lose that connection and passion by having the same situations with its border metros of Fresno, Reno and Boise keeping them disconnected from Front Range. The people in Southern California don't care as much about the Front Range & Arizona Sun or the Pac-12 as a whole because there isn't a sphere of influence overlap. That happens throughout our conference with the only exception being the coast with Cascadia connecting/overlappng with Northern California which connects/overlaps with Southern California. It's why the Pac-8 fans feel disconnected to the other conference schools in the Arizona Sun and Front Range -- because they are. Fixing that has huge value because it would increase the Pac-12's likelihood of creating event games -- locally, megaregionally or nationally.

Some scenarios for Pac-12 expansion:

What would a KU or KSU do? They wouldn't do much for the Pac-12's likelihood of creating an event for the whole Great Lakes megaregion or even the chunk nearest east of Kansas City. Neither KU or KSU has enough pull to capture influence of any unaffiliated areas. They'd basically pull in the roughly 3 million people in KS as passionate fans who could create an event. And neither program's pull, by itself, would be strong enough to grab the Kansas City metro away from the Great Lakes and into the Front Range megaregion. Maybe if you got both KU and KSU that could happen, but then you're taking 2 schools to get that effect with a limited number of spots (opportunity cost) and half the additive effect for each school.

What would a Boise State do? Basically, everything KU or KSU would do on its local level except less from a 1.7 million population in ID compared to 3 million people in KS. That gives a solid nudge to one of the KS schools on the "local market" size criteria. But with that, BSU's level of local influence is stronger since it has no FBS competition within its local sphere. Further, Boise State stretches the Pac-12's sphere of strong influence within the Cascadia megaregion to its edge. That gives the Pac-12 total control over the influence there -- leading to all Pac-12 games, particularly those involving Cascadia teams, being more likely to create an event within that entire megaregion. Further, Boise State is a connector to Utah's sphere of influence from the Front Range megaregion. This will directly increase event creation likelihood in the Front Range megaregion for Cascadia games and vice versa since their respective spheres of influence were made to overlap. Taken together, even though they don't bring a rivalry game, adding Boise State is more likely to create events for the Pac-12 (directly and indirectly) than either KU or KSU would.

CSU gives the Pac-12 total control over CO and its 5.6 million people while strengthening the pull of the Pac-12 within the Front Range megaregion. It also creates a new event with the CU-CSU rivalry game which is something programs like KU and KSU don't do. Definitely a more valuable option.

The one program from the expansion list (other than the elites of NU, OU and UT) that is outside the Pac-12 megaregional footprints and might bring more value than the options within the footprint -- Texas Tech. There are 3 million people in West Texas, which is an unaffiliated area outside the Texas Triangle megaregion to its east. TTU potentially pulls the Arizona Sun Corridor's sphere of influence along southern New Mexico through the Las Cruces/El Paso area and down SW Texas along the Rio Grande. It also potentially pulls Front Range influence to the southeast. On that note, adding TTU pairs well with the idea of adding UNM since that solidifies the megaregional influences for the Pac-12 and strengthens the likelihood of creating events. TTU + UNM would be a much stronger duo to add than many might think -- but New Mexico is a small population state in which UNM doesn't have a particularly strong influence.

At the base of this, I'm really looking at 2 things:

1. If a particular school is added, how many more events is that likely to create per year from its football inventory (local, megaregional, national)?
2. From that, how big would an event be on the local or megaregional level based on the populations being strongly influenced in those areas?

The reason why I believe it's mostly about event creation now is because of how viewership has moved. If we're going to buy an app or pay to stream games, or pay for a conference network cable upgrade or app, the quality of the mediocre games doesn't matter much. What matters is how many events your matchups are likely to create and the populations your non-national events will influence.

Having true geographic ties matters. I talked a lot about increasing influence within a megaregion. But there's also the fact that dilution of ties will actually decrease a conference's influence within the megaregions it had. The average Oregonian becomes less enthusiastic about the average Pac-12 game if a KSU it has such weak linkage to is playing in a conference game. This is why C-USA failed. It's why the AAC can't keep a UConn. It's why we don't mention UCF or Temple for Pac-12 expansion -- they're too dilutive to the influence levels where the Pac-12 already is.

So give me Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, UNLV, Nevada, BYU, Utah State or Colorado State over KU, KSU, MU, ISU or OSU. Potential connections made with TTU plus the link into Texas elevates them. UNM solidifies the Front Range influence of the Pac-12 while causing a connect/overlap between Front Range and Arizona Sun. So they are worth considering -- even more so as a TTU pairing since they would make it so Lubbock wasn't such an outlier unaffiliated area. But you only look at UNM if you can't get UT or TCU along with TTU. TCU might be more valuable to the Pac-12 than the PTZ & MTZ options since the problems of geographical disconnect dilution are likely outweighed by the benefits from its local population size (and recruiting grounds). But TCU is also a much stronger candidate if paired with TTU so that rivalry game comes in and increases the value of both.

If it's not an elite, I'm still saying that TTU + UNLV is our best addition. UNLV better links the Southern California megaregion sphere of influence to overlap with the Front Range and Arizona Sun spheres. That raises conference passions overall while also delivering that Nevada/Las Vegas local population influence. TTU for the reasons I stated in the preceding paragraph.

That makes my order in terms of the positive influence on events I think each program would create on average, either directly or indirectly:
Elites (UT, NU, OU or Notre Dame) followed by...
1. Texas Tech (potentially pulls Front Range & Arizona Sun spheres into west Texas + local population & some influence into Texas Triangle).
2. TCU (if TTU said yes or if UT says yes - otherwise drop from list for being too geographically disconnected).
3. UNLV (connects and overlaps So Cal with both Arizona Sun and Front Range + local population)
4. Boise State (strengthens Cascadia influence, overlaps and connects Cascadia and Front Range spheres + local population).
5. BYU (best western rivalry the Pac-12 doesn't have is them and Utes + strengthens Front Range influence).
6. CSU (2nd best western rivalry the Pac-12 doesn't have is them and CU + strengthens Front Range influence).
5. SDSU (strengthens Southern California influence, overlaps and connects SoCal and Arizona Sun spheres + big local population)
6. Utah State (adds rivalry with Utes + strengthens Front Range influence).
7. Nevada (overlaps and connects Northern California with Front Range sphere + local population).
8. New Mexico (strengthens Front Range influence, overlaps Front Range and Arizona Sun + local population)

Hawaii is not on my list because I think the influence would be negative due to causing more geographic disconnection and dilution of passion within the Pac-12.

A few other scenarios based on looking at things from this perspective:

1. Mizzou -- more valuable for the B1G, Big 12, Pac-12 or SEC? In all cases, the conference gains very strong influence over the state of Missouri since Mizzou is the only FBS program in that state. But with that, the Big 12 would only gain 1 true rivalry game thru Mizzou (KU). The SEC doesn't gain any rivalry games (exclamation point on that is they didn't think a thing of putting them in the East -- it didn't matter where they went) but is geographically connected. Pac-12 doesn't gain any rivalry games and is disconnected. However, the B1G would gain 2 true rivalry games (NU and Illinois) and is very geographically connected. If the B1G decides to expand, Mizzou should be the top target outside of elites. And if they come calling, Mizzou should listen.

2. Notre Dame -- elite, so every game they play has a high likelihood of creating some level of event. However, their relative value is different to the different conferences. For the Big 12, the value is the lowest since there is no rivalry game and no geographic connection that would gain a megaregional bonus within the existing sphere. For the ACC, it's not much better than with the Big 12. But they have the Boston College rivalry, so at least there's that event and there's also a very weak & tenuous chance to gain influence in the Great Lakes megaregion due to conference members Louisville and Pitt being on the edge of that region. However, there's a lot of strong influencer disruption in between South Bend and either Pittsburgh or Louisville so it's questionable just how much it really brings the ACC of the Great Lakes. Pac-12, like with the Big 12, has no geographic connection to get any megaregional bonus with Notre Dame. However, the conference has 2 Notre Dame rivals (USC and Stanford) which greatly increases the likelihood of a huge national event or at least a big multi megaregional event. The best, though, is the B1G. They've got 3 Notre Dame rivals with Michigan, Michigan State and Northwestern. Notre Dame is also the only thing in the way of the B1G having total dominance of the core of the Great Lakes megaregion around Chicago. Potential for event creation due to rivalries and geographic + megaregional proximity to other programs in the B1G puts ND's value to that conference as high as it gets.

3. Arizona State -- its value to the Big 12 could be high, but could be dilutive. It could bridge unaligned areas and significantly expand sphere of influence for the Big 12 through NM (Front Range megaregion influence) when paired with TTU. Would dominate AZ and the Arizona Sun megaregion since ASU is a stronger influencer than UA. The Big 12 would also gain some competition for influence in the Southern California outlier areas of Las Vegas and San Diego where it's the G5 MWC, not the Pac-12, that has a D1 home program. ASU captures a big part of the influence in those metros despite them being in a different megaregion. But despite all that, ASU is really far away from the rest of the Big 12 conference and being way out on that island could be destructive for the Big 12. The value of ASU to the Pac-12 is higher than for the Big 12. Value comes from full control over AZ and the Arizona Sun Corridor along with near overlaps to Southern California and Front Range. And while it's close based on the above, what puts ASU's value way over the top for the Pac-12 is 1 major consideration: the rivalry game event with UA every year.
I feel like I should get a merit badge or something for reading that.
 

Jalapeno

Spacefarer
Club Member
1. Texas Tech would be a strategic move. Really opens up the floodgate for UT to want to leave. Unlikely they stay with Baylor and TCU instead of joining either aTm or TTU. I don't think the Texas politics would allow UT to leave everyone behind to go with OU to the B1G. I don't think the academic voices at UT would favor the SEC. So I think that the Pac-12 would get the inside track for adding UT with this move. And that would mean UT + OU since OU won't want to go to the B1G without UT and they'd also have to leave OSU behind for that while the Pac-12 could find room for OSU by going to 18.

2. Probably right about the Big 12. ASU + CU would be a strong move for them. Problem for them is that they'e the last mover here. B1G is going to move first, which likely means losing at least KU. Another defection of a Tier 1 / AAU school makes it that much harder for UT and OU to stay. I think the Big 12 beaks apart because of a B1G move before they'd even have a chance to try this move. Also, the 2nd mover is probably the SEC and their easiest moves are also expansion though the current Big 12. They really want UT, but failing that, they also really like TCU to give them the DFW metro to go with the Houston metro they got into through aTm. I don't see the Big 12 holding off both the B1G and SEC.

3. Mizzou only starts to make sense to me if the Pac-12 also snagged KU. Otherwise they're a major geographic outlier that lacks a rival. KU solves a lot of those problems. I think they'd be great for the B1G, though. I've seen regrets expressed that in the last round the B1G went with Maryland & Rutgers instead of Mizzou & KU. (If that had happened, Maryland would still be in the ACC and Louisville would be in the Big 12 -- which would make so much more sense, fwiw.)
If the B1G snatches KU, the Big 12 is potentially finished because they will lose OU & Texas as well. Losing Texas Tech wouldn't be enough for Texas to want to leave...it's OU & KU that they want to be associated with. Remember the former UT president telling the B1G that they had a "Tech problem"?

If the Big 12 loses KU and manages to regain CU, UT & OU would be more likely to stay and if Arizona decides to come along for the ride, that would be great and the Big 12 could just lock down the Front Range by inviting CSU to join along with CU.

KU, MU, OU, and UT to the Pac-12 would be the best outcome in this case for the Pac-12. Pac-16 TV territory would stretch from the west coast to the Mississippi River. Larry Scott can name the price with the networks. MU is free to leave the SEC anytime (no exit fees) and MU coming back to the Big 12 is a realistic possibility and the SEC can take WVU out of the Big 12's hands. Perhaps a swap could occur?

Do not be surprised if the Big 12 and B1G approach CU about membership in those conferences in the coming years. CU can use this as leverage against the Pac-12 to gain favorable revenue terms from the next media rights deal.

It's time for CU to stop being the good team player but start looking out for itself.
 

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
In a perfect world the Pac-12 would add OU, UT, Houston and TCU/TTU.

OU and UT dominate the Dallas market so I don't know if TCU is as important but I think they would probably provide more value than TTU.

Big-10 adds Kansas and Missouri.

ACC adds Notre Dame and WVU.

SEC adds of OSU, Baylor and TTU/TCU.

Everyone moves to a 9 team conference schedule.

Then you have your 8 team playoff and everyone wins.

God I should be commissioner.

This is the easiest way to balance power and geography:

SEC: Florida, Georgia, LSU, Bama as your top tier programs. Auburn, A&M and Tennessee as your second tier.

Big-10: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin as your top tier programs. Michigan State, Iowa and ****braska as your second tier.

ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Notre Dame and Miami as your top tier programs. WVU, NC State and GTech as your second tier.

Pac-12: USC, Texas and OU as your top tier programs. Washington, Oregon, UCLA as your second tier.
 
Last edited:

MtnBuff

Not allowed in Barzil 2
Club Member
Say what you want about certain schools, but there's no question that having both USC and UT in the same conference would be a frickin' bonanza for Pac-12 media value.
This and I think the PAC12 presidents are strong enough to make it clear to Texas that they don't get to run the show.
 

leftybuff

Unreconstructed Luddite
Club Member
Say what you want about certain schools, but there's no question that having both USC and UT in the same conference would be a frickin' bonanza for Pac-12 media value.
I do not deny their financial clout, I ask you to acknowledge they have been an absolute cancer to every conference they have been associated with since the advent of the television.
 

ahoelsken

Well-Known Member
1. Texas Tech would be a strategic move. Really opens up the floodgate for UT to want to leave. Unlikely they stay with Baylor and TCU instead of joining either aTm or TTU. I don't think the Texas politics would allow UT to leave everyone behind to go with OU to the B1G. I don't think the academic voices at UT would favor the SEC. So I think that the Pac-12 would get the inside track for adding UT with this move. And that would mean UT + OU since OU won't want to go to the B1G without UT and they'd also have to leave OSU behind for that while the Pac-12 could find room for OSU by going to 18.

2. Probably right about the Big 12. ASU + CU would be a strong move for them. Problem for them is that they'e the last mover here. B1G is going to move first, which likely means losing at least KU. Another defection of a Tier 1 / AAU school makes it that much harder for UT and OU to stay. I think the Big 12 beaks apart because of a B1G move before they'd even have a chance to try this move. Also, the 2nd mover is probably the SEC and their easiest moves are also expansion though the current Big 12. They really want UT, but failing that, they also really like TCU to give them the DFW metro to go with the Houston metro they got into through aTm. I don't see the Big 12 holding off both the B1G and SEC.

3. Mizzou only starts to make sense to me if the Pac-12 also snagged KU. Otherwise they're a major geographic outlier that lacks a rival. KU solves a lot of those problems. I think they'd be great for the B1G, though. I've seen regrets expressed that in the last round the B1G went with Maryland & Rutgers instead of Mizzou & KU. (If that had happened, Maryland would still be in the ACC and Louisville would be in the Big 12 -- which would make so much more sense, fwiw.)
1. If UT goes anywhere other than the Big 12, they'll go indy in football and put their revenue sports somewhere else. That would actually be better for Longhorn Network in the long term-which is televising only their games with San Jose State and Kansas (not contests I'd order it for by any stretch) this year. Texas Tech going to the Pac 12 wouldn't make them more likely to want to come west. As long as things stay the way they are in that league (with schools like KSU, TCU, ISU, and Baylor willing to let UT do whatever they want), Texas and Oklahoma don't have the incentive to go anywhere else.

2. I disagree with pretty much everything you say in point 2-I think the Pac 12 moves last, not the Big 12. If the B1G wants to go to 16, they'll need to get creative. I think the SEC would let Missouri walk if it came to it-they're a geographic outlier there, and I think the SEC bigwigs think they'd have no trouble expanding their brand into Florida. I think they'd one-up losing Missouri by trying for either Miami or FSU, and if they can't get them, UCF would leap at the chance to join that league. If the B1G adds Missouri, they'll add like Syracuse (option 1-they're a geographic outlier in the ACC but less of one in the B1G) or Temple (option 2) to go with them. The Big 12 is more secure than the Pac 12 right now, and I do think they're going to want to try and raid the Pac 12-with the two most likely candidates being ourselves and Arizona State in this hypothetical. They could easily replace WVU (who could move to the ACC as a backfill for Syracuse or anybody else who may move to the SEC or B1G-they've got a natural rival there in Pitt) with Arizona if they want. That's going to leave the Pac 12 to add BYU and then raid the Mountain West.

3. KU isn't going anywhere without K-State, and I think that's probably the reason why Jim Delany's last move was Maryland and Rutgers. I've seen the same stuff, and I think he wanted Missouri and KU but didn't want to have to take KjSU.
 
Last edited:

TSchekler

Club Member
Club Member
@Buffnik Thanks for the response and detailing your opinion on this. I'm not sure I agree that simply cornering various geographic regions by inviting smaller programs is the way to go. I don't see how any of those regional matchups would create some kind of mega event on a national stage. UNLV vs UCLA or SDSU vs USC doesn't move the needle for me, and I can't see it moving the needle nationally, even if both of those programs were at the P5 level. Boise State and BYU are the two programs that I believe could work, and I would listen to an argument for adding CSU to capture the entirety of the most populous state in the region outside of CA, AZ, WA and TX.

At the end of the day, I just don't think the regional priorities, or lack thereof, placed on athletics can be ignored when discussing the best route for expansion. Football is just bigger and far more popular in the middle and southern regions of the country, which means the "events" will always be bigger, more popular and generate better ratings than anything you suggested. Of course, this is all outside of the top priority of securing one or multiple of the elite programs you left out.
 

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
I do not deny their financial clout, I ask you to acknowledge they have been an absolute cancer to every conference they have been associated with since the advent of the television.
Sure.

I also think that in many ways they have been right, though.

SWC broke apart because UT was embarrassed by the scandals and the culture of that conference. They wanted to be with their rivals (OU and aTm) while connecting with like-minded schools on the academic side (AAU members).

They used their considerable leverage to make the Big 12 a merger instead of a Big 8 expansion and to get things run out of Texas. Then they stacked the North/South so their fans could RV to most of their games. Then the pushed through higher academic standards on athlete admissions. And they also pushed it so that over and above an equal share of base conference revenues, schools would get paid by how they perform (better performance in bowls and the Dance means a larger share) and would have individual control over media rights the conference wasn't selling to the networks instead of pooling that stuff and sharing equally (more valuable media = more revenue for the school).

I don't have a problem with any of that other than the problems with the divisional alignment for competitive balance through recruiting access. It also really divided the conference.

Avoid that with UT to the Pac-12 and I have no issues with them. I'd even be cool with a setup where we had 1 cross-division rival we played every year and for UT to get a locked in game vs USC each season. I wouldn't love that, but it's a huge tv event and it would probably be the carrot necessary to attract UT to the conference.
 

leftybuff

Unreconstructed Luddite
Club Member
Sure.

I also think that in many ways they have been right, though.

SWC broke apart because UT was embarrassed by the scandals and the culture of that conference. They wanted to be with their rivals (OU and aTm) while connecting with like-minded schools on the academic side (AAU members).

They used their considerable leverage to make the Big 12 a merger instead of a Big 8 expansion and to get things run out of Texas. Then they stacked the North/South so their fans could RV to most of their games. Then the pushed through higher academic standards on athlete admissions. And they also pushed it so that over and above an equal share of base conference revenues, schools would get paid by how they perform (better performance in bowls and the Dance means a larger share) and would have individual control over media rights the conference wasn't selling to the networks instead of pooling that stuff and sharing equally (more valuable media = more revenue for the school).

I don't have a problem with any of that other than the problems with the divisional alignment for competitive balance through recruiting access. It also really divided the conference.

Avoid that with UT to the Pac-12 and I have no issues with them. I'd even be cool with a setup where we had 1 cross-division rival we played every year and for UT to get a locked in game vs USC each season. I wouldn't love that, but it's a huge tv event and it would probably be the carrot necessary to attract UT to the conference.
I grew up watching SWC FB. The Arky-UT game was a big rivalry. Eventually Arky left the SWC because of the scandals and the heavy handed approach UT took to just about everything. UT was just not a good conference partner. Surely you saw it in the B12 too. I cannot even begin to understand how one looks at that history and somehow thinks the institutional delusions of grandeur will change and suddenly UT will be a good fit in any conference that doesn't kowtow to their every whim.
 

MtnBuff

Not allowed in Barzil 2
Club Member
Sure.

I also think that in many ways they have been right, though.

SWC broke apart because UT was embarrassed by the scandals and the culture of that conference. They wanted to be with their rivals (OU and aTm) while connecting with like-minded schools on the academic side (AAU members).

They used their considerable leverage to make the Big 12 a merger instead of a Big 8 expansion and to get things run out of Texas. Then they stacked the North/South so their fans could RV to most of their games. Then the pushed through higher academic standards on athlete admissions. And they also pushed it so that over and above an equal share of base conference revenues, schools would get paid by how they perform (better performance in bowls and the Dance means a larger share) and would have individual control over media rights the conference wasn't selling to the networks instead of pooling that stuff and sharing equally (more valuable media = more revenue for the school).

I don't have a problem with any of that other than the problems with the divisional alignment for competitive balance through recruiting access. It also really divided the conference.

Avoid that with UT to the Pac-12 and I have no issues with them. I'd even be cool with a setup where we had 1 cross-division rival we played every year and for UT to get a locked in game vs USC each season. I wouldn't love that, but it's a huge tv event and it would probably be the carrot necessary to attract UT to the conference.
Texas has always used their position of power and their ability to generate money to their advantage.

It's hard to blame them though because in many ways they have carried the conferences they have been in.

Other than Arkansas who eventually left the SWC was a Texas conference and a number of their members would not have been able to be in a major conference if not for Texas, aTm, and a couple others carrying them along. Still no major conference wants anything to do with Rice, with SMU, and until they and their metropolitan area had some major growth TCU. Houston as well has not found a major conference home.

In the Big XII their is a similar situation. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Texas Tech are all legitimate programs that could easily find a home in another conference if needed. Kansas is a flagship university and has a legendary basketball program but their football has been long-term terrible and bad enough both on the field and in support to make other conferences question them. Kansas State has had success on the field under Snyder but long term would not be appealing to most conferences, Iowa State is only a member of a major conference because of history. They are CSU in many ways, a distant second in their home state to the Hawkeyes. The only reason Baylor gets mentioned is because of politics. The PAC12 didn't want them and without the support of Texas they wouldn't be in a major conference.

In the B12 Texas can be the big fish (along with their buddy Oklahoma) and call the shots, the little schools have no choice but to go along. In the PAC 12 Texas (and OU) would not have anything resembling that kind of influence. Is Texas going to dictate terms to USC or UCLA or Stanford? Does Washington or Oregon have to worry for their future if they make Texas mad? Colorado has already shown that they will stand up to Texas. Completely different situation.

Would Texas have influence in the PAC12? Sure, similar to the other major schools in the conference. Would the CCG likely end up getting rotated out of Levi stadium and into the Jerrydome some years? Yes, but on a rotational basis that would be a good thing, right now the site sucks.

More importantly would Texas be able to distort conference money distributions and dictate schedules? No. Would they be able to continue to do things like the LHN, no as well but their presence would probably boost the value of the PAC12N enough to balance it and make money for everyone.
 

Not Sure

Club Member
Club Member
This "let's get UT into the P12" talk reminds me of friends who would put up with an endless string of slights, abuses and the occasional dalliance by their mega hot GF.
It reminds me of an abused spouse making a slew of excuses and rationalizations to convince herself that it will never happen again and that he really treats her nice now.
 

hokiehead

Gobbler on the Mountain!
Club Member
Just pointing out that uniform cardinality of major conferences has NEVER been a driver in realignment. I don't understand why so many seem to think that's about to change.
 

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
@Buffnik Thanks for the response and detailing your opinion on this. I'm not sure I agree that simply cornering various geographic regions by inviting smaller programs is the way to go. I don't see how any of those regional matchups would create some kind of mega event on a national stage. UNLV vs UCLA or SDSU vs USC doesn't move the needle for me, and I can't see it moving the needle nationally, even if both of those programs were at the P5 level. Boise State and BYU are the two programs that I believe could work, and I would listen to an argument for adding CSU to capture the entirety of the most populous state in the region outside of CA, AZ, WA and TX.

At the end of the day, I just don't think the regional priorities, or lack thereof, placed on athletics can be ignored when discussing the best route for expansion. Football is just bigger and far more popular in the middle and southern regions of the country, which means the "events" will always be bigger, more popular and generate better ratings than anything you suggested. Of course, this is all outside of the top priority of securing one or multiple of the elite programs you left out.
I think my tl;dr point is that unless we're talking about one of the handful of elite programs or one that's off the charts with its local fan base and/or recruiting grounds, there's really no difference in the value the rest of them bring. KSU is no more likely to create a national event for the Pac-12 than Boise State. But KSU is less likely to create an event in the megaregion than BSU because it is disconnected geographically. BSU also raises buzz inside the footprint to increase the Pac-12's influence and the likelihood for any member to create a megaregional event, while KSU dilutes that same thing.

So, yeah, try to grab the elites. Do pretty much whatever you need to do in order to attract them with their preferred traveling partners, conference scheduling and revenue distribution formula. But if you can't get them, it's generally going to be better to create events with rivalry games or at least capture metros and influence within the footprint through a current G5 than it is to grab a current P5 that's disconnected and isn't special.
 

Buffs35

Well-Known Member
I'd rather have air force than the rams. CSU grads don't care about CSU sports, why would anyone else? Heck, I'd rather grab NM or Wyo.

And if the Pac is going to expand, they need to rid themselves of Scott first. Can't trust him to pick the location of the conference officers, and yet he should be trusted to add other institutions...
 

Not Sure

Club Member
Club Member
If the PAC 12 were to add CSU and/or BYU and/or Boise, that would give both CU and UU an extra two well attended conference games per year. I think I see where Nik is coming from on that. Instead of chasing TV sets, chase matchups that attract viewers.
 

Uncle Luko

Peckerwood
Club Member
I'd think, moving the game times wouldn't hurt either. As far as who to add, y'all would know better than I would. I don't think BYU, CSU, Boise State, or UNM would move the needle very much.
 

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
If the PAC 12 were to add CSU and/or BYU and/or Boise, that would give both CU and UU an extra two well attended conference games per year. I think I see where Nik is coming from on that. Instead of chasing TV sets, chase matchups that attract viewers.
Those are matchups that can be scheduled in the OOC though.
 

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
Those are matchups that can be scheduled in the OOC though.
In fairness, both are instantly more meaningful if a conference game. This is more in regards to CSU than BYU; we're already in a place where the growing disparity between the P5 and G5 means that playing CSU is somewhat of a losing gamble for us. If it's a conference ga e they're seen as relative equals, the game means much more, and would probably be a lot of fun.

But all I'm really saying is I get where Nik is coming from. It would be nice to have a real rivalry game in the conference that we could look forward to every year, rather than playing the ****ers here and there or playing the "we're supposed to win" game against G5 CSU.
 

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
In fairness, both are instantly more meaningful if a conference game. This is more in regards to CSU than BYU; we're already in a place where the growing disparity between the P5 and G5 means that playing CSU is somewhat of a losing gamble for us. If it's a conference ga e they're seen as relative equals, the game means much more, and would probably be a lot of fun.

But all I'm really saying is I get where Nik is coming from. It would be nice to have a real rivalry game in the conference that we could look forward to every year, rather than playing the ****ers here and there or playing the "we're supposed to win" game against G5 CSU.
CSU becomes more meaningful to us as a conference game but every other team in the conference would hate that game with a passion. Elevating a team like that is a disaster for everyone in this conference outside of CU for one game a year. Utah already schedules BYU and that is still a heated rivalry, along with a lot of the other conference members. Boise regularly schedules games with WSU, Washington, Oregon, OSU, etc.

Elevating CSU to an "equal" is worst case scenario for the University of Colorado.
 

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
CSU becomes more meaningful to us as a conference game but every other team in the conference would hate that game with a passion. Elevating a team like that is a disaster for everyone in this conference outside of CU for one game a year. Utah already schedules BYU and that is still a heated rivalry, along with a lot of the other conference members. Boise regularly schedules games with WSU, Washington, Oregon, OSU, etc.

Elevating CSU to an "equal" is worst case scenario for the University of Colorado.
Worst case? Pfft. Nah, worst case is them somehow actually getting their Big XII dream and making more money than us.
 

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
Worst case? Pfft. Nah, worst case is them somehow actually getting their Big XII dream and making more money than us.
That wouldn't work either. The reason the Big-12 makes more money is because they have less mouths to feed and there is now way those top programs would agree to equal revenue sharing by adding G5 programs.
 
Top