Will UT go to PAC?

[AusTxPony]

Does this mean they do not do biz with Muslim Countries since Homosexuality is illegal? What a stupid law.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

Does this mean they do not do biz with Muslim Countries since Homosexuality is illegal? What a stupid law.

Well, it is California...

[orguy]

Everyone always talks about the Pac's academics, and yes the California schools have amazing academics - but the whole conference? Arizona St? Arizona? Washington st? Utah? Oregon St? There is a ton of academic baggage in that conference - no need to bow down to them except for Stanford.

Exactly. It is just the California schools.

All the California schools in the PAC are a step above SMU academically. Not just Stanford. Additionally, Cal is every bit the equal of Stanford depending on what one studies. I think
in some technical fields they go back and forth in regards to what school is ranked higher
in a given discipline.

I do not endorse the word "baggage. That would be self hatred. If SMU was a member of the Pac then we definitely would be baggage. Some schools like Oregon State and Arizona are very solid schools especially in technical areas like Engineering/Physical Science. Both certainly are not eclipsed by Oregon which you conveniently left off your list.

[Pony Boss]

Everyone always talks about the Pac's academics, and yes the California schools have amazing academics - but the whole conference? Arizona St? Arizona? Washington st? Utah? Oregon St? There is a ton of academic baggage in that conference - no need to bow down to them except for Stanford.

Exactly. It is just the California schools.

All the California schools in the PAC are a step above SMU academically. Not just Stanford. Additionally, Cal is every bit the equal of Stanford depending on what one studies. I think
in some technical fields they go back and forth in regards to what school is ranked higher
in a given discipline.

I do not endorse the word "baggage. That would be self hatred. If SMU was a member of the Pac then we definitely would be baggage. Some schools like Oregon State and Arizona are very solid schools especially in technical areas like Engineering/Physical Science. Both certainly are not eclipsed by Oregon which you conveniently left off your list.

[leopold]

Not sure why it is important for UT to draw better from Cali - when there are only a few spots for out of staters to begin with - and that isn't going to change. The legislature has made it clear their mission is to educate Texans - so I don't see any more Californians that they currently draw regardless. And the top kids are going to stay in state and pay in state tuition at Berkley or UCLA anyway. You could make the case it would mean more for SMU - who now pulls 35% of our student body from California.

Only using recruiting students as one example. Point is, UT would get daily exposure on all levels - academically, athletically, culturally, etc. - for free in a state that has more people in it than Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia combined. That is one of the main reasons as to why UT is looking at the PAC 12.

It will be interesting to see other games play out this year, in terms of the law. UCLA is scheduled to play at Memphis, and Tennessee is on the list. Basketball, and it's sheer number of games, could get interesting.

[gostangs]

DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:

gostangs wrote:Everyone always talks about the Pac's academics, and yes the California schools have amazing academics - but the whole conference? Arizona St? Arizona? Washington st? Utah? Oregon St? There is a ton of academic baggage in that conference - no need to bow down to them except for Stanford.

Exactly. It is just the California schools.

All the California schools in the PAC are a step above SMU academically. Not just Stanford. Additionally, Cal is every bit the equal of Stanford depending on what one studies. I think
in some technical fields they go back and forth in regards to what school is ranked higher
in a given discipline.

I do not endorse the word "baggage. That would be self hatred. If SMU was a member of the Pac then we definitely would be baggage. Some schools like Oregon State and Arizona are very solid schools especially in technical areas like Engineering/Physical Science. Both certainly are not eclipsed by Oregon which you conveniently left off your list.

We would not be baggage in any way compared to the non-California schools - not even close. Our undergrad business school is among the best in the country - top twenty for sure.

And Cal is a great school but Stanford is elite. Those schools are not the same at all.

All of them are fine universities - just saying but for a couple there is no reason for them to look down their nose at most of the country, and certainly not SMU or UT.

[EastStang]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19743196/why-2023-next-big-date-conference-shuffling

2024 is the date when its open season.

[ericdickerson4life]

So we have another 7 years of BS posts like this?

[leopold]

No. Those questions will be resolved faster than 2023. Look for it to heat up about 2020 or so.

The most interesting part of that article is that Cal managed to lose twenty million dollars last year. More proof that membership in the P5 does not mean that you make money.

[orguy]

DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:

gostangs wrote:Everyone always talks about the Pac's academics, and yes the California schools have amazing academics - but the whole conference? Arizona St? Arizona? Washington st? Utah? Oregon St? There is a ton of academic baggage in that conference - no need to bow down to them except for Stanford.

Exactly. It is just the California schools.

All the California schools in the PAC are a step above SMU academically. Not just Stanford. Additionally, Cal is every bit the equal of Stanford depending on what one studies. I think
in some technical fields they go back and forth in regards to what school is ranked higher
in a given discipline.

I do not endorse the word "baggage. That would be self hatred. If SMU was a member of the Pac then we definitely would be baggage. Some schools like Oregon State and Arizona are very solid schools especially in technical areas like Engineering/Physical Science. Both certainly are not eclipsed by Oregon which you conveniently left off your list.

We would not be baggage in any way compared to the non-California schools - not even close. Our undergrad business school is among the best in the country - top twenty for sure.

And Cal is a great school but Stanford is elite. Those schools are not the same at all.

All of them are fine universities - just saying but for a couple there is no reason for them to look down their nose at most of the country, and certainly not SMU or UT.

The whole Cal vs Stanford thing is a matter of opinion. Cal is elite in my book and to most out here. Both are outstanding schools and debating which is superior is akin to debating how many angels dance on the head of a needle.

SMU"s MBA program was not even ranked as recently. Maybe they will fix this given the undergraduate program has taken some positive steps.

[gostangs]

DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:

gostangs wrote:Everyone always talks about the Pac's academics, and yes the California schools have amazing academics - but the whole conference? Arizona St? Arizona? Washington st? Utah? Oregon St? There is a ton of academic baggage in that conference - no need to bow down to them except for Stanford.

Exactly. It is just the California schools.

All the California schools in the PAC are a step above SMU academically. Not just Stanford. Additionally, Cal is every bit the equal of Stanford depending on what one studies. I think
in some technical fields they go back and forth in regards to what school is ranked higher
in a given discipline.

I do not endorse the word "baggage. That would be self hatred. If SMU was a member of the Pac then we definitely would be baggage. Some schools like Oregon State and Arizona are very solid schools especially in technical areas like Engineering/Physical Science. Both certainly are not eclipsed by Oregon which you conveniently left off your list.

We would not be baggage in any way compared to the non-California schools - not even close. Our undergrad business school is among the best in the country - top twenty for sure.

And Cal is a great school but Stanford is elite. Those schools are not the same at all.

All of them are fine universities - just saying but for a couple there is no reason for them to look down their nose at most of the country, and certainly not SMU or UT.

The whole Cal vs Stanford thing is a matter of opinion. Cal is elite in my book and to most out here. Both are outstanding schools and debating which is superior is akin to debating how many angels dance on the head of a needle.

SMU"s MBA program was not even ranked as recently. Maybe they will fix this given the undergraduate program has taken some positive steps.

The Cal vs Stanford thing is pretty settled. There is virtually no rating service that has Cal above Stanford. Also was curious about the rest of the PAC so looked it up. According to US News - (the most used ranking source) - the Cali schools are of course great - Stanford (5), Cal (20), USC (23) UCLA (24) and you can throw in Washington (54) also. They are all above SMU (56) and UT (56). The rest of the PAC is not good - and in fact most of the supposedly poorly academically ranked SEC is above Oregon (103), Utah (111), Arizona (124), Arizona State (129) Oregon State (143) and Washington State (143). That is not a strong group.

I know most don't care about university rankings, but it seems to come up a lot when new candidates are thrown around for PAC or Big membership. So its just FYI - SMU and UT would not be remotely thought of as academic baggage in that conference.

[CA Mustang]

It will be interesting to see other games play out this year, in terms of the law. UCLA is scheduled to play at Memphis, and Tennessee is on the list. Basketball, and it's sheer number of games, could get interesting.

Law doesn't apply to games when the contract was signed prior to 1/1/17, so football games shouldn't be affected the next couple of years. Basketball is a bit more flexible; Cal scrapped plans to have have a home-and-home series with Kansas.

The most interesting part of that article is that Cal managed to lose twenty million dollars last year. More proof that membership in the P5 does not mean that you make money.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/24/c ... res-folks/
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/27/c ... are-flush/

[mathman]

The Cal vs Stanford thing is pretty settled. There is virtually no rating service that has Cal above Stanford. Also was curious about the rest of the PAC so looked it up. According to US News - (the most used ranking source) - the Cali schools are of course great - Stanford (5), Cal (20), USC (23) UCLA (24) and you can throw in Washington (54) also. They are all above SMU (56) and UT (56). The rest of the PAC is not good - and in fact most of the supposedly poorly academically ranked SEC is above Oregon (103), Utah (111), Arizona (124), Arizona State (129) Oregon State (143) and Washington State (143). That is not a strong group.

I know most don't care about university rankings, but it seems to come up a lot when new candidates are thrown around for PAC or Big membership. So its just FYI - SMU and UT would not be remotely thought of as academic baggage in that conference.

Thanks for looking up all the information. Guess "orguy" was just trolling. California seems to have a weird effect on a lot of people. Think they implemented the travel ban because they were afraid some of their folks might ask for amnesty when they got here.

[SoCal_Pony]

The Cal vs Stanford thing is pretty settled. There is virtually no rating service that has Cal above Stanford. Also was curious about the rest of the PAC so looked it up. According to US News - (the most used ranking source) - the Cali schools are of course great - Stanford (5), Cal (20), USC (23) UCLA (24) and you can throw in Washington (54) also. They are all above SMU (56) and UT (56). The rest of the PAC is not good - and in fact most of the supposedly poorly academically ranked SEC is above Oregon (103), Utah (111), Arizona (124), Arizona State (129) Oregon State (143) and Washington State (143). That is not a strong group.

I know most don't care about university rankings, but it seems to come up a lot when new candidates are thrown around for PAC or Big membership. So its just FYI - SMU and UT would not be remotely thought of as academic baggage in that conference.

There's no doubt that the California schools carry more weight in the PAC relative to the other schools. Among the many alumni of these CA schools I have met over the years, I do think academics would play some role, specifically being an academic dreg.

Tech, while strategically located, is still ranked #174. Coog High is #194.

[sbsmith]

The best plan for the pac would be to pull in UT, and then also SMU on condition we add some sports and deck Ford. Then they would pull in meaningful TV geography from the two regions they care about (Austin and Dallas) and pick off the two best schools in Texas that aren't Rice.

Or they could just add UT and 3 other schools that bring some fans/eyeballs to the table.