PAC12 Scenario = Expansion

[SMUvet]

K next time ill make sure to only post the for sure dope on here. I guess i missed the point of the boards. lol.

The main point is if those teams joined that seems not great for us. And if there is more value in those teams that seems more likely than including us. So the sports outlets portending that scenario passes the Occam's Razor...for me. Regardless of the Twitter heads making empty bets.

[Dukie]

K next time ill make sure to only post the for sure dope on here. I guess i missed the point of the boards. lol.

The main point is if those teams joined that seems not great for us. And if there is more value in those teams that seems more likely than including us. So the sports outlets portending that scenario passes the Occam's Razor...for me. Regardless of the Twitter heads making empty bets.

Agree with you that it's not great if something like that happens. Remember that the only thing I questioned was your reference to literally nothing more than "I saw it on Twitter." And I did so politely. Peace.

[SMUvet]

Hey Dukie. There's a total internet barrier here. Im just having fun with participating in the rumors and you are correct on all your comments. Let's both not get too offended. Im sure your a fine person IRL.

[SoCal_Pony]

K next time ill make sure to only post the for sure dope on here. I guess i missed the point of the boards. lol.

The main point is if those teams joined that seems not great for us. And if there is more value in those teams that seems more likely than including us. So the sports outlets portending that scenario passes the Occam's Razor...for me. Regardless of the Twitter heads making empty bets.

Vet, i follow Tony Altimore. He’s rather well-grounded. He says academics DO MATTER to the decision makers. He noted Utah made exceptional academic growth attributed in part to their association with the PAC. He also referred to the B12 as ΓÇÿfriends’ that you don’t want as roommates.

The bottom 9 B12 schools have an avg USN ranking of 170.

If you look at the 4 corner schools, their alumni are based primarily in the states they are located in, but after that, their alumni are based in locations westward (LA, SD, SF, Seattle areas), not in B12 territory.

I wonder if there is a reluctance among these PAC schools to ΓÇÿslum’ with the B12.

[SMUvet]

I think that is likely true but wonder if there is a survival aspect that is more important. Im not sure how much that weighs considering they are all ranked about 100 to 120. I think culture may weigh more than that though. TBH i have no clue.

[SoCal_Pony]

SMU’s endowment is higher - have it on good authority. It’s significantly higher on a per student basis which is what matters.

Long time no talk, gostangs! Hope you are well.

In that case, tell IR to update the site. They are a fiduciary.

for gostangs….bump

FF said TCU endowment was $2.56B

i commented that even though ours stated $2B, i thought it wasn’t reflecting monies raised from our Ignited Campaign and was probably higher.

Would appreciate your answer gostangs

[fan]

One thing on this whole PAC expansion deal "hopefully" working for us is that no conference in the last 20 years has opted to expand ONLY within it's footprint. ACC - added BC and Cuse and Pitt n 2004-13. SEC added OUT, BIG added USCLA, heck look at the Big East when we were added.

The PAC has been an outlier in that they've not expanded in the recent past so who knows if they'll keep with their way of thinking but from any outsider's perspective that hasn't worked so perhaps they can adapt.

We shall see.

[Dukie]

One thing on this whole PAC expansion deal "hopefully" working for us is that no conference in the last 20 years has opted to expand ONLY within it's footprint. ACC - added BC and Cuse and Pitt n 2004-13. SEC added OUT, BIG added USCLA, heck look at the Big East when we were added.

The PAC has been an outlier in that they've not expanded in the recent past so who knows if they'll keep with their way of thinking but from any outsider's perspective that hasn't worked so perhaps they can adapt.

We shall see.

Utah and Colorado were PAC footprint expansions in 2011.

[fan]

One thing on this whole PAC expansion deal "hopefully" working for us is that no conference in the last 20 years has opted to expand ONLY within it's footprint. ACC - added BC and Cuse and Pitt n 2004-13. SEC added OUT, BIG added USCLA, heck look at the Big East when we were added.

The PAC has been an outlier in that they've not expanded in the recent past so who knows if they'll keep with their way of thinking but from any outsider's perspective that hasn't worked so perhaps they can adapt.

We shall see.

Utah and Colorado were PAC footprint expansions in 2011.

Good point although wasn't counting either in the traditional CA/PNW footprint.

[Water Pony]

The noise coming out of the BigXII and the lack of it from the PAC12 suggests what is likely to happen is anyone's guess. Here are some observations to consider:

- The B1G10 is the wild card, not the BigXII. If the B1G10 is even more predatory and pursues and captures Oregon and Washington or secondarily Stanford and CAL, that is the major risk to the PAC12 and candidly our prospects. BigXII isn't a difference maker for the 4 Corners schools, unless the PAC12 were to lose OR and WA.

- Public statements from B1G10 and PAC12 suggest the above will not happen any time soon. And the 4 corner schools won't initiate a move the BigXII before a departure of OR and WA. Why? No reason to.

- Subject to what the new media rights and economics will be for the PAC12, it appears the new PAC10 will hold together, and their new deal will likely be comparable to the BigXII.

In summary, for the foreseeable future we will have a two tier P5 system. The SEC and B1G10 are clearly Tier 1 and the ACC, BigXII, and PAC12 are Tier 2 with differences on the margin. The big loser is ACC, which is locked into their rights for a long time to come.

[digman52]

I heard Dr. Turner speak to the Salesmanship Club of Dallas (Byron Nelson Tournament) yesterday, and he had David Miller and Brad Cheeves there as well. He immediately jumped into the work they are doing to move into another conference. Says Miller is in charge of the task force, and that he and David had 2 calls each that day to Presidents and others related to those possibilities. Says it is their main focus right now. Will believe it when it happens.

Had lots to say about NIL's etc, and how States are making their own rules separately about paying the players. Worries that the young players not saving some of this money for their future, since 90% won't play beyond graduation. Also concerned about them having tax issues if they don't file it on their taxes. Hopes there may be some rules coming out of Congress at some point to make everyone work with it the same.

He is an impressive speaker, talking for 30 minutes with no notes, and gave a good overview of where SMU is right now on all fronts.

[Mustangs_Maroons]

The noise coming out of the BigXII and the lack of it from the PAC12 suggests what is likely to happen is anyone's guess. Here are some observations to consider:

- The B1G10 is the wild card, not the BigXII. If the B1G10 is even more predatory and pursues and captures Oregon and Washington or secondarily Stanford and CAL, that is the major risk to the PAC12 and candidly our prospects. BigXII isn't a difference maker for the 4 Corners schools, unless the PAC12 were to lose OR and WA.

- Public statements from B1G10 and PAC12 suggest the above will not happen any time soon. And the 4 corner schools won't initiate a move the BigXII before a departure of OR and WA. Why? No reason to.

- Subject to what the new media rights and economics will be for the PAC12, it appears the new PAC10 will hold together, and their new deal will likely be comparable to the BigXII.

In summary, for the foreseeable future we will have a two tier P5 system. The SEC and B1G10 are clearly Tier 1 and the ACC, BigXII, and PAC12 are Tier 2 with differences on the margin. The big loser is ACC, which is locked into their rights for a long time to come.

Very well balanced summary, probably the most realistic. Unfortunately for us, it leaves us on the outside looking in.

[Dukie]

One thing on this whole PAC expansion deal "hopefully" working for us is that no conference in the last 20 years has opted to expand ONLY within it's footprint. ACC - added BC and Cuse and Pitt n 2004-13. SEC added OUT, BIG added USCLA, heck look at the Big East when we were added.

The PAC has been an outlier in that they've not expanded in the recent past so who knows if they'll keep with their way of thinking but from any outsider's perspective that hasn't worked so perhaps they can adapt.

We shall see.

Utah and Colorado were PAC footprint expansions in 2011.

Good point although wasn't counting either in the traditional CA/PNW footprint.

Oh yeah, agree with your main point. Frankly, the only modern-era in-footprint adds I can think of have been Houston and TCU to the Big 12, and UT to the SEC, and Va Tech to the ACC (which was forced by the Commonwealth of Virginia). Everything else was an increase in region (I don't count FSU and Miami as having the same region). SDSU now counts as an "add" for a PAC that is about to be locked out of SoCal otherwise, and we would, too, of course.

[DallasMustang11]

Is there any opinion on how the recent reporting of Gonzaga meeting with Brett Yormark about joining the BIG12 might impact us? Any chance the BIG12 adds them basketball only and one more to keep the numbers even? Does adding a school in the PAC12 footprint put further pressure on them (the PAC12) to expand?

[SMU_Alum11]

If the Big10 wanted Oregon and Washington, they would have done so in the first pass. Those two are on an island and now have to back the PAC. Big 12 and them do not align but the Arizona schools do. My guess is the Big 12 is doing everything to get Utah, the Arizonas to join which would fundamentally kill the PAC. I think they're quiet because they have to be. They need this TV deal to be bigger and better than the Big12.