|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 11, 2023 11:06:17 GMT -5
I don't really disagree with your overall point, but SMU has been ranked in 2019, 2020 and 2021 (before that, it had been a while--1986). A season ending ranking? Those are the ones that count, especially in football considering how few games they play. If you meant a season ending ranking, you should have specified that in the first place. And every ranking counts.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 11, 2023 12:32:58 GMT -5
A season ending ranking? Those are the ones that count, especially in football considering how few games they play. If you meant a season ending ranking, you should have specified that in the first place. And every ranking counts. Frankly, in-season rankings matter more because that’s how you promote games on your network.
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Feb 11, 2023 13:00:41 GMT -5
Other than saying "we have a school in Texas for possible recruiting purposes", I have no idea why the Pac-12 would want SMU. Disregarding the fact that it's a private, religiously rooted institution with no elite academic prestige, SMU hasn't even been a ranked football team since, checks notes, 1984. Do people really think that a Dallas TV market is going to tune in to watch terrible Cal play terrible SMU? I agree there doesn't seem to be a great reason other than a possibly misguided belief that having a "Texas footprint" will consistently be a huge asset. But, private, religiously rooted, and no elite academic prestige? I don't see how any of these things matter independent of simply not being great at football and not being able to draw big numbers for football. The Pac 12 has private schools and schools without elite academic prestige. While they don't have a religiously rooted school, other conferences do - e.g., Notre Dame, Boston College, Baylor, BYU - and it's really not a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 11, 2023 13:49:25 GMT -5
Other than saying "we have a school in Texas for possible recruiting purposes", I have no idea why the Pac-12 would want SMU. Disregarding the fact that it's a private, religiously rooted institution with no elite academic prestige, SMU hasn't even been a ranked football team since, checks notes, 1984. Do people really think that a Dallas TV market is going to tune in to watch terrible Cal play terrible SMU? I agree there doesn't seem to be a great reason other than a possibly misguided belief that having a "Texas footprint" will consistently be a huge asset. But, private, religiously rooted, and no elite academic prestige? I don't see how any of these things matter independent of simply not being great at football and not being able to draw big numbers for football. The Pac 12 has private schools and schools without elite academic prestige. While they don't have a religiously rooted school, other conferences do - e.g., Notre Dame, Boston College, Baylor, BYU - and it's really not a big deal. SMU actually recently became independent of the Church and separated for independent governance - and it has a lot of lay prestige across Texas and the South. That said, I don't think it's a great pick-up either, but we're in a bizarro world where conference additions aren't graded by any intrinsic value but by whether a TV executive will pay more for them on that particular day. If someone wants to pay for a PAC with SMU, errr, OK i guess we kinda should do it?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 11, 2023 13:59:42 GMT -5
If you meant a season ending ranking, you should have specified that in the first place. And every ranking counts. Frankly, in-season rankings matter more because that’s how you promote games on your network. I'm not sure if they matter more, but I agree that they're important for promotion, and that is especially true in football. The release of the polls every week creates a lot of interest around college football, and having a number next to your name makes it more likely that casual viewers will tune in.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 11, 2023 14:14:53 GMT -5
I agree there doesn't seem to be a great reason other than a possibly misguided belief that having a "Texas footprint" will consistently be a huge asset. But, private, religiously rooted, and no elite academic prestige? I don't see how any of these things matter independent of simply not being great at football and not being able to draw big numbers for football. The Pac 12 has private schools and schools without elite academic prestige. While they don't have a religiously rooted school, other conferences do - e.g., Notre Dame, Boston College, Baylor, BYU - and it's really not a big deal. SMU actually recently became independent of the Church and separated for independent governance - and it has a lot of lay prestige across Texas and the South. That said, I don't think it's a great pick-up either, but we're in a bizarro world where conference additions aren't graded by any intrinsic value but by whether a TV executive will pay more for them. Yeah, SMU moved to become independent in 2019. It looks like that was tied up in litigation until 2021, but a judge sided with SMU. I'm not sure if an appeal is still pending. SMU is also a well-respected academic school with wealthy donors. Geographically, they're a bit of a stretch for the Pac-12 but not more than what we've seen elsewhere in conference realignment. The main issue is that they're seventh in the pecking order of Texas schools for football behind Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech and Houston. But if you want to get into Texas, they are probably the best available option, since the others are spoken for. This move, along with San Diego State, would supposedly be to create more inventory (15 extra football games) for a potential streaming partner. And also to establish a presence in Texas and reestablish a presence in Southern California in the wake of the exit by USC and UCLA.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Feb 11, 2023 14:25:19 GMT -5
Other than saying "we have a school in Texas for possible recruiting purposes", I have no idea why the Pac-12 would want SMU. Disregarding the fact that it's a private, religiously rooted institution with no elite academic prestige, SMU hasn't even been a ranked football team since, checks notes, 1984. Do people really think that a Dallas TV market is going to tune in to watch terrible Cal play terrible SMU? I agree there doesn't seem to be a great reason other than a possibly misguided belief that having a "Texas footprint" will consistently be a huge asset. But, private, religiously rooted, and no elite academic prestige? I don't see how any of these things matter independent of simply not being great at football and not being able to draw big numbers for football. The Pac 12 has private schools and schools without elite academic prestige. While they don't have a religiously rooted school, other conferences do - e.g., Notre Dame, Boston College, Baylor, BYU - and it's really not a big deal. SMU is a better academic school than anyone in the P12 other than Stanford, cal & UW.
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Feb 11, 2023 14:33:16 GMT -5
I agree there doesn't seem to be a great reason other than a possibly misguided belief that having a "Texas footprint" will consistently be a huge asset. But, private, religiously rooted, and no elite academic prestige? I don't see how any of these things matter independent of simply not being great at football and not being able to draw big numbers for football. The Pac 12 has private schools and schools without elite academic prestige. While they don't have a religiously rooted school, other conferences do - e.g., Notre Dame, Boston College, Baylor, BYU - and it's really not a big deal. SMU is a better academic school than anyone in the P12 other than Stanford, cal & UW. I didn't think it was a poor academic school. I was just responding to the poster who suggested that lack of academic prestige is a reason to not pick an school for expansion.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Feb 11, 2023 18:09:11 GMT -5
My view of what is going on here:
The B1G & SEC now have media deals that are 3x the other conferences. That is a huge imbalance that is going to continue to drive changes. That is too big a difference to be stable. So by conference:
SEC - their expansion candidates are all caught up in the ACC long term GOR deal: FSU, Clemson, maybe Miami, maybe ND. So they are stuck for now and are in good shape so willing to wait.
B1G - the one really good candidate they have is also stuck in the ACC deal: ND. They might also be interested in FSU or Miami but probably not. There is also probably real interest in Stanford & UW (maybe UO & cal). But no need to hurry until ND clarifies and my guess is they don't want to get blamed for totally blowing up the P12.
ACC - they are fine for now but vulnerable in 10 years when their GOR is up. Waiting to see how things play out probably isn't crazy. The one move they could make is for Stanford, UW, cal & UO. Not a crazy idea but no hurry.
B12 - their strength is none of their schools is really attractive for another conference. Expanding to try to blow up the P12 would be smart. I think their general approach is to just get bigger. They clearly aren't at the B1G/SEC level but above the group of 5.
P12 - I think the big problem is their best schools (UW, Stanford) are almost certainly shopping themselves. The logical thing would be to get bigger. The problem is all of the candidates probably near term don't help their media. The academic snobs in the conference don't like the idea of SDSU. I have read that neither SDSU or SMU has the votes or it would already be done. My guess is UA, ASU, CO & Utah are trying to use the threat of leaving to get the others to agree to SDSU and/or SMU. Not really sure it will work. The B12 is not a good destination for them. All four schools get a huge chunk of their student bodies from CA and the west coast with very little from Texas or the SW. The media deal might force the situation but I could also see the conference standing pat.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 11, 2023 18:32:38 GMT -5
I agree there doesn't seem to be a great reason other than a possibly misguided belief that having a "Texas footprint" will consistently be a huge asset. But, private, religiously rooted, and no elite academic prestige? I don't see how any of these things matter independent of simply not being great at football and not being able to draw big numbers for football. The Pac 12 has private schools and schools without elite academic prestige. While they don't have a religiously rooted school, other conferences do - e.g., Notre Dame, Boston College, Baylor, BYU - and it's really not a big deal. SMU is a better academic school than anyone in the P12 other than Stanford, cal & UW. So?
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 11, 2023 18:39:00 GMT -5
My view of what is going on here: The B1G & SEC now have media deals that are 3x the other conferences. That is a huge imbalance that is going to continue to drive changes. That is too big a difference to be stable. So by conference: SEC - their expansion candidates are all caught up in the ACC long term GOR deal: FSU, Clemson, maybe Miami, maybe ND. So they are stuck for now and are in good shape so willing to wait. B1G - the one really good candidate they have is also stuck in the ACC deal: ND. They might also be interested in FSU or Miami but probably not. There is also probably real interest in Stanford & UW (maybe UO & cal). But no need to hurry until ND clarifies and my guess is they don't want to get blamed for totally blowing up the P12. ACC - they are fine for now but vulnerable in 10 years when their GOR is up. Waiting to see how things play out probably isn't crazy. The one move they could make is for Stanford, UW, cal & UO. Not a crazy idea but no hurry. B12 - their strength is none of their schools is really attractive for another conference. Expanding to try to blow up the P12 would be smart. I think their general approach is to just get bigger. They clearly aren't at the B1G/SEC level but above the group of 5. P12 - I think the big problem is their best schools (UW, Stanford) are almost certainly shopping themselves. The logical thing would be to get bigger. The problem is all of the candidates probably near term don't help their media. The academic snobs in the conference don't like the idea of SDSU. I have read that neither SDSU or SMU has the votes or it would already be done. My guess is UA, ASU, CO & Utah are trying to use the threat of leaving to get the others to agree to SDSU and/or SMU. Not really sure it will work. The B12 is not a good destination for them. All four schools get a huge chunk of their student bodies from CA and the west coast with very little from Texas or the SW. The media deal might force the situation but I could also see the conference standing pat. This is pretty good - but I think the PAC future is more dire than this. Washington and Oregon want out - as they are facing too big of a financial problem with USC/UCLA gone. If (or when) WA/OR bolt - the 4 corner schools are stuck in a bad conference. To make things worse - any of them will make less money staying put with the PAC vs. joining the B12 (which is more stable right now). They could force a GOR that would 'keep' OR/WA put - but again it is becoming a risky option for them to stay in the PAC. SDSU and SMU would reportedly get a small share - so as not to dilute the revenue for the other schools - and potentially provide longer term stability for the conference. But this is where the B12 could be more attractive for SDSU and potentially get one or more corner schools to join the B12. All of these things are tremendous risks to the PAC surviving. The existing 10 schools in the PAC can survive if they all stick together. They can add teams for stability (create unequal share so as not to dilute their revenue) - but at the end of the day - it all crumbles once someone leaves. And at this point - there could be no trust within the conference. Last one to move is left behind - and no school is going to risk that. B12 is in better shape than the ACC. The ACC is stuck in a bad long term TV contract - where the B12 will get more revenue than the ACC. In addition - the ACC goes away once the GOR is finished, and schools start exiting. It would also appear that the B12 has a savvy commissioner that is thinking long term revenue streams (for example streaming revenue through basketball) that potentially keeps the conference relevant. That said - the B1G and SEC will have tremendous advantages over all other conferences.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 11, 2023 18:43:58 GMT -5
SMU is a better academic school than anyone in the P12 other than Stanford, cal & UW. I didn't think it was a poor academic school. I was just responding to the poster who suggested that lack of academic prestige is a reason to not pick an school for expansion. Well, I’m going by what the Pac 12 has historically done for its members which is highly regarded private schools that are not religiously affiliated (and Stanford and USC are old timers) and the the large land grant state schools in the western footprint. SMU does not fit that mold. I certainly did not say nor do I believe that SMU is a poor academic school. What I said was that it’s not an elite academic school, and I stand by that. SMU has little prestige and recognition outside of the greater Texas area. The same isn’t said for programs like Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, or Duke. I’d bet my bottom dollar that if you ask 100 random people outside of a one state radius of Texas, most people don’t even know what SMU even means, and if you said Southern Methodist University, most people wouldn’t even know it’s located in Texas. Californians would likely conflate it with Saint Marys University. If it’s about dollars, I guess, but SMU simply does not fit the mold of the Pac 12 conference. Frankly, I’m a Pac 10 stalwart, and have only recently come around to Utah and Colorado being “one of us”. IMO I’d rather the larger schools sell their souls to the Big 10 for a smaller revenue cut (let’s be honest, if the powers that be had their way, half of the current Big 10 would be subject to revenue cuts and a few schools would get the boot) or the Big 12 before adding SMU to the mix for the Pac-12, but that’s just me.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Feb 11, 2023 19:47:43 GMT -5
I didn't think it was a poor academic school. I was just responding to the poster who suggested that lack of academic prestige is a reason to not pick an school for expansion. Well, I’m going by what the Pac 12 has historically done for its members which is highly regarded private schools that are not religiously affiliated (and Stanford and USC are old timers) and the the large land grant state schools in the western footprint. SMU does not fit that mold. I certainly did not say nor do I believe that SMU is a poor academic school. What I said was that it’s not an elite academic school, and I stand by that. SMU has little prestige and recognition outside of the greater Texas area. The same isn’t said for programs like Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, or Duke. I’d bet my bottom dollar that if you ask 100 random people outside of a one state radius of Texas, most people don’t even know what SMU even means, and if you said Southern Methodist University, most people wouldn’t even know it’s located in Texas. Californians would likely conflate it with Saint Marys University. If it’s about dollars, I guess, but SMU simply does not fit the mold of the Pac 12 conference. Frankly, I’m a Pac 10 stalwart, and have only recently come around to Utah and Colorado being “one of us”. IMO I’d rather the larger schools sell their souls to the Big 10 for a smaller revenue cut (let’s be honest, if the powers that be had their way, half of the current Big 10 would be subject to revenue cuts and a few schools would get the boot) or the Big 12 before adding SMU to the mix for the Pac-12, but that’s just me. It’s obvious to me Washington and Oregon would say yes immediately to a Big 10 invitation. I have no idea what Stanford would do. There has to be a significant portion of their administration that wonders how far they’re willing to go to be legitimately competitive with the direction collegiate sports is heading. So far it’s been yes, but their compromises remain relatively minor. Who knows with Cal. They have that albatross of a debt obligation for that football stadium, but they forced out a coach who recently competed for a national championship after not being willing to give him the tools to recruit athletes woefully under qualified for Cal undergrad. I don’t understand how PAC remains a viable conference long term. I always figured geography would be their two edged sword - provide huge obstacles for national relevance, but distance and time zones protect them from poaching. The USC/UCLA move was way more ground breaking in a lot of ways than the OU/TX move, even if both of them were big in their own way. Even if they figure out how to survive in the short term, they’re a Big 10 invite away from distintegration. Or former Mountain West status, which amounts to the same thing. If they can’t join the Big 10/SEC mega money ranks, the only realistic option is for the strongest members to join the Big 12 as some kind of mega conference that proves an alternative to the Power 2. IMO the Big 12 is going to regret having Cincinnati and UCF as members (West Virginia, too, although not in the same way) because their future is west, not east. All these schools being mentioned as expansion targets - SDSU, Fresno State, SMU, even Gonzaga, smack as a sort of desperation to me. Any decent program worth anything weat of the Mississippi River is already affiliated with the Big 12 or PAC. New affiliations of some sort seeking to maximize revenue and especially security seem inevitable. Is there a current PAC program better served by adding SDSU/Fresno State (a terrible academic school)/SMU than by a stronger affiliation with any other conference? Because I don’t think so. Other than the strong and legitimate interest in maintaining the PAC brand. To me it’s a little like the death of the SWC, although the remaining PAC schools are way more viable than the SWC had at their disposal after the departure of Arkansas/UT/A&M. But the same biggest issue - the lack of a broad enough TV market, and not enough eyeballs willing to tune into games compared to the rest of the country - is proving its doom. USC/UCLA didn’t want to be consigned to the second class citizen status PAC membership doomed them to, and they bailed. The numbers are going to be worse now, and adding SDSU/Fresno State/SMU won’t move the needle one whit. And that’s if you can get Cal and Stanford to uncrinkle their collective noses long enough to let them in. Which I find doubtful. I just don’t see a scenario where the PAC is viable long term. Their best chance was to grab the strongest members of the Big 12, but that’s now out of the picture. In a survival of the fittest I see the Big 12 clearly coming out on top. The faster the PAC seeks some kind of merger on favorable terms to me the better. With the knowledge the strongest programs of either conference will bolt at a moment’s notice if they ever get an invitation to one of the Power 2.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Feb 11, 2023 20:32:45 GMT -5
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. Some thoughts.
I don't think the B12 money is substantially better than the P12 money. At least not enough for anyone to leave which is why no one has. And there are lots of reasons to stay even if the money is a bit more.
Agree that UO/UW would love to got to the B1G. But they were pretty publicly turned down. That could change at some point but not sure what the catalyst is.
Have no idea what Stanford will do in the end. I think they go to the B1G if a couple of other teams do. Do they just join with ND? I don't know. They are the one school that at the end of the day doesn't really need the money. They were going to cancel 11 sports and then donors step up and all is fine....
That is why I am optimistic about the P12 in the medium term. I just don't see logical destinations for anyone.
I think the one potential game changer would be the ACC. I agree they are stable for now but when the GOR is up it could be a blood bath. If there were smart they might try to poach UW, UO, Stanford & cal. At least they position themselves as a strong #3....
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Feb 11, 2023 21:25:58 GMT -5
My view of what is going on here: The B1G & SEC now have media deals that are 3x the other conferences. That is a huge imbalance that is going to continue to drive changes. That is too big a difference to be stable. So by conference: SEC - their expansion candidates are all caught up in the ACC long term GOR deal: FSU, Clemson, maybe Miami, maybe ND. So they are stuck for now and are in good shape so willing to wait. B1G - the one really good candidate they have is also stuck in the ACC deal: ND. They might also be interested in FSU or Miami but probably not. There is also probably real interest in Stanford & UW (maybe UO & cal). But no need to hurry until ND clarifies and my guess is they don't want to get blamed for totally blowing up the P12. ACC - they are fine for now but vulnerable in 10 years when their GOR is up. Waiting to see how things play out probably isn't crazy. The one move they could make is for Stanford, UW, cal & UO. Not a crazy idea but no hurry. Both the ACC and SEC want desperately in the states of Virginia and North Carolina; taking a combination of UNC, UVa, VaTech, NC State, or Duke would be very appealing to them geographically and academically). SEC could have had Miami /and/or FSU a long time ago, but they already had Florida (and a supposed gentleman's agreement not to admit any new members in states where a current member already existed; Texas broke that barrier if it was truly one, much to the dismay of Texas A&M). B1G has now broken their preference to have all member schools in contiguous states. First choice has always been ND; maybe one day if the ACC implodes. They could potentially be eyeing FSU and/or Miami (if their academics meet conference standards). Fifteen or so years ago, B1G flirted with Georgia Tech as getting into Atlanta was appealing. If they ever decide to reach in to the southeast, it would 2 of those 3 schools (with possible FSU on the outside looking in).
|
|