Sometimes I have to remind myself to always embrace change.
It's not always easy. Especially with some upcoming reality.
It's not always easy. Especially with some upcoming reality.
SMU and SDSU...
- Thread starter M-I-Coug
- Start date
F- SMU. Go with SDSU and UNLV. We can't compete with all this NIL BS from other conferences. But we can consolidate our West coast base and stay alive. Going halfay across the country for some sort of desperate land grab is BS.
FUCLA and FUSC will regret their decision. Like they really needed the money? Is LA broke?
FUCLA and FUSC will regret their decision. Like they really needed the money? Is LA broke?
Loyal, SC is too arrogant to feel regret. That would be an admission that a mistake was made. To quote Princess Bride, "Inconceivable!!"
UCLA, on the other hand, will rue the day they decided to consign themselves permanently to being in USC's shadow.
UCLA, on the other hand, will rue the day they decided to consign themselves permanently to being in USC's shadow.
Till the day I die... I will never tire of Fusc, Fucla, fuw, Fwhoregon...
I really think in the long run that we are going to be fine. The power of population growth... speed of travel...
Super Conference. Build a better product. Make for bigger outings where during the season... we have a 3 game weekend in Las Vegas. Do it in San Diego too. Do "mini" Tournament play in the middle of the season. Party like Revenge of the Nerds.
The U$C president is public enemy No. 1. She should be getting way more heat from Pac-12 fans/CFB fans.
Your last paragraph, especially the second sentence, is the best path forward. Not easy to do, but the right intent.
What are everyone’s thoughts on having a presence in LA even if the PAC has no teams there for both recruiting and to promote tv viewers?
I can see a double headers at SOFi every year for big non conference games a couple of times a year, especially if they can work out a scheduling agreement with the ACC.
Same thing for basketball.
I can see a double headers at SOFi every year for big non conference games a couple of times a year, especially if they can work out a scheduling agreement with the ACC.
Same thing for basketball.
As long as it doesn't benefit fuw, whoregon, fusc, or the Soft All Americans... I'm fine with it.
I could see it happening for some schools. For others, losing a home game hurts the wallet too much.
Agree with no SMU.
We sit here an slaughter $C and FUCLA for having to travel east, then put in a trip to both CO and now TX. While Dallas is easy to get to, its probably the last place on my list of places to visit in TX. Even below El Paso.
We sit here an slaughter $C and FUCLA for having to travel east, then put in a trip to both CO and now TX. While Dallas is easy to get to, its probably the last place on my list of places to visit in TX. Even below El Paso.
SMU is going to bring Dallas and Texas exposure and a mid-west TV market. To get maximum TV value, we need games that start at 9am.
ESPN will want to have Oregon vs. SMU, 9am start, to compete with Fox's "Big Noon."
If the strategy is more 9am games, we really need 2 mid-west teams, one paired with SMU. While not terribly attractive, Memphis checks a lot of boxes.
Memphis, SMU, UNLV and SDSU would be my adds. All pro-sports markets. All are programs that could be very, very good given resources and exposure of a large conference.
They come in on a reduced TV payout.
ESPN will want to have Oregon vs. SMU, 9am start, to compete with Fox's "Big Noon."
If the strategy is more 9am games, we really need 2 mid-west teams, one paired with SMU. While not terribly attractive, Memphis checks a lot of boxes.
Memphis, SMU, UNLV and SDSU would be my adds. All pro-sports markets. All are programs that could be very, very good given resources and exposure of a large conference.
They come in on a reduced TV payout.
I'd be lying if I said that I'm "excited" about the idea of SMU joining the P12, but I understand it. There are a lot of factors in the expansion decisions that are impossible for us to comment on, as we don't know the full financial impact. From my 30,000 ft vantage point, I think expansion benefits our conference, and more importantly, benefits WSU.
Adding SMU and SDSU fits the academic profile of our conference, so on that level, it makes sense to me. SMU is widely regarded to be a strong academic school, but SDSU is as well. My boys are good students and are heading into their senior years next year, so I've been spending time researching colleges and universities (even though I'm fairly certain they'll go to WSU). I was surprised to learn that SDSU has only a 34% acceptance rate and is considered be a top-150 school in the Nation. More surprising is the fact that it outranks WSU as a party school #18 out of 1,525 (WSU is #41). That, along with their geography, is a win for my road trip considerations.
Adding SMU and SDSU fits the academic profile of our conference, so on that level, it makes sense to me. SMU is widely regarded to be a strong academic school, but SDSU is as well. My boys are good students and are heading into their senior years next year, so I've been spending time researching colleges and universities (even though I'm fairly certain they'll go to WSU). I was surprised to learn that SDSU has only a 34% acceptance rate and is considered be a top-150 school in the Nation. More surprising is the fact that it outranks WSU as a party school #18 out of 1,525 (WSU is #41). That, along with their geography, is a win for my road trip considerations.
SMU is an R-2 University, as is SDSU. So no they don't fit our profile. Although it has been claimed the SDSU is close to R-1 status. SMU only has 12,000+ students. As stated by others, their TV market is quite small. So why the F would we even consider them?
I know I'm becoming a broken record but Geezus, it's so obvious. Get SDSU and UNLV and call it good for now.
I'd be lying if I said that I'm "excited" about the idea of SMU joining the P12, but I understand it. There are a lot of factors in the expansion decisions that are impossible for us to comment on, as we don't know the full financial impact. From my 30,000 ft vantage point, I think expansion benefits our conference, and more importantly, benefits WSU.
Adding SMU and SDSU fits the academic profile of our conference, so on that level, it makes sense to me. SMU is widely regarded to be a strong academic school, but SDSU is as well. My boys are good students and are heading into their senior years next year, so I've been spending time researching colleges and universities (even though I'm fairly certain they'll go to WSU). I was surprised to learn that SDSU has only a 34% acceptance rate and is considered be a top-150 school in the Nation. More surprising is the fact that it outranks WSU as a party school #18 out of 1,525 (WSU is #41). That, along with their geography, is a win for my road trip considerations.
It’s a beautiful campus CP, and a great place to visit. We have been here 5 weeks, head back Sunday.
To tap into the Dallas/Fort Worth market. That's the primary driver. There are a lot of academic metrics, and frankly, the P12 standard for Tier 1 research Universities could probably use some updating.
SMU is widely regarded to be a top-100 University by most of the publications that I've studied. Forbes has them ranked around #80. Their median alumni salary, a metric that this douchey sales & marketing guy pays close attention to, is an impressive $131K at the 10-year career mark. WSU is ranked #191 by Forbes, for comparison sake.
So why consider them? For entry into the Texas market, and because it's as good or better than any other free-agent University on the West Coast. Having a Southern arm of the conference that consists of Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, SMU, and SDSU isn't terrible. I wish Boise State was a better University and was located in a better TV market, because picking up them and UNLV would great.
I still say if we grab SMU we need another Midwest team. Colorado state is probably the most viable. That’ll create alignments that can actually reduce the travel requirement for some teams. And grab SDSU & UNLV too.
If we do get UNLV, we’ve got a Pac-12 presence in Vegas all season. We should move the conference championship to SoFi then. It gives us an annual LA basin presence, sticks our thumb in the eye of SC & UCLA, and prevents having the home team play in the title game (if UNLV can ever get there).
If we do get UNLV, we’ve got a Pac-12 presence in Vegas all season. We should move the conference championship to SoFi then. It gives us an annual LA basin presence, sticks our thumb in the eye of SC & UCLA, and prevents having the home team play in the title game (if UNLV can ever get there).
The PAC being concerned about academic standards is, at this point, the equivalent of worrying if the deck chairs on the Titanic have been varnished...after the hit.
The last chance for the PAC to have picked up some valuable properties was immediately after Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving for the sec, July 2021. That ship sailed along with USC and UCLA.
The last chance for the PAC to have picked up some valuable properties was immediately after Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving for the sec, July 2021. That ship sailed along with USC and UCLA.
If we are expanding and if SDSU & SMU are in the cards, then adding UNLV makes a lot of sense. Who else? CSU's, SJSU's & FSU's downside is no real added TV, and that is relevant. But the CSU/CU rivalry would be nice, and there is a bit of geographical balance. SJSU/Cal/Stanford actually has some back yard appeal that might attract some eyeballs, as well as in person attendance. Who else would you take? UTEP? UNM? Tulsa? Would you be willing to go farther east than Dallas/Tulsa? Not a lot of slam dunk choices out there west of the Mississippi. I'd like to have UNLV, if only for the obvious Vegas aspect. SDSU is the obvious choice. Beyond that there are as many pros as there are cons for pretty much everyone else. I can understand SMU as a choice; they have both location and unlimited money, which could quickly address any facilities concerns, and with a bigger platform they could compete with most teams in the NIL arena. Tulsa is almost as well heeled as SMU, and would produce a regional rivalry. How about SDSU, UNLV, SMU & Tulsa?
I don’t think SJSU adds anything, because the Bay Area doesn’t even care about Cal & Stanford.
There are arguments in favor of SDSU, UNLV, and SMU. But by the time we get to CSU & Tulsa we’re pretty much adding a 4th to have a 4th. Geography is the big thing, anything else is gravy. CSU may be an easier pill to swallow for those still paying attending to the institutional aspect, and would mean we’re grabbing an R1 to offset the R2s (UNLV for SDSU, CSU for SMU). Tulsa may have more cash available.
There is NO ONE that adds value. SMU, SDSU and maybe UNLV make sense but beyond that it would be embarrassing to grab schools like Tulsa, Nevada etc. With SMU it’s a bit of a long play in hopes that one if the BIG12 schools will want to bail some day and you’d have a partner for them in hoops etc.
The USC President that blocked expansion when the Big12 schools were inquiring is the Devil.
The USC President that blocked expansion when the Big12 schools were inquiring is the Devil.
Look, we have to stop saying things like this. Stanford and Cal are flagship schools for our conference, and the Bay Area absolutely cares about them. Their alumni don't have the corporate sell out attitude about collegiate football that the blueblood programs do, but their alumni are huge donors and supporters of every other program that suits up.
From what I've heard from my Stanford and Cal peeps, they're not keen on bringing in other Bay Area programs like Fresno State or SJSU. If that's the case, then the P12 has to listen to them. Why? Because now that USC & UCLA have deprived us of their company, Stanford, Cal, UW, and Oregon are the leaders of the Pac and programs we need to keep happy. Not at all costs, mind you, but pissing them off would be a ridiculously bad strategy for our league and for WSU.
For now, we might only choose to add SMU and SDSU and see how it goes. If another market makes sense, then it would seem that Las Vegas would be a viable option. It's a shame that Stanford and Cal were obtuse regarding BYU and their religious practices. BYU and Utah in the same league would be great. If I were in charge, I would be working to lure BYU to the P12 in 2030 with their new deal with the B12 expires.
BYU’s allure isn’t as big as the perception is. They barely draw more than we do nationally
But compared to the remaining West coast options, they're a solid, well established athletic department.
Similar threads
