ADVERTISEMENT

Wannstedt: OSU and KSU to Pac-12....

ttowncoug

Hall Of Fame
Sep 9, 2001
4,837
851
113
Likely the midwest TV market. Also, decent "names."

To me, this creates earlier time zone slots (10am kickoffs) that would bring eyes to the games.
 
ESPN has been reporting that GK would comment on expansion later this week. Sounds like the info is starting to leak out.

 
I also feel the "leak" from Fox is a prelude of a stronger Pac-12 partnership with them in the works.

I've said for years, Pac-12 network, JV it with Fox, follow what the Big10 did. With a 49% sale, much need cash infused into our budgets TODAY.

I have to imagine that with ESPN basically facilitating the Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC, the other conferences may be a bit concerned about their influence into the current landscape.

Sounds like the Big-12 is done. Imagine the remaining Texas schools head to the AAC.
 
Why would we add them? They bring no tv market value?
I'm not a big fan of expansion but I think it is inevitable. KSU and OSU are both land grant schools that have a significant following in their respective states. They both have been decent in football and good in basketball. I'm not sure how the divisions would be carved out but otherwise I don't think it would be a bad move.
 
Okie St makes some sense but Kansas St makes none. Need some Texas schools in the mix.
 
I bet something like 7 team divisions (obvious).

I bet they put UCLA in one division. USC in the other.
 
I bet something like 7 team divisions (obvious).

I bet they put UCLA in one division. USC in the other.
As long as WSU is in the mix I don't really care where they stick us. If expansion is the result I would kind like the old "Pac 8" as a division. That would seem to make the most sense for "minor sports" as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KRUSTYtheCOUG
Why would we add them? They bring no tv market value?

3.5 million people live within 120 miles of Oklahoma State. They bring the #44 and #61 TV markets into the footprint. (1.3 million TV's)

3.6 million people live within 120 miles of Kansas State. They bring the #34, #70 and #142 TV markets into the footprint. (1.6 million TV's)

2.3 million people live within 120 miles of Utah. They have the #30 TV market (1.1 million TV's)

1.3 million people live within 120 miles of WSU. (730,000 TV's)

If you want to talk about bringing "value" and markets to a conference, you might want to consider that they bring more TV value than WSU and Utah do. FWIW, Texas Tech has only 1.1 million people within 120 miles, which is a big reason why they aren't the first ones to come up in a discussion.

FWIW, Iowa State has 2.2 million people in their 120 mile radius. If anything KSU and OSU bring more TV value than the Cyclones do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M-I-Coug and Coug90
3.5 million people live within 120 miles of Oklahoma State. They bring the #44 and #61 TV markets into the footprint. (1.3 million TV's)

3.6 million people live within 120 miles of Kansas State. They bring the #34, #70 and #142 TV markets into the footprint. (1.6 million TV's)

2.3 million people live within 120 miles of Utah. They have the #30 TV market (1.1 million TV's)

1.3 million people live within 120 miles of WSU. (730,000 TV's)

If you want to talk about bringing "value" and markets to a conference, you might want to consider that they bring more TV value than WSU and Utah do. FWIW, Texas Tech has only 1.1 million people within 120 miles, which is a big reason why they aren't the first ones to come up in a discussion.

FWIW, Iowa State has 2.2 million people in their 120 mile radius. If anything KSU and OSU bring more TV value than the Cyclones do.
I don't think you are being objective on this, Flat. Kansas St unquestionably would take more from the Pac-12 than they gave. We need teams that won't be a drag on conference revenues. Do you think if the Pac-12 was dissolved we'd have another power conference looking to add us? I think not.
120 miles is an oddly specific subjective number anyway. WSU has the bulk of it's fanbase in the Seattle metro area while the K-State fan base is almost entirely in the 120 mile bubble you drew.
 
I see the Big XII adding UCF, Cincy, Memphis, Houston, and maybe BYU/BSU to go to 14.

I think they'll stick together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M-I-Coug
WSU brings the Seattle market too. Most locals follow both the Cougs and Huskies, with the casual UW fan saying they root for the Cougs, but not during Apple Cup.

I think BYU is a good add for the Big 12. Maybe they go after some MWC teams too. San Diego St. seems like it would be a very attractive add, maybe UNLV too.
 
I bet something like 7 team divisions (obvious).

I bet they put UCLA in one division. USC in the other.
I kind of doubt it. Last time we expanded, all of the California schools insisted that they had to play each other every year. I think they all end up in the same division.

If we stay at 14 teams, I think UW and WSU get split.
 
Surprised to see any plan involving the Central time zone and not getting at least one Texas school. No offense intended toward Kansas or KSU at all. KSU has developed a nice athletics program and I am aware of Flat's points about the midwest market having some value that some may not appreciate at first. There just are a ton of eyeballs (and recruits) in Texas, and if we're going to make a move like this, I both can't imagine it without Texas and have been hoping the Cougs could play in Texas on a somewhat regular basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: metprof
I think the travel costs/time are the biggest factor. I think the NW schools will always be grouped, same with Bay Area. Whether they put say Utah in the North, maybe that fixes the math.

You would also have to imagine having USC play at Oklahoma St is going to be good TV ratings, for an early time slot (10am). Same with say UCLA at Kansas St.
 
Non of the available Texas schools bring the academic "cache" the Pac-12 wants....(my opinion).
 
I kind of doubt it. Last time we expanded, all of the California schools insisted that they had to play each other every year. I think they all end up in the same division.

If we stay at 14 teams, I think UW and WSU get split.
I think Colorado and Utah are the most likely split. They aren't really that natural of a rivalry except that it was forced on them by the Pac-12. I would bet Colorado would just as soon play OSU and KSU. Utah could join the Northern division with us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDCoug
I don't think you are being objective on this, Flat. Kansas St unquestionably would take more from the Pac-12 than they gave. We need teams that won't be a drag on conference revenues. Do you think if the Pac-12 was dissolved we'd have another power conference looking to add us? I think not.
120 miles is an oddly specific subjective number anyway. WSU has the bulk of it's fanbase in the Seattle metro area while the K-State fan base is almost entirely in the 120 mile bubble you drew.

I agree that KSU and OSU are going to be "below average" in the conference as a whole. However, it's not like those teams don't bring fans and TV's when compared to our other options. I do agree with the comment that we should see about bringing Texas teams in. I would bring in TCU and Tech just for the access to the Texas market. It wouldn't take much to convince me that we should pass on Tech and go for Houston instead. At some point, we need to be looking at programs that can bring value to the conference on many levels. BYU brings fans but a lot of baggage. Boise has grown a lot but it's still a backwater hamlet in the overall scope of things and BSU is a trash university overall. UNLV, Nevada, Colorado State, Wyoming and any other number of Mountain West schools bring far less to the table than either KSU or OSU. SDSU is tough because there are good arguments for them but do we really expand the conference footprint by adding them?

The 120 miles is a number I picked because it's the distance that's an easy drive for fans. You can go further but it really doesn't make much difference in the ratios. I agree that part of the value that WSU brings is from our Seattle fanbase and it's why we aren't as bad in the real world as we look on paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M-I-Coug
Non of the available Texas schools bring the academic "cache" the Pac-12 wants....(my opinion).
Agree, and I understand the concern generally. We've run through the schools and the Texas schools are an odd fit for various reasons. Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Houston are all around the same level in academic prestige nationally, though, at least according to U.S. News (Oklahoma State is the lowest-ranked of the three), and they all are Carnegie R1s. I get that Houston football doesn't have a huge following and adding it would be perceived as bush league by casual observers, but I think to some extent that is a chicken-and-egg thing, and believe a Power 5 school in Houston eventually would at least hold its own in all the usual respects. Baylor and TCU are more attractive brand names, IMO (and both have $), but both are smaller schools, R2s, and have religious affiliation. Texas Tech is an R1 but its academic ranking is reasonably far below Houston, KSU, and Oklahoma State.
 
Last edited:
That is my fear as well. If we add two then we need to add two again and make it 16.

I’ve wanted to resurrect the PAC 8 for a very long time. I want to play those seven schools every year. If we have 14 teams we are going to be the odd team out unless they add one new to the north and one new to the south.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SaveFerris
KSU, osu, tech and a player to be named later (Baylor,SMU, TCU,Houston or Iowa State?) seems like the way to go with 16 teams. All 3 teams in the alliance agreeing to 16 for scheduling would be the equivalent to WSU having the golden ticket.

And outside of the short term question of whether the pie is bigger or not, more teams means more bowl games for the conference, more NCAA births which should mean more playoff opportunities and a better chance at a Natty or at least the ability to make some noise.
 
That is my fear as well. If we add two then we need to add two again and make it 16.

I’ve wanted to resurrect the PAC 8 for a very long time. I want to play those seven schools every year. If we have 14 teams we are going to be the odd team out unless they add one new to the north and one new to the south.
That's my hope if the conference were to expand. It would make the most sense with travel as well especially for smaller budget sports.
 
14 schools is simply unlikely in the current environment. If we add 2, then we add 4.

If OSU and KSU are two of the choices, then TT is one of the other ones. Big DFW market draw, similar to WSU and Puget Sound.

The 4th team? That is a tougher call if ISU goes B10. I would have said ISU to the PAC if the other 3 go that way.
 
I agree that KSU and OSU are going to be "below average" in the conference as a whole. However, it's not like those teams don't bring fans and TV's when compared to our other options. I do agree with the comment that we should see about bringing Texas teams in. I would bring in TCU and Tech just for the access to the Texas market. It wouldn't take much to convince me that we should pass on Tech and go for Houston instead. At some point, we need to be looking at programs that can bring value to the conference on many levels. BYU brings fans but a lot of baggage. Boise has grown a lot but it's still a backwater hamlet in the overall scope of things and BSU is a trash university overall. UNLV, Nevada, Colorado State, Wyoming and any other number of Mountain West schools bring far less to the table than either KSU or OSU. SDSU is tough because there are good arguments for them but do we really expand the conference footprint by adding them?

The 120 miles is a number I picked because it's the distance that's an easy drive for fans. You can go further but it really doesn't make much difference in the ratios. I agree that part of the value that WSU brings is from our Seattle fanbase and it's why we aren't as bad in the real world as we look on paper.
Flat, I really like your posts. Google won't tell me, so I'll ask you, as I truly don't know. Why is Boise St. a "trash university overall"?
 
Flat, I really like your posts. Google won't tell me, so I'll ask you, as I truly don't know. Why is Boise St. a "trash university overall"?
As of a few years ago, at least, it was ranked very closely to Central in the "west regional universities" list, IIRC. Not even listed as a national university. I think now it's at least in the lowest possible tier of national universities, where it doesn't even get a rank (between 300th - 400th). It's a slightly overgrown community college and not even in the same ballpark as any of these other universities we're discussing. E.g., Houston is ranked 176th in national rankings. Boise State makes Houston look like MIT. I'm sure Boise State will get a bit more legitimate over time academically with its moderate athletics prominence and the state looking to bolster it for various reasons, but it has a very long ways to go to be even close to the worst of the Big 12. Not even close to Pac-12 material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M-I-Coug
Flat, I really like your posts. Google won't tell me, so I'll ask you, as I truly don't know. Why is Boise St. a "trash university overall"?

425 answered the question pretty well.

I will admit that Boise State has proven that football really is the front porch of a university. It is still not a particularly good university but they have spent a lot of money in the past 20 years raising their profile. Football has allowed them to recruit students that normally would go to UI or other schools and they have taken advantage of that. They aren't nearly as trash as they used to be. FWIW, in the latest US News ranking, while they still haven't gotten to the point where they have a specific ranking, they are now #289-389 in that list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M-I-Coug
That is my fear as well. If we add two then we need to add two again and make it 16.

I’ve wanted to resurrect the PAC 8 for a very long time. I want to play those seven schools every year. If we have 14 teams we are going to be the odd team out unless they add one new to the north and one new to the south.

I like the idea.

Pac-16 West
Cal
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
UCLA
USC
UW
WSU

Pac-16 East
Arizona
ASU
Colorado
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas Tech
Utah

At first, I was thinking that the West would be far stronger than the East. Oregon, USC and UW are going to make it tough for the rest to win the division. That said, TCU is normally pretty tough, although they've had a rough time recently. Oklahoma State is Oregon of the Midwest but without quite as much high level success. K-State has a solid coach and has been a dangerous team for the past 30 years. Utah is obviously a solid program and CU might benefit from more exposure in the Midwest. I think the West champion would be favored most seasons but at the same time, KSU, OSU and TCU have all put together Top 10 type seasons in the past decade. I could see the Arizona schools hating it though.

EDIT: TCU is a small school and has struggled recently. I'd be pretty happy going with Houston instead.
 
It is possible to attract national attention via a sports program, increase enrollment, and throw money at academics to gain ground on the books side of the equation. Gonzaga is a great basketball example. USC is a prime example in the big time football arena. Houston is a lesser football example, but germane none the less, because in the 70's they were where BSU was 10-20 years ago...so they have also shown that progress can be made. BSU seems to be doing the right things, from a strategic perspective, to improve their standing. They still have a long, long, long way to go, but there has been clear and measurable progress. I can't predict what college football might look like in 20 years, so it is hard for me to predict how long BSU can use that mechanism to upgrade themselves...but if they had another 20 years both athletically and academically to match their last 20 years, it is hard not to imagine them being at the Colorado State academic level by then. Still not PAC, but another big level of improvement. I have respect for what they have done in a cash strapped state that does not prioritize education.
 
It is possible to attract national attention via a sports program, increase enrollment, and throw money at academics to gain ground on the books side of the equation. Gonzaga is a great basketball example. USC is a prime example in the big time football arena. Houston is a lesser football example, but germane none the less, because in the 70's they were where BSU was 10-20 years ago...so they have also shown that progress can be made. BSU seems to be doing the right things, from a strategic perspective, to improve their standing. They still have a long, long, long way to go, but there has been clear and measurable progress. I can't predict what college football might look like in 20 years, so it is hard for me to predict how long BSU can use that mechanism to upgrade themselves...but if they had another 20 years both athletically and academically to match their last 20 years, it is hard not to imagine them being at the Colorado State academic level by then. Still not PAC, but another big level of improvement. I have respect for what they have done in a cash strapped state that does not prioritize education.
Agree with all this. Gonzaga sprang to mind as I was writing that, but I didn't want to write another long missive. I doubt Boise State is Pac-__ material anytime in the conceivable future, but I expect its academics to keep improving over time and the value of a degree from there to improve. Just a really low baseline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cr8zyncalif
Non of the available Texas schools bring the academic "cache" the Pac-12 wants....(my opinion).
Houston and TT are Tier 1. I thought Baylor was due to the medical school and law school, but it's not.
 
As of a few years ago, at least, it was ranked very closely to Central in the "west regional universities" list, IIRC. Not even listed as a national university. I think now it's at least in the lowest possible tier of national universities, where it doesn't even get a rank (between 300th - 400th). It's a slightly overgrown community college and not even in the same ballpark as any of these other universities we're discussing. E.g., Houston is ranked 176th in national rankings. Boise State makes Houston look like MIT. I'm sure Boise State will get a bit more legitimate over time academically with its moderate athletics prominence and the state looking to bolster it for various reasons, but it has a very long ways to go to be even close to the worst of the Big 12. Not even close to Pac-12 material.

US News now ranks BSU as a National University. It was a regional or commuter school last time I checked. Ranking is bottom quartile.

 
I like the idea.

Pac-16 West
Cal
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
UCLA
USC
UW
WSU

Pac-16 East
Arizona
ASU
Colorado
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas Tech
Utah

At first, I was thinking that the West would be far stronger than the East. Oregon, USC and UW are going to make it tough for the rest to win the division. That said, TCU is normally pretty tough, although they've had a rough time recently. Oklahoma State is Oregon of the Midwest but without quite as much high level success. K-State has a solid coach and has been a dangerous team for the past 30 years. Utah is obviously a solid program and CU might benefit from more exposure in the Midwest. I think the West champion would be favored most seasons but at the same time, KSU, OSU and TCU have all put together Top 10 type seasons in the past decade. I could see the Arizona schools hating it though.

EDIT: TCU is a small school and has struggled recently. I'd be pretty happy going with Houston instead.
I basically agree with this alignment, but I'd be more than willing to swap out TCU. Realizing it's a long shot, I'd at least try contacting Oklahoma. With the expansion and the alliance between the Pac-X/Big-X/ACC, the landscape is changing and might present something the Sooners would reconsider. I doubt it...but if they did it would be a major coup for the conference and a punch squarely in the SEC's face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flatlandcoug
425 answered the question pretty well.

I will admit that Boise State has proven that football really is the front porch of a university. It is still not a particularly good university but they have spent a lot of money in the past 20 years raising their profile. Football has allowed them to recruit students that normally would go to UI or other schools and they have taken advantage of that. They aren't nearly as trash as they used to be. FWIW, in the latest US News ranking, while they still haven't gotten to the point where they have a specific ranking, they are now #289-389 in that list.
Thanks.
 
Wannstedt said on 670 the Score that several Big 12 schools are already making plans to join other conferences in the future. He said Oklahoma State and Kansas State will join the Pac-12, West Virginia will join the ACC and Kansas and Iowa State will join the Big Ten.

That boat has already sailed now that the B12 has expanded.
 
You are correct. I am actually glad things worked out the way they did. While I would have been happy to see some of the teams come into the PAC12, I wanted to see the Big 12 survive and even strengthen themselves. I like the teams that were added.
 
You are correct. I am actually glad things worked out the way they did. While I would have been happy to see some of the teams come into the PAC12, I wanted to see the Big 12 survive and even strengthen themselves. I like the teams that were added.

I think that the Big 12 did the best that they could in a tough situation and as long as there is no dropoff with coaching changes or other things, they picked up teams that are bringing quality to both football and basketball.

I still think we could possibly steal KSU, OSU, TCU and Houston if we wanted to expand to 16 teams in the future. That said, looking at how the Pac-12 has played so far, I can't say that I feel as strongly about that as I would have two weeks ago.
 
ADVERTISEMENT