SDSU is the obvious FIRST choice for me. The entire PAC relies on So Cal recruiting and if the PAC lost ALL presence there, that could really hurt MULTIPLE PAC schools. We just CAN'T let that happen.
And if everyone stays and we go back to 12 schools, the next obvious choice for me is SMU. Getting into another time zone and fertile recruiting ground makes them an easy choice for me.
That list of choices is sad. None of those schools will add value or increase prestige. Should have added some Big 12 schools before they had a chance to surpass us because now the options will be low tier G5s.
I'm not even sure there will be an opportunity to expand anyway because that would require having a media deal.
If the PAC is expanding then SDSU is a no brainer. I’d personally love to add SMU and Tulane giving us inroads into Texas and Louisiana, as well as Boise State, a longer shot I suppose but the Broncos have certainly been one of the best teams in D1 football for two decades.
I'm sure Michigan will come when Notre Dame accepts the invite. Schools will line up to make less revenue than all the other P5 leagues and watch games on the CN and AOL.
Remember how the Big East announced that they were adding San Diego State, Boise State, and SMU and then the plan collapsed? That was just barely over 10 years ago.
I think this all comes down to a revenue sharing calculus based on splits of telecast rights deals, a bit of math I cannot do bc I don’t have the figures before me and because I am frankly too stupid to do math.
But IMO it would be cool to go big and add six teams - SD State, SMU, UNLV, Hawaii, Boise, Fresno
That's an interesting idea (O. Overall) : consolidate the west market by grabbing six programs in one swoop. It would feel kinda weird, but U$C and fUCLA already blew up the family, so what the heck.
Here is the argument for Tulane: (1) SMU needs a travel partner and host partner so our basketball teams have 2 teams to play when we travel; (2) adds games in central time zone giving the conference more tv to sell; (3) expands the conference recruiting area (Cal in particular is going after more Texas and south central kids); (4) academic fit, (5) engaged fans and alumni, (6) it is becoming a very popular school for California kids, and (7) love those road trips. Their continued success in football and basketball will depend on their investment and joining a Power 5 helps with that. They probably understand that as well as or better than our admin .
I think it would be mistake to let Tulane in based on recent performance. Rutgers rode a good year or two into the B1G (which was more of an excuse to grab the market). Also Tulane is not west or even southwest...it is southeast. Just an odd ball (IMO).
I often agree with you, but not entirely in this case. Tulane makes sense if SMU is added. Tulane is closer to SMU than Colorado is to Utah, and NO is closer to Tucson than Eugene is. For the schools in the former southern division, it is as easy to travel to NO as to the Pac northwest. Tulane makes sense as a travel partner for SMU. So if the PAC adds 4, Tulane and UNLV make sense as 3 and 4.
I agree Tulane has no tradition of playing PAC schools ... neither does SMU and UNLV may have scheduled PAC 12 schools but there are no rivalries. Also, Tulane would fit in other ways ... it would be the the third highest ranked school academically in the conference after Cal and Stanford. Tulane also makes sense for TV and for recruiting given the location and time zone.
Lastly, Cal fans should not be criticizing Tulane's record. Last year was not a one-off. They have been to 5 bowl games in the last 10 years, and 4 bowl games in the last 5 years. They have a 12 win season and a Cotton Bowl victory over USC. I wish we could say any of those things. That said, they have been playing in the AAC. But the AAC has been the top group of 5 conference, and included UCF, Cinn, Hou and SMU. Also Tulane's M basketball team is trending up; they won 20 games last year. With PAC membership, they can increase athletic department spending.
Hi. We are looking at the same data but at different time periods. I clearly focused on the last 10 years - not the 118 years since Tulane started football. For expansion purposes, I don't see the relevance of Tulane's record going back any further. Why should 1908, 1938, 1978 or even 2000 matter? I do see the relevance of Tulane for tv inventory, academic rating and recruiting areas.
You say Tulane and SMU don't have a common history .... they play in the same conference and have played each other 29 times, most of those in the last 25 years. Cal and San Diego St have played each other 8 times despite being the same state. Washington has played SD St 3 times. Does that matter for adding SD St?
Probably like you, I would prefer the PAC to stay as is with UCLA and U$C. But the world has changed. Because they have left, I am not philosophically opposed to geographic expansion. And If we add SMU then Tulane works. If we don't add SMU,then I agree Tulane does not make sense.
The problem with SMU is they deliver little if any of the Dallas market. It's already saturated with U of Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech. And after those 3 are Oklahoma, LSU, Baylor, TCU, etc.
If the Big 12 hasn't invited them after all this time what makes the Pac 12 think they'll add value?
My issue with UNLV is that they are historically one of the worst athletic programs in the 10 major conferences IIRC. They would need to be paired with someone really beneficial to the Pac-10/12, but there's nobody like that left over.
For obvious reasons, I would love to see Hawaii get invited. Zero chance it happens before the new stadium is completed though, which is at least a few years out.
SDSU is the obvious FIRST choice for me. The entire PAC relies on So Cal recruiting and if the PAC lost ALL presence there, that could really hurt MULTIPLE PAC schools. We just CAN'T let that happen.
And if everyone stays and we go back to 12 schools, the next obvious choice for me is SMU. Getting into another time zone and fertile recruiting ground makes them an easy choice for me.
That list of choices is sad. None of those schools will add value or increase prestige. Should have added some Big 12 schools before they had a chance to surpass us because now the options will be low tier G5s.
I'm not even sure there will be an opportunity to expand anyway because that would require having a media deal.
If the PAC is expanding then SDSU is a no brainer. I’d personally love to add SMU and Tulane giving us inroads into Texas and Louisiana, as well as Boise State, a longer shot I suppose but the Broncos have certainly been one of the best teams in D1 football for two decades.
The Pac 12 has been so mismanaged!!! We talk about TV markets, and we have the worst TV Network! It has sadly, turned into a joke.
My preference:
1. None of the above
2. Big 10
3. SDSU
TIL Tulane is in New Orleans. That would be fun.
much safer than Oakland
sdsu informed mountain west it intends to resign from that league...apologies if it is bad form to post an espn link.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/37864747/sources-san-diego-st-tells-mountain-west-plans-exit
The Pac-12 should add the Big-10 conference.
I'm sure Michigan will come when Notre Dame accepts the invite. Schools will line up to make less revenue than all the other P5 leagues and watch games on the CN and AOL.
Remember how the Big East announced that they were adding San Diego State, Boise State, and SMU and then the plan collapsed? That was just barely over 10 years ago.
Yeah but that won't happen to the Pac 12 because our new media deal should be announced in a few weeks and it's gonna be good according to WSU.
OTHER
I think this all comes down to a revenue sharing calculus based on splits of telecast rights deals, a bit of math I cannot do bc I don’t have the figures before me and because I am frankly too stupid to do math.
But IMO it would be cool to go big and add six teams - SD State, SMU, UNLV, Hawaii, Boise, Fresno
That's an interesting idea (O. Overall) : consolidate the west market by grabbing six programs in one swoop. It would feel kinda weird, but U$C and fUCLA already blew up the family, so what the heck.
SDSU and SMU. If we add 4 then Tulane and UNLV.
Here is the argument for Tulane: (1) SMU needs a travel partner and host partner so our basketball teams have 2 teams to play when we travel; (2) adds games in central time zone giving the conference more tv to sell; (3) expands the conference recruiting area (Cal in particular is going after more Texas and south central kids); (4) academic fit, (5) engaged fans and alumni, (6) it is becoming a very popular school for California kids, and (7) love those road trips. Their continued success in football and basketball will depend on their investment and joining a Power 5 helps with that. They probably understand that as well as or better than our admin .
I think it would be mistake to let Tulane in based on recent performance. Rutgers rode a good year or two into the B1G (which was more of an excuse to grab the market). Also Tulane is not west or even southwest...it is southeast. Just an odd ball (IMO).
I often agree with you, but not entirely in this case. Tulane makes sense if SMU is added. Tulane is closer to SMU than Colorado is to Utah, and NO is closer to Tucson than Eugene is. For the schools in the former southern division, it is as easy to travel to NO as to the Pac northwest. Tulane makes sense as a travel partner for SMU. So if the PAC adds 4, Tulane and UNLV make sense as 3 and 4.
I agree Tulane has no tradition of playing PAC schools ... neither does SMU and UNLV may have scheduled PAC 12 schools but there are no rivalries. Also, Tulane would fit in other ways ... it would be the the third highest ranked school academically in the conference after Cal and Stanford. Tulane also makes sense for TV and for recruiting given the location and time zone.
Lastly, Cal fans should not be criticizing Tulane's record. Last year was not a one-off. They have been to 5 bowl games in the last 10 years, and 4 bowl games in the last 5 years. They have a 12 win season and a Cotton Bowl victory over USC. I wish we could say any of those things. That said, they have been playing in the AAC. But the AAC has been the top group of 5 conference, and included UCF, Cinn, Hou and SMU. Also Tulane's M basketball team is trending up; they won 20 games last year. With PAC membership, they can increase athletic department spending.
So if we add 4, Tulane is clearly in the top 4.
Hi. We are looking at the same data but at different time periods. I clearly focused on the last 10 years - not the 118 years since Tulane started football. For expansion purposes, I don't see the relevance of Tulane's record going back any further. Why should 1908, 1938, 1978 or even 2000 matter? I do see the relevance of Tulane for tv inventory, academic rating and recruiting areas.
You say Tulane and SMU don't have a common history .... they play in the same conference and have played each other 29 times, most of those in the last 25 years. Cal and San Diego St have played each other 8 times despite being the same state. Washington has played SD St 3 times. Does that matter for adding SD St?
Probably like you, I would prefer the PAC to stay as is with UCLA and U$C. But the world has changed. Because they have left, I am not philosophically opposed to geographic expansion. And If we add SMU then Tulane works. If we don't add SMU,then I agree Tulane does not make sense.
I would go for SDSU, SMU, and UNLV for their TV markets and I would go after Fresno state and Boise State for their programs.
The problem with SMU is they deliver little if any of the Dallas market. It's already saturated with U of Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech. And after those 3 are Oklahoma, LSU, Baylor, TCU, etc.
If the Big 12 hasn't invited them after all this time what makes the Pac 12 think they'll add value?
My issue with UNLV is that they are historically one of the worst athletic programs in the 10 major conferences IIRC. They would need to be paired with someone really beneficial to the Pac-10/12, but there's nobody like that left over.
You mean we would no longer be teh cupcake in the league? (Win-win)
UNLV= University of No Lasting Value. Also, UNLV=U Never Leave Vegas.
For obvious reasons, I would love to see Hawaii get invited. Zero chance it happens before the new stadium is completed though, which is at least a few years out.
Besides San Diego State, I'd take Tulane over SMU.
If geography really matters. Why not Colorado State too?
I like SMU because of recruiting. It's not even being on TV, it's having games close to home that they and their families can visit.