Wilner on Pac-10 expansion
Jon Wilner at the San Jose Mercury News is one of the most well-connected writers covering the Pac-10, and if you're interested in the possible future expansion of the conference, you'll be really interested in this post.
6 months ago
Jeff Nusser
45 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I feel like we've already covered a lot of whats in this article
The Pac-10 wants its own network, but most likely would have to split with another conference. Talks about why Colorado and Utah make the most sense. He throws around some old revenue numbers which we’ve known and then presents some new numbers that the presidents are seeking. I like reading about expansion, but at this point I feel like we’ve almost hit a wall. We know the situation and until something else develops to where we are actually moving forward I feel like we are kind of stuck. It’s good information, just stuff I feel like I’ve already consumed.
I think the notion that the Pac-10 presidents are considering selling their souls is important
That’s not something that’s been reported/confirmed before. And I think that changes the dynamic a little bit.
Good point.
And I wonder if BYU is proven to bring a lot more money to the table than Utah (which I think is a gimme), if they’ll swallow the “academic fit” argument and seriously consider bringing them on board rather than Utah.
Of course, they’d have to change their mascot.
by TiltingRight on Mar 3, 2010 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
From the numbers I have
In football revenue it’s a $10 million dollar difference in favor of BYU. Both schools, by the way, were below where WSU was. TV revenue, on the other hand, is anyone’s guess.
Informative article
It looks like the Pac 10 President’s would now take Texas A&M (or any program) if it meant enough money. When the Pac 10 offered Texas and Colorado to join I remember Texas would not come without A&M. I believe the Pac 10 President’s refused. That doesn’t appear to be the case this time around if the money is right.
However, it would really surprise me if Texas went with the Pac 10 unless the Big 12 went the way of the SWAC. I guess that’s possible if Mizzou heads to the Big 10 along with another Big 12 program like Nebraska. That could leave UT and the rest of the Big 12 teams to put another conference together or seek out the Pac 10 or someone else.
I like the Pac 10 the way it stands and I don’t think expansion would benefit WSU. I know money talks but it would surprise me if going to 12 teams would bring in the kind of money the Pac 10 president’s are looking for.
Interesting times.
Any program other than...
those noted as not having a chance in the article. I think it is relatively well known that the California schools would veto any additional California school and they don’t make sense anyway. The good news for WSU and probably the rest of the NW schools is that they can veto any expansion plans. I could see the UW and even Oregon ok with expansion. I think it makes much less sense for WSU and Oregon State.
It makes more sense for WSU than anyone else
Think about what an extra $5 million to $7 million would do to our athletic budget? That’s chump change to USC, but it would increase our budget by nearly 20 percent. Think about that for a second.
That is huge
I just wonder if the 2 teams added hurt WSU in recruiting more than the bump in revenue is worth.
More money, better facilities, bigger recruiting budget
All add up to equal better recruiting, as well.
That combined with phase III?
Lots and Lots of money.
by spencer peaty on Mar 3, 2010 5:22 PM PST up reply actions
What about Virginia?
Just to spite Tony Bennett and force him back into the Pac-10 since he seems to think the ACC is so great.
by Couginthepink on Mar 3, 2010 11:44 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I found the comments below the article
to be interesting, too. Well, some of them, at least. There are some great thoughts on “monetizing the Mormon church.” We all know BYU travels well, but the big money is in TV, not stadium attendance. BYU consistently gets higher viewership in the SLC market than Utah does, regardless of how well the teams are doing, and gets significantly more viewers if BYU is doing well.
Also, someone stated (quick google search couldn’t verify) that BYU has been involved in some of ESPN’s highest rated games. Clearly, they bring a lot of money to the table, even if they’re not a research institution and won’t play on Sundays. And honestly, BYU is a feeder school for every major graduate and research institution in the Pac10, so it’s not like they’re Boise State when it comes to academics.
Last, I could see a major rivalry developing between, say, Stanford and BYU, and USC and BYU based on all being private schools with a high academic profile. “Saints vs. sinners” (USC), “The Jihad” (Furd)…. I still don’t think it’ll happen as the PX seems hell bent (haha… get it) to exclude the religious school, but from a money perspective, I think there’s a strong case for BYU to come in.
I'd argue that BYU might have the second largest national following in the country
Next to Notre Dame.
But then you have to wonder where the following is located
If it’s already mostly in the footprint (assuming we add one of the utah schools) and the pac-10 is already on their sets, does adding BYU over Utah make sense?
Yes.
Because it means more eyeballs in that footprint watching the games and more exposure for sponsors of games/stadiums/fields.
by TiltingRight on Mar 3, 2010 12:02 PM PST up reply actions
I was playing under the assumption that the markets you're in trumps the ratings within those markets
Obviously I can’t put a number on how many viewers BYU would bring and where they would be from, but I’d assume that’s something that the conference is looking at. I guess my thinking is that the money coming in from BYU would have to be substantially higher than that from Utah for the presidents to be sold on it.
I don't think it does
There are about 6 million Mormons in America and I’d be willing to bet many live within the footprint already (NW, Utah, etc).
Unless the new TV deal is national, and I don’t know if we could pull that off, then the footprint is the important part of the expansion. At this point, we’re working regionally and I figured a new TV deal would be laid out as such. Even a deal with ESPN would be based on regional telecasts within the footprint. So while there may be some Mormons outside of the proposed footprint, I don’t know how that would factor in if the games wouldn’t be in their homes, if that makes sense.
BYU is a terrible academic fit
They just don’t make any sense. Utah does make sense. Although I am against expansion if it does happen I really don’t want BYU to join. I haven’t heard a proposal that make a lot of sense to me though.
Based on what I’ve seen in law school and the professional world, I think that if you ask the typical person across America whether BYU or Utah has a better academic reputation, I would expect a significant majority to side with BYU. I’m not saying that it is a better school, conducts more research, has more publications by its tenured professors, or whatever else might be relevant to Pac-10 presidents … I’m just talking about reputation in the minds of most people. Just my opinion based on experience, how I’ve seen resumes of applicants for jobs get treated, etc.
Utah may trump BYU
I know BYU has a larger following by the Mormons (& people in general) in Utah than UofUtah does, but if UofUtah gets into a BCS conference (like the Pac10) there will be a much larger following. The tide may change in the SLC (Salt Lake City) if USC, Cal and UCLA are coming into town to play the Utes. Or people could drive down to Provo go watch BYU play Louisiana Tech, Nevada or San Jose State…doubt it. People in the area would become fans of both schools until the Holy War, then pick sides.
"For Shizell My Mizell" - SoCalCoug
I don't see it happening
How do you make a deal that both sides of the table (USC and WSU) can be happy with?
Here in pullman many already consider us on the far edges of the Pac-10 competitively, whats going to happen when we expand the conference and split into two divisions? people will simply forget that were even in the conference. In order to motivate us, its gonna take a lot of money and a lot of incentives to convince us to give the vote (same goes for OSU and UW really). that single handedly will eliminate the possibility of UNLV, Sandiego State and the like.
But schools like Stanford or Cal probably can’t be bought into compromising the integrity of the research and academic status of the conference (and personally I’d agree with them). The Pac-10 has always been Student first, Athlete second, and I’d hate to see that change. Sorry BYU, but your not gonna BUY your way into the conference. This also makes a 1,2 knock out for Boise State, no research program, not much money, and a good chance to steal local recruits from the north west schools, no way they’ll get the vote.
The only way I see this ending in a Pac-12 conference is if we can somehow drag over Texas and Texas A&M, and even then it may still get killed when USC decides it doesnt want another super power in the conference.
Whatever happens, Im just glad we have Bill Moos looking out for our best interests, and he’ll make sure WSU doesn’t end up getting screwed over all of this.
Moos has already commented
He wasn’t interested in expansion at Oregon and probably even less at WSU. If Utah/Colorado is the most likely I don’t see those 2 programs making the Pac 12 a big splash. Texas/Texas A&M would make a splash but getting UT to come to the Pac 10 is a stretch. Think about selling the Pac 10 to Alum’s? It’s a tough sell. As an institution it makes a lot of sense but that doesn’t sell tickets.
I am all for revenue but not at the cost of program strength and I think an expanded Pac 10 would hurt WSU. I understand what’s being sold but I don’t think the downside is a good risk for WSU at this point.
I don’t see it happening in the end either.
Athletic Directors don't decide it,
The school presidents do. There is no doubt he will have input though.
by spencer peaty on Mar 3, 2010 5:30 PM PST up reply actions
Only a reply to Bleezz
The Pac 10 commissioner and ADs will take their case to the President in terms of the impact to athletics. The President’s will make the final decision on whether to offer an institution. The Pac 10 has never made a purely athletic decision to expand the conference. It would take a major departure for it to happen now.
It does look like the President’s are seriously considering somewhat of a departure. If they would now consider Texas A&M to get U Texas that a 180 from the last time around.
It amazes me BYU comes up. I don’t want to offend anyone but c’mon.
A few points
the article specifically drops the idea of UNLV, Nevada, SDSU, Boise State, etc. out of the discussion, not an academic fit, and not enough of a following to draw eyes to the TV sets.
BYU isn’t a research institution, but their undergrad academics are top notch. REALLY top notch. Their students are VERY well represented in the grad schools of Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Arizona, Washington, etc. VERY well represented in law schools, medical schools and MBA programs around the west, and the country, in fact. They’re selective about the quality of student they admit.
If BYU were to join the Pac10 rather than Utah, the number of TVs tuned to Pac10 sports is higher—and not just in the state of Utah. The number of tickets sold to all Pac10 sporting events is higher. Financially, BYU makes more sense than any other school, including Colorado, west of the continental divide.
As for whether BYU would help or hurt WSU’s recruiting…? I don’t think they do. The BYU honor code is VERY restrictive. Unless you’re already Mormon, religious, and predisposed to go there, I just don’t see it being a big draw for the average student-athlete. In fact, I would say that Utah and/or Colorado as part of the PX hurts us more than BYU.
If Texas takes the same view regarding maximizing TV revenue as the PX presidents appear to be taking, it makes total sense for them to join the Pac10. Adding TV sets from all of California, Oregon, Arizona and Washington in place of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri…? Yeah, that’s a no-brainer. Likewise, for the Pac10 to add all of Texas, is a no-brainer.
The key thing is, who brings every Pac10 President to the table to vote “yes”? Honestly, I don’t think BYU does, for all the reasons already mentioned, though I think they’d be a good fit, for the most part. Utah, may or may not. Colorado might. Texas SHOULD, but like you said, USC may not. And if we have to take aTm along with Texas, then maybe not. If we take aTm (which isn’t a “research institution”), then we come back to schools like BYU (though there are clearly other issues with them as well), Oklahoma, OK State, etc.
That bit about stealing recruits...
Was directed mostly at Boise State to completely dispel them as candidates (a friend of mine there is still convinced they’re in the running).
“If we take aTm (which isn’t a "research institution"), then we come back to schools like BYU (though there are clearly other issues with them as well), Oklahoma, OK State, etc.”
Could you clarify that as I am not sure what you mean here, as Texas A&M is very much a research institution:
From NSF expenditures on research (which isn’t perfect, but will show a general idea of research output):
TX A&M U. all campuses 456,809
Brigham Young U. all campuses 23,565
In comparions:
WA State U. 171,735
U. WA 713,976
ASU: 152,164
UA: U. AZ 478,680
Here is my favorite U. OR 51,956
Though, in general, I don’t really think that Texas and Texas A&M are really going to be figuring large within the Pac-10 expansion conversations. But, the larger point about ‘research institutions’ might not be as large of a concern as it might appear.
by bibamusmoriendumest on Mar 3, 2010 5:38 PM PST reply actions
minor error
That was intended to be a reply to TiltingRight’s comment – it did not appear quite where it was intended to.
by bibamusmoriendumest on Mar 3, 2010 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
Those numbers aren't too fair and there was an indicator right off the bat
TX A&M U. all campuses
That’s research expenditures from 11 different universities and 7 state agencies.
Anyway, I agree Texas and A&M probably don’t figure into the equation beyond being a pipe dream, but the reason we didn’t take Texas and A&M when the SWAC folded appeared to be an unwillingness to take A&M due to their academics.
Numbers
Those were just quick numbers I grabbed off NSF and just deal with NSF funding (which generally funds hard sciences projects, so it doesn’t include research in the social sciences, humanities, or etc). But, Texas A&M as a whole is a top 20 Research University (http://www.thebatt.com/2.8485/national-science-foundations-names-texas-a-m-member-of-top-20-research-performers-1.1180419), and is a member of the Association of American Universities (as of 2001), an association that WSU really, really, really wants to be a part of. Of course, it is hard to separate the individual campuses out, and not really caring about Texas A&M much at all I am not going to bother looking at the specifics for the College Station campus. I do know that they had a bonfire collapse sometime ago, but then again we also had students rioting.
My larger point is that we shouldn’t get too caught up in what is a ‘research’ university and what is not. For the last ten years or so WSU has been pushing to be a more research oriented University; however many people think of WSU mainly as a drinking school, not as a major research institution.
by bibamusmoriendumest on Mar 3, 2010 6:34 PM PST up reply actions
Honestly
I went by memory on the “research institution” comment. That was the objection to bringing in aTm last time around. The official nomenclature used was “Tier 1 Research institution.” And the only reason it’s worth talking about is it’s the standard the Pac Ten Presidents have used in the past.
by TiltingRight on Mar 3, 2010 8:37 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Really like the idea of a mega conference!
From one of the comments on this article:
I am a big fan of each team in the Pac 10 having in state rivals. I would prefer the expansion to include Utah-BYU. Experts believe this will not work, but hey, the Pac still has Wash. St. and Ore. St. On another note I did see someone else post an idea of a super conference Pac 16, joining many of the Big 12 schools:
WEST: Wash-Wash. St., Ore-Ore St., Stanford-Berkley, UCLA-USC
Southwest: Utah-BYU, Colorado-Nebraska, Tex-Tex A&M, Ariz-Ariz St.
Its obviously a long-shot, but I think expanding to 16 “mouths” could work – as long as we added the Texas, Utah, and Colorado markets; and then included the name recognition of a Nebraska, Texas and A&M. With this type of setup, I think we instantly compete with the SEC for toughest conference and place ourselves higher than any potential Big 10 expansion. Obviously the Big 12 would hate us, but they could always pick up a TCU or Boise State after we screw them over ;-). lol.
Outside of an expansion that includes Texas, I just don’t see it happening before the next TV contract is officially negotiated. Having all 10 university presidents on board is very difficult, but it will be interesting to follow regardless.
I like the mention of Comcast/NBCU entering into the equation. I personally think Comcast with all of its regional networks, the Golf Channel, and now all of NBC’s sports programming (Olympics, Universal Sports, College Football/ND, Sunday night NFL, PGA, etc.) will really begin to make a play in the sports programming side of things.
I agree – if the Pac-10 is going to expand, go big and do the 16-team mega-conference that includes Texas and Texas A&M. It makes a lot of sense – essentially you’d have two 8-team conferences that are loosely affiliated – the old Pac-8 and a new Southwest-8; it would satisfy scheduling concerns for both football and basketball, as all the traditional Pac teams would continue playing each other every year, and you’d add in the novelty game with a team from the other group. The NW would not lose the annual games in LA and the recruiting positives that come with that.
Adding Texas and Texas A&M would be a major boost to the TV package potential for this conference, as well as a major prestige boost – this super conference would be perceived as very nearly the equal of the SEC (something the Pac-10 already is, but few people admit). It would also open up more bowl game possibilities.
Adding just Utah (or BYU) and Colorado doesn’t add a whole lot beyond what the conference already has other than the conference championship game (which is admittedly a pretty big deal) and adds a lot of scheduling headaches and reduces the connection between California and the NW schools. I think Larry Scott and the Pac-10 presidents need to think big and bold and make a play for the Texas schools.
16 team is ideal
But I don’t think that it is likely right away. I think taking a step ladder approach is more likely right now. Texas doesn’t seem to want to jump anywhere right now, even though there seems to be strong overtures from both the Big Ten and Pac 10. Adding CU and Utah, along with the Big Ten stealing at least one Big 12 team starts to eat away at that conference and seems to spell an inevitable demise.
If we aren’t able to jump straight to 16, I’d still rather see us take CU and one of the SLC schools as a stepping stone now, in order to add revenue and set up a better TV deal when the contract is up. In the future, and probably not too distant one, the conference can then make moves towards 16. The short term scheduling issue would be negated by the eventual move to 16. The short term benefits of increasing the footprint would also be helpful.
What 6 teams?
I guess it depends what you are looking for. If you want institutions that all fit then 10 is ideal. If you are only looking at maximizing athletics then more than 10 is ideal. I always hear programs like UT and Florida do not like splitting things 12 ways. I doubt SC would like chopping their piece with another 2 teams unless they are sure the extra teams will ultimately payoff in getting those dollars back.
Ideally
The cu and one of the utah schools gets us to 12 and the pipe dream of the 4 texas schools to 16 at some point if the big 12 folds. All of this is hypothetical. I do believe that adding two increases the revenue enough to make it worthwhile now.
In the future, if the big ten decides its going to 16, we will have to as well
by Brian Floyd on Mar 4, 2010 1:57 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
If the deal can prove
that it gets more money for each school, then they’ll go for it. The Big 12 has the worst demographic numbers once you get outside of Texas. If you add TV sets from AZ, WA, OR and CA to the TX market, you’ve got a LOT of eyeballs.
Besides, with divisions like the one quoted above, Texas could continue to dominate year in and year out in their division, USC could continue to dominate in its division, and holding a championship game that alternates between LA and Dallas would make serious coin. If we traded Oklahoma for BYU (so we’re adding Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, aTm) then the Pac-10 becomes the premier football conference in the country, IMO.
If BYU somehow gets added, they'll have to change there mascot
Because we are the real cougars. We simply can’t have two.
I think in that case we would be known much more widely as
the cougs. Obviously they wouldn’t change their mascot nor would we ours.
by spencer peaty on Mar 4, 2010 12:19 AM PST up reply actions
Well then....
NO PAC TEN FOR YOU!!!
by TiltingRight on Mar 4, 2010 1:19 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
