I know we've discussed this before here, but it's been a while. If the P12 were to expand to 16, which additional four schools would you invite? Geographically, would it have to be Mountain or Pacific time zone? That would leave Texas out, right? Which schools would be competitive quickly? Which ones would be fun road trips? Does it have to be a non-sectarian school? Are academics a consideration at all? Do they need a minimum sized stadium and basketball arena? Current conference affiliation could be a factor too. For example it might be easier to lure a B12 or MWC team than e.g. an SEC team. I'll let you explain which factors are important and why.

This came to mind because one of the SDSU posters was talking about aspiring to join the P12 in another thread, and how there are several highly regarded universities in the P12 that are probably a cut above SDSU: UCLA, Cal and Stanford. I would probably put UW and USC in that category as well. But a genuine question: isn't SDSU on par academically with the rest of the P12 - the Oregon schools, the Arizona schools, the Mountain schools and WSU? I know a couple of kids from my home town, decent students both, going to SDSU. One is a neighbor who got A's and B's in a competitive public HS (which just isn't good enough for any of the UC's). I also don't put much weight into academic reputation - this is an athletic conference, and don't tell me that SDSU's academic standards would put them at an athletic advantage over most of our conference. I actually think SDSU would be one of my four choices. They are already top tier in basketball. With TV money, fertile local recruiting grounds and the imprimatur of P12 athletic prestige, they would quickly become competitive in football and pretty much all the rest of the sports. It is geographically close to the rest of the member schools, and it would be a fun road trip, too.

Some possibilities:
SDSU (fun road trip)
Texas ($$ and fun roadie)
Nevada (drivable from Bay Area)
UNLV (fun roadie)
Fresno (drivable from Bay Area and LA)
Boise (good at football)
BYU (would be competitive at most sports right away)
Utah State (who knows)
Colo State (fun roadie?)
UNM?
NMSU?

I know some of these schools would probably not be competitive in football and basketball immediately but I bet they could ramp up relative quickly with the additional money and recruiting advantages of being a P16 member school. And we have lost in football to half the schools on the above list in my memory so let's not get too snotty here.

Which four would you choose, and why?

We would never add most of those schools academic profiles. Come on now

texas has the longhorn network deal

Wouldn't any new schools have to be research institutions? I thought that was part of the attraction of Oklahoma and Texas as well as Colorado and Utah.

jamonit;842539128 said:

---

We would never add most of those schools academic profiles. Come on now

---

San Diego State is far better academically than most realize.

They turn down more applicants than most schools in the country. It is damned hard to get in to SDSU these days (and it has been for about a decade now). It's not Party U like it used to be back in the 70's.

San Diego State has the best Basketball program of all those schools, and the football program isn't the doormat that it used to be. 5 Bowl seasons in a row. Not bad. They've still got a way to go, but there is a ton of potential there - if the Pac 12 schools aren't afraid of the competition (put SDSU in the Pac 12/14/16 and their recruiting gets a lot better, which is why USC, UCLA, and the Arizona schools want nothing to do with SDSU in the PAC).

Because those four schools don't want SDSU in the PAC it is highly unlikely to happen - even though it makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways.

Actually, if you wanted to hurt USC & UCLA adding SDSU would be a great way to do it...

Bring football back to USF, Santa Clara, and St. Mary's.

jamonit;842539128 said:

---

We would never add most of those schools academic profiles. Come on now

---

Please provide evidence that the listed schools are any worse than WSU, the Oregons, the Arizonas and the Mountains. They might be, I don't know. And why is academic profile important in an athletic conference? I get that the Ivies don't want to compete with State U because they can't recruit and graduate the same athletes, but we already have that built in disadvantage, it seems to me.

Why add something we don't need to add?

In an interview Wednesday, Pac-12 President Larry Scott wouldn't comment on the conference's assessment of any specific school. But he said that when the conference considers new members "the academic brand is as important as the athletic brand." He said the Pac-12 "prides itself on being best of breed academically as well as athletically."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903703604576584771531621708

SDSU's acceptance rate is 34%. That's better than the majority of schools already in the Pac-12.

Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Colorado State

Texas is the crown jewel of college football. Any conference with them has the biggest revenue producer in the game. Of course, will they share it, is the question

The Oklahoma schools plus Colorado State maintain the University-State balance of Oregon, Arizona and Washington plus also keeps natural rivalries of Texas, OU and OSU and Colorado/Colorado State and opens up an East vs Coastal alignment

Expanding by adding puny schools -San Diego, Fresno -and fan bases makes no sense. Add muscle, good programs and new schools that add marginal revenue

GB54;842539150 said:

---

Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Colorado State

Texas is the crown jewel of college football. Any conference with them has the biggest revenue producer in the game. Of course, will they share it, is the question

The Oklahoma schools plus Colorado State maintain the University-State balance of Oregon, Arizona and Washington plus also keeps natural rivalries of Texas, OU and OSU and Colorado/Colorado State and opens up an East vs Coastal alignment

Expanding by adding puny schools -San Diego, Fresno -and fan bases makes no sense. Add muscle, good programs and new schools that add marginal revenue

---

Good point. TV revenue and new markets was also a big point of contention. San Diego isn't going to do much compared to what Texas could bring in.

Can we boot schools? Cougs need to goWe should have premier league and divisions

Not seeing how adding SDSU helps the conference. We aren't going to expand just to have more mouths to feed there has to be a benefit to the existing member institutions. I would rather contract them expand. Let's drop Oregon State and Wazzu.

Jinx: Tommie best me to it while I was reading/replying.

Oklahoma
OSU
Texass
UNLV

going4roses;842539134 said:

---

texas has the longhorn network deal

---

the network might drop them if the crappy coaching continues.

"If academics were paramount, it's fair to assume Texas—No. 45 according to U.S. News—might leave the Big 12, which has limited scholarly distinction. One possible reason it hasn't: political pressure to drag along Texas Tech, an in-state rival that U.S. News ranks No. 160."

from the same link I posted above.

MisterNoodle;842539127 said:

---

I know we've discussed this before here, but it's been a while. If the P12 were to expand to 16, which additional four schools would you invite? Geographically, would it have to be Mountain or Pacific time zone? That would leave Texas out, right? Which schools would be competitive quickly? Which ones would be fun road trips? Does it have to be a non-sectarian school? Are academics a consideration at all? Do they need a minimum sized stadium and basketball arena? Current conference affiliation could be a factor too. For example it might be easier to lure a B12 or MWC team than e.g. an SEC team. I'll let you explain which factors are important and why.

This came to mind because one of the SDSU posters was talking about aspiring to join the P12 in another thread, and how there are several highly regarded universities in the P12 that are probably a cut above SDSU: UCLA, Cal and Stanford. I would probably put UW and USC in that category as well. But a genuine question: isn't SDSU on par academically with the rest of the P12 - the Oregon schools, the Arizona schools, the Mountain schools and WSU? I know a couple of kids from my home town, decent students both, going to SDSU. One is a neighbor who got A's and B's in a competitive public HS (which just isn't good enough for any of the UC's). I also don't put much weight into academic reputation - this is an athletic conference, and don't tell me that SDSU's academic standards would put them at an athletic advantage over most of our conference. I actually think SDSU would be one of my four choices. They are already top tier in basketball. With TV money, fertile local recruiting grounds and the imprimatur of P12 athletic prestige, they would quickly become competitive in football and pretty much all the rest of the sports. It is geographically close to the rest of the member schools, and it would be a fun road trip, too.

Some possibilities:
SDSU (fun road trip)
Texas ($$ and fun roadie)
Nevada (drivable from Bay Area)
UNLV (fun roadie)
Fresno (drivable from Bay Area and LA)
Boise (good at football)
BYU (would be competitive at most sports right away)
Utah State (who knows)
Colo State (fun roadie?)
UNM?
NMSU?

I know some of these schools would probably not be competitive in football and basketball immediately but I bet they could ramp up relative quickly with the additional money and recruiting advantages of being a P16 member school. And we have lost in football to half the schools on the above list in my memory so let's not get too snotty here.

Which four would you choose, and why?

---

1. You need Texas for this to be attractive and Texas might be too big of a hassle. Maybe a couple years of sucking in football will make them see the value of a strong conference instead of one they can run roughshod over.

2. the reason you need Texas is otherwise you are just further diluting the California recruiting base. Need to bring the state of Texas recruiting base into the Pac, and I don't think TCU, Texas Tech, or Baylor are going to do it.

3. For this to work you need to the old Pac-8 on one side, essentially sharing the California recruiting base, and you need teams to join the mountains and zona's to share the Texas base. So, no Cal states.

4. Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, and one of Texas Tech or Baylor in my opinion would be the best options with TCU potentially in the conversation. That would actually be a good deal, I think.

5. If you can't get the Oklahomas, I'd go with BYU and CSU, but that doesn't really add anything. Just rounds it out and gives CU and Utah natural rivals.

6. If you don't get the Texas market, I just don't think it provides any benefit and you are just doing it to get to 16. Don't see the point. I don't see it working either. You'd have to again do an unnatural North/South split to give everyone a part of the California market and I don't see the California schools being happy about that.

Doesn't the new Big12 agreement make it difficult for any of those teams to join for many years?

Not sure why we didn't look more seriously at Kansas and Kansas State to join when the window was open. That would have opened up not only Kansas City but the midwest to the Pac 12.

Just don't see either Oklahoma schools nor Texas joining. On the other hand, could see Baylor (opens Texas market), TCU (opens Texas market) or Air Force (provides additional national coverage) as future options.

GB54;842539150 said:

---

Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Colorado State

Texas is the crown jewel of college football. Any conference with them has the biggest revenue producer in the game. Of course, will they share it, is the question

The Oklahoma schools plus Colorado State maintain the University-State balance of Oregon, Arizona and Washington plus also keeps natural rivalries of Texas, OU and OSU and Colorado/Colorado State and opens up an East vs Coastal alignment

Expanding by adding puny schools -San Diego, Fresno -and fan bases makes no sense. Add muscle, good programs and new schools that add marginal revenue

---

Actually, in the last fiscal year, Oregon was the top revenue producing program in the country, beating Texas. Not likely to stay that way, however.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

If we got the original Pac8 as the West division and the East as: UA, ASU, Utah, Colo, Texas, Oklahoma + 2 (Baylor, TCU, or OSU), I'm in.

TheSouseFamily;842539175 said:

---

Actually, in the last fiscal year, Oregon was the top revenue producing program in the country, beating Texas. Not likely to stay that way, however.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

---

Interesting, you have Texas at 2, Oklahoma at 7 and Oklahoma State at 11, all ahead of any other PAC 12 school

The only way I see the Pac-12 expanding is if Oklahoma goes to the SEC. I don't think Texas can carry a conference by themselves, as many eyeballs as they bring they need someone compelling to play against. Baylor, TCU, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St and Okie State aren't all that compelling (Texas Tech could be if they were most consistent in winning). Without Texas AM, Nebraska, or Oklahoma, ESPN would drop the Longhorn network paving the way for the Longhorns to be courted by all the major conferences. And remember, as cynical as this may be, I believe ESPN is the most important decision-maker involved. They shaped the ACC, saved the Big-XII, killed the Big East and turned the SEC into what it is today. The only conferences with some autonomy are the Big-Ten (thanks to their network) and the Pac-12.

GB54;842539179 said:

---

Interesting, you have Texas at 2, Oklahoma at 7 and Oklahoma State at 11, all ahead of any other PAC 12 school

---

Props to UC Davis beating out a good chunk of the Mountain West and Mac in spite of being a division lower for football.

GB54;842539179 said:

---

Interesting, you have Texas at 2, Oklahoma at 7 and Oklahoma State at 11, all ahead of any other PAC 12 school

---

And Cal grossing more than UCLA.

I assume USC is missing because they're private but I'm sure they're up there.

OaktownBear;842539165 said:

---

1. You need Texas for this to be attractive and Texas might be too big of a hassle. Maybe a couple years of sucking in football will make them see the value of a strong conference instead of one they can run roughshod over.

2. the reason you need Texas is otherwise you are just further diluting the California recruiting base. Need to bring the state of Texas recruiting base into the Pac, and I don't think TCU, Texas Tech, or Baylor are going to do it.

3. For this to work you need to the old Pac-8 on one side, essentially sharing the California recruiting base, and you need teams to join the mountains and zona's to share the Texas base. So, no Cal states.

4. Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, and one of Texas Tech or Baylor in my opinion would be the best options with TCU potentially in the conversation. That would actually be a good deal, I think.

5. If you can't get the Oklahomas, I'd go with BYU and CSU, but that doesn't really add anything. Just rounds it out and gives CU and Utah natural rivals.

6. If you don't get the Texas market, I just don't think it provides any benefit and you are just doing it to get to 16. Don't see the point. I don't see it working either. You'd have to again do an unnatural North/South split to give everyone a part of the California market and I don't see the California schools being happy about that.

---

I agree with all of this. Texas has to be in the mix and we might have to hold our noses to do it because they envision themselves as King Sh*t. They'd probably argue to move the Pac 12 HQ to Texas. I actually would love to see Baylor or TCU though Texas Tech would probably be the bridesmaid. I wouldn't mind Oklahoma and Okie State. They aren't academic powerhouses but they have revenue. I think the Pac 12 absolutely wants natural rivalries which make CSU and BYU tolerable if Okies don't come. No way I see adding SDSU, which actually has a bigger enrollment than Cal and a 34% acceptance rate which is darned good, but no natural rivalry and little revenue football wise...However, I think if they were in the Pac12, that might change because they are a popular school and actually a research university now....It would be heaven to keep the old Pac 8 together and then split the Zona schools with the 6 others. That would be awesome.... Colorado and Utah would hate being cut off from the California market but hey, we saved their bacon already and should be thankful just for being here. As long as Texas comes around, and it is clear who is the boss, it would work.

TheSouseFamily;842539146 said:

---

SDSU's acceptance rate is 34%. That's better than the majority of schools already in the Pac-12.

---

Yeah, there are only so many partiers they can fit in. What's the actual academic profile of the incoming students compared to the weaker P12 schools?

Cal_Fan2;842539188 said:

---

I agree with all of this. Texas has to be in the mix and we might have to hold our noses to do it because they envision themselves as King Sh*t. They'd probably argue to move the Pac 12 HQ to Texas. I actually would love to see Baylor or TCU though Texas Tech would probably be the bridesmaid. I wouldn't mind Oklahoma and Okie State. They aren't academic powerhouses but they have revenue. I think the Pac 12 absolutely wants natural rivalries which make CSU and BYU tolerable if Okies don't come. No way I see adding SDSU, which actually has a bigger enrollment than Cal and a 34% acceptance rate which is darned good, but no natural rivalry and little revenue football wise...However, I think if they were in the Pac12, that might change because they are a popular school and actually a research university now....It would be heaven to keep the old Pac 8 together and then split the Zona schools with the 6 others. That would be awesome.... Colorado and Utah would hate being cut off from the California market but hey, we saved their bacon already and should be thankful just for being here. As long as Texas comes around, and it is clear who is the boss, it would work.

---

For the record, by noting SDSU's admit rate, I wasn't suggesting that they should be in the conference. just inserting a factoid into the discussion about academics. I actually agree with literally everything you just wrote.

I'm pretty sure BYU wants to stay independent, otherwise they would be a logical choice to couple with Utah. Then I would add Boise St. to couple with Colorado. Or something like that.

I'm good the way it is though.

TheSouseFamily;842539146 said:

---

SDSU's acceptance rate is 34%. That's better than the majority of schools already in the Pac-12.

---

Please. Their acceptance rate is what it is because there's not a single person on this board who even considered applying there.

I think Baylor and TCU are better football options but don't know whether two private religious schools would fit into a mostly public non sectarian conference with only two private schools, both of whom worship Satan.

I have went back on forth on this topic for awhile.

Here are my thoughts...At one point in my life not long ago I thought there would never be a chance the Aztecs would be invited to the Pac 12.

Just too many factors. UCLA and $C already in SoCal...Academic factor (which as my good friend Panther :p above says is better than many think)...etc...etc...etc.

My thoughts in 2015 are still that the Aztecs will not get an invite to the Pac12......UNLESS....(and I think this may happen down the road)...

TV continues to pay such extravagant money and demands that for playoff TV all major conf's go to 16 teams. In this case the Aztecs would be a very valuable addition to the Big 12 or the Pac 12 as a 15th or 16th team. At that point I think U$C and UCLA would finally put their tails between their legs and vote for the addition.

When you look at all the possibilities of major conf's adding teams to 14 and then look what is left. If it goes to 16, the Aztecs are easily one of the best that is left....For potential AND money.

***now keep in mind, I realize the Pac 12 could steal someone like Oklahoma, Oklahoma State etc...And that ok, that would leave 2 more open spots in the Big 12 for the Aztecs.

The best thing about expanding is that we could create a Pac 8 division matching the old conference. Once schools start bickering we could break off and create the old Pac 8 Conference again. Champ goes to the Rose Bowl. For me, that would be ideal.

ducky23;842539207 said:

---

Please. Their acceptance rate is what it is because there's not a single person on this board who even considered applying there.

---

I'm not comparing SDSU to Cal, numnuts. But the data on admissions, GPA, SAT/ACT) suggests they certainly compare (favorably in some cases) with other schools in the Pac-12 like the Ariizonas, Wazzu, Utah, etc.

dajo9;842539211 said:

---

The best thing about expanding is that we could create a Pac 8 division matching the old conference. Once schools start bickering we could break off and create the old Pac 8 Conference again. Champ goes to the Rose Bowl. For me, that would be ideal.

---

Best realignment post EVER. +1,000,000,000. Yeah, billion.