Both schools have announced big spending and n athletic/football projects. The rumor that is these projects are to help both be more appealing to the big 12.

If Boise were to be invited..I hope we go hard after smu

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

So their lack of academic programs is what leads them to make unwise decisions with their money.

Universities need to get back to preparing students for life. The lucre of athletics has been to great for them to maintain their true focus.

aggies22 wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:35 am

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

So their lack of academic programs is what leads them to make unwise decisions with their money.

The people running the university studied at the university!

In my opinion, I don’t really see a scenario SMU joins the mwc.

I think the mwc already missed a massive opportunity by not adding UTSA (and a partner, like North Texas).

Had that happened, I could see SMU more likely in the future.

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 8:20 am

In my opinion, I don’t really see a scenario SMU joins the mwc.

I think the mwc already missed a massive opportunity by not adding UTSA (and a partner, like North Texas).

Had that happened, I could see SMU more likely in the future.

I'm also not sure I see a scenario that Boise gets a P5 invite. The football has not been good but not dominate in the last 5-8 years, basketball is only occasionally decent, and the rest of their sports are pretty average. Any real discussion about academics and Boise is a non-starter. Even taking what was publicly released about the B12's evaluation of programs with a few grains of salt, Boise was not really in the conversation at all for an invite.

I would think USU has a better chance so long as athletics keeps trending in the same direction and the academic side keeps doing what it has been doing the last few years. But that chance is still pretty low.

More realistically, I see the B12 imploding when there is other movement among the P4 conferences and the MWC is able to pick over the schools left behind. Most likely schools include everyone except Kansas, West Virginia, and maybe Oklahoma State. Baylor, TCU, and BYU will all probably have problems finding landing spots due to their religious affiliations, with BYU having the most difficulty unless the MWC tosses them a lifeline.

bwcrc wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 9:22 am

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 8:20 am

In my opinion, I don’t really see a scenario SMU joins the mwc.

I think the mwc already missed a massive opportunity by not adding UTSA (and a partner, like North Texas).

Had that happened, I could see SMU more likely in the future.

I'm also not sure I see a scenario that Boise gets a P5 invite. The football has not been good but not dominate in the last 5-8 years, basketball is only occasionally decent, and the rest of their sports are pretty average. Any real discussion about academics and Boise is a non-starter. Even taking what was publicly released about the B12's evaluation of programs with a few grains of salt, Boise was not really in the conversation at all for an invite.

I would think USU has a better chance so long as athletics keeps trending in the same direction and the academic side keeps doing what it has been doing the last few years. But that chance is still pretty low.

More realistically, I see the B12 imploding when there is other movement among the P4 conferences and the MWC is able to pick over the schools left behind. Most likely schools include everyone except Kansas, West Virginia, and maybe Oklahoma State. Baylor, TCU, and BYU will all probably have problems finding landing spots due to their religious affiliations, with BYU having the most difficulty unless the MWC tosses them a lifeline.

Agreed, B12 as we know it is not long for this world, they will essentially become the new AAC+ Baylor, TCU and ybu. The P4 conferences will probably form their own Athletics Association. That's where my money is.

Hoot wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 8:10 am

aggies22 wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:35 am

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

So their lack of academic programs is what leads them to make unwise decisions with their money.

The people running the university studied at the university!

In their defense, it is very hard to drive a big truck and make financial decisions at the same time.

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

This has always confused me. Perhaps someone on the board can help clear this up for me.

Aside from being a "smaller market for tv revenue", I've heard NUMEROUS amounts of pundits and radio hosts point to Boise State's lack of academic prestige as being the next main factor for why they were never considered for PAC 12 expansion, even though it made sense geographically and BSU was in their golden hour during the time the PAC 10 expanded to 12.

Why would an athletic conference whose governing body's only concern is building and maintaining a league that can compete strongly on courts and fields, need or want to factor academics into the equation? I don't understand what academics or perceived academic prestige has anything to do with membership in an athletic conference. The only league where that makes any sense to me is the Ivy league (for obvious reasons).

Somebody please explain to me why you need to have a medical school or a law school to be a member of a P5 conference, and more specifically, the arrogant and self-assured PAC 12?

Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:07 am

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

This has always confused me. Perhaps someone on the board can help clear this up for me.

Aside from being a "smaller market for tv revenue", I've heard NUMEROUS amounts of pundits and radio hosts point to Boise State's lack of academic prestige as being the next main factor for why they were never considered for PAC 12 expansion, even though it made sense geographically and BSU was in their golden hour during the time the PAC 10 expanded to 12.

Why would an athletic conference whose governing body's only concern is building and maintaining a league that can compete strongly on courts and fields, need or want to factor academics into the equation? I don't understand what academics or perceived academic prestige has anything to do with membership in an athletic conference. The only league where that makes any sense to me is the Ivy league (for obvious reasons).

Somebody please explain to me why you need to have a medical school or a law school to be a member of a P5 conference, and more specifically, the arrogant and self-assured PAC 12?

The Pac12 and Big 10 both actually do have very high academic standards. The only reason washington state or oregon state are in the pac12 is because they were founding members.

Most other conferences pretend to care about the academic level of their schools. But taking a school as bad academically as Bosie makes it very hard to pretend like you care, which creates a problem.

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:11 am

Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:07 am

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

This has always confused me. Perhaps someone on the board can help clear this up for me.

Aside from being a "smaller market for tv revenue", I've heard NUMEROUS amounts of pundits and radio hosts point to Boise State's lack of academic prestige as being the next main factor for why they were never considered for PAC 12 expansion, even though it made sense geographically and BSU was in their golden hour during the time the PAC 10 expanded to 12.

Why would an athletic conference whose governing body's only concern is building and maintaining a league that can compete strongly on courts and fields, need or want to factor academics into the equation? I don't understand what academics or perceived academic prestige has anything to do with membership in an athletic conference. The only league where that makes any sense to me is the Ivy league (for obvious reasons).

Somebody please explain to me why you need to have a medical school or a law school to be a member of a P5 conference, and more specifically, the arrogant and self-assured PAC 12?

The Pac12 and Big 10 both actually do have very high academic standards. The only reason washington state or oregon state are in the pac12 is because they were founding members.

Most other conferences pretend to care about the academic level of their schools. But taking a school as bad academically as Bosie makes it very hard to pretend like you care, which creates a problem.

Thanks, Larry.

So it is written into those respective leagues' charters that there are certain academic benchmarks that must be met in order to be considered for membership?

To me, it seems like an antiquated policy and I'm still confused what benefit that provides to an athletic conference. For argument's sake, if every school in the Mountain West were required to have either a law school or a medical school, how would that benefit Craig Thompson? How would it benefit the strength of athletics at each member school? How would that make us consistently better than the AAC or the other G5 leagues? Seems like a nothing burger.

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:11 am

Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:07 am

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

This has always confused me. Perhaps someone on the board can help clear this up for me.

Aside from being a "smaller market for tv revenue", I've heard NUMEROUS amounts of pundits and radio hosts point to Boise State's lack of academic prestige as being the next main factor for why they were never considered for PAC 12 expansion, even though it made sense geographically and BSU was in their golden hour during the time the PAC 10 expanded to 12.

Why would an athletic conference whose governing body's only concern is building and maintaining a league that can compete strongly on courts and fields, need or want to factor academics into the equation? I don't understand what academics or perceived academic prestige has anything to do with membership in an athletic conference. The only league where that makes any sense to me is the Ivy league (for obvious reasons).

Somebody please explain to me why you need to have a medical school or a law school to be a member of a P5 conference, and more specifically, the arrogant and self-assured PAC 12?

The Pac12 and Big 10 both actually do have very high academic standards. The only reason washington state or oregon state are in the pac12 is because they were founding members.

Most other conferences pretend to care about the academic level of their schools. But taking a school as bad academically as Bosie makes it very hard to pretend like you care, which creates a problem.

If only ADs were voting on who to invite, then I don't think academics would matter at all. But because you have university presidents as those ultimately voting on it, academics matter some. As bitter as some athletic rivalries are (think Michigan/Ohio State), there is often a lot of cooperation on the academic side of things between conference schools. That is one reason why academics play some small (very minor?) part in the decision.

bwcrc wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:27 am

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:11 am

Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:07 am

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

This has always confused me. Perhaps someone on the board can help clear this up for me.

Aside from being a "smaller market for tv revenue", I've heard NUMEROUS amounts of pundits and radio hosts point to Boise State's lack of academic prestige as being the next main factor for why they were never considered for PAC 12 expansion, even though it made sense geographically and BSU was in their golden hour during the time the PAC 10 expanded to 12.

Why would an athletic conference whose governing body's only concern is building and maintaining a league that can compete strongly on courts and fields, need or want to factor academics into the equation? I don't understand what academics or perceived academic prestige has anything to do with membership in an athletic conference. The only league where that makes any sense to me is the Ivy league (for obvious reasons).

Somebody please explain to me why you need to have a medical school or a law school to be a member of a P5 conference, and more specifically, the arrogant and self-assured PAC 12?

The Pac12 and Big 10 both actually do have very high academic standards. The only reason washington state or oregon state are in the pac12 is because they were founding members.

Most other conferences pretend to care about the academic level of their schools. But taking a school as bad academically as Bosie makes it very hard to pretend like you care, which creates a problem.

If only ADs were voting on who to invite, then I don't think academics would matter at all. But because you have university presidents as those ultimately voting on it, academics matter some. As bitter as some athletic rivalries are (think Michigan/Ohio State), there is often a lot of cooperation on the academic side of things between conference schools. That is one reason why academics play some small (very minor?) part in the decision.

This I can wrap my head around. Thank you!

ViAggie wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 10:08 am

Agreed, B12 as we know it is not long for this world, they will essentially become the new AAC+ Baylor, TCU and ybu. The P4 conferences will probably form their own Athletics Association. That's where my money is.

I think the next big move is the Big 10 takes USC, Oregon, Washington and UCLA. Two 9 team divisions could be doable. Maybe the Big 12 step in and plucks Utah, the Arizona schools plus one back east (Memphis). The Big 12 is currently the 5 in P5, but it’s really it’s the SEC, then the B1G, then everyone else.

Full wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:57 am

ViAggie wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 10:08 am

Agreed, B12 as we know it is not long for this world, they will essentially become the new AAC+ Baylor, TCU and ybu. The P4 conferences will probably form their own Athletics Association. That's where my money is.

I think the next big move is the Big 10 takes USC, Oregon, Washington and UCLA. Two 9 team divisions could be doable. Maybe the Big 12 step in and plucks Utah, the Arizona schools plus one back east (Memphis). The Big 12 is currently the 5 in P5, but it’s really it’s the SEC, then the B1G, then everyone else.

I think it will be something along those likes.

I dont think the P4 will ever be thing. There is too much of a difernce between the big10 and sec and the other 3 conferences.

We are head for a power 2, which will be the top 32-38 schools after they figure out how to unload the deadweight at the bottom of the power5.

At which point USU is likely in a conference with washington state and oregon state. And lets be honest, we are currently a lot closer to wsu than wsu is to USC.

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 8:20 am

In my opinion, I don’t really see a scenario SMU joins the mwc.

I think the mwc already missed a massive opportunity by not adding UTSA (and a partner, like North Texas).

Had that happened, I could see SMU more likely in the future.

I've ALWAYS thought Texas-San Antonio had underrated value.

Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:07 am

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

This has always confused me. Perhaps someone on the board can help clear this up for me.

Aside from being a "smaller market for tv revenue", I've heard NUMEROUS amounts of pundits and radio hosts point to Boise State's lack of academic prestige as being the next main factor for why they were never considered for PAC 12 expansion, even though it made sense geographically and BSU was in their golden hour during the time the PAC 10 expanded to 12.

Why would an athletic conference whose governing body's only concern is building and maintaining a league that can compete strongly on courts and fields, need or want to factor academics into the equation? I don't understand what academics or perceived academic prestige has anything to do with membership in an athletic conference. The only league where that makes any sense to me is the Ivy league (for obvious reasons).

Somebody please explain to me why you need to have a medical school or a law school to be a member of a P5 conference, and more specifically, the arrogant and self-assured PAC 12?

Because it is the University Presidents and Trustees that actually make decisions vis-a-vis conference affiliation, and these folks still care about academic prestige. They don't want to be affiliated with "lesser" institutions academically.

Time will tell but my guess is that we will see contraction with the p5 teams before we see further expansion. It has been
discussed many times about realignment where there would only be 40 teams plus or minus in a top division. I think paying
players with name and likeness deals will result in a major realignment and will not be suprised if the NCAA is no longer involved in professional college football. What I am most interested in is who will get left out which may included Utah, BYU , Colorado Washington State, Orego State , the Arizona schools, Kansas, Iowa State, Kentucky, Vanderbuilt, to name a few. Just my opinion

NVAggie wrote:Universities need to get back to preparing students for life. The lucre of athletics has been to great for them to maintain their true focus.

Agreed. I’m glad to see USU making significant improvements to research and research grants. Spending on athletics I think is short sighted. Higher Ed might have some tough times ahead. I don’t predict that athletics will fail, but something will have to give. The endorsements and tv contracts etc can’t continue to grow exponentially.

Times, they are a changin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I figured Boise State would go and follow BYU with whole Big 12 thing at some point while us and Colorado State go to the PAC 12 at some point.

NVAggie wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:42 am

Universities need to get back to preparing students for life. The lucre of athletics has been to great for them to maintain their true focus.

A breath of fresh air and solid reasoning here NVAggie, and a big thank you.

The idea of higher education with attached sports programs has been lost in the wilderness of collegiate athletics. Also lost is the capacity to make the Olympic Sports programs into anything beyond an inept non functional money draining effort.

I do not think that anyone should be holding their breath for the PAC-12 to invite more schools. More likely that the current structure of college athletics breaks down than the university presidents of places like Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, and UW talk to the Boise States of the world. Wazzu and OSU are lucky to be founding members, and the AZ schools very fortunate they were added when they were, especially ASU. CU fits decently well, but I think Utah was invited through gritted teeth. There is a lot of pride out here on the coast, and the big academic names would have to be severed from the mainland in an earthquake before any Cal States, mid-tier land grants, religious schools, etc are added to the party.

A little story from years ago about UTAH and the now PAC 12. Certainly a story, but a bit of digging years ago left me with some confidence there is some truth to the following short story.

For what it's worth, when UTAH got the PAC invite, their A D was traveling to Europe for a family vacation and received a frantic call from the school president to return to base Utah. Seems the PAC 10 originally wanted TEXAS and COLORADO, and were working against a hard time line. The Longhorns said a final no thank you to the PAC 10, and COLORADO was saddled with UTAH vs their primary choice of TEXAS as a traveling partner for the PAC10 invitation. Default then to COLORADO and eventually to UTAH getting the formal and published invitations, and smiles broke out for the UTES.

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑

May 19th, 2022, 5:44 pm

A little story from years ago about UTAH and the now PAC 12. Certainly a story, but a bit of digging years ago left me with some confidence there is some truth to the following short story.

For what it's worth, when UTAH got the PAC invite, their A D was traveling to Europe for a family vacation and received a frantic call from the school president to return to base Utah. Seems the PAC 10 originally wanted TEXAS and COLORADO, and were working against a hard time line. The Longhorns said a final no thank you to the PAC 10, and COLORADO was saddled with UTAH vs their primary choice of TEXAS as a traveling partner for the PAC10 invitation. Default then to COLORADO and eventually to UTAH getting the formal and published invitations, and smiles broke out for the UTES.

I want to say that at one time it was originally supposed to be Oklahoma and Texas.

bwcrc wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:27 am

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:11 am

Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:07 am

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

This has always confused me. Perhaps someone on the board can help clear this up for me.

Aside from being a "smaller market for tv revenue", I've heard NUMEROUS amounts of pundits and radio hosts point to Boise State's lack of academic prestige as being the next main factor for why they were never considered for PAC 12 expansion, even though it made sense geographically and BSU was in their golden hour during the time the PAC 10 expanded to 12.

Why would an athletic conference whose governing body's only concern is building and maintaining a league that can compete strongly on courts and fields, need or want to factor academics into the equation? I don't understand what academics or perceived academic prestige has anything to do with membership in an athletic conference. The only league where that makes any sense to me is the Ivy league (for obvious reasons).

Somebody please explain to me why you need to have a medical school or a law school to be a member of a P5 conference, and more specifically, the arrogant and self-assured PAC 12?

The Pac12 and Big 10 both actually do have very high academic standards. The only reason washington state or oregon state are in the pac12 is because they were founding members.

Most other conferences pretend to care about the academic level of their schools. But taking a school as bad academically as Bosie makes it very hard to pretend like you care, which creates a problem.

If only ADs were voting on who to invite, then I don't think academics would matter at all. But because you have university presidents as those ultimately voting on it, academics matter some. As bitter as some athletic rivalries are (think Michigan/Ohio State), there is often a lot of cooperation on the academic side of things between conference schools. That is one reason why academics play some small (very minor?) part in the decision.

This is why BYU has never been invited to the PAC 12. They have decent academics, but the Presidents of the PAC 12 schools, who form the governing body of the conference, “greatly dislike” BYU because of their conservative policies in many areas supported heavily by the liberal PAC 12. Could the conference make more money with BYU in the fold. Yes. But the Presidents don’t like the “Y” and for that reason the Y was passed over many times. Same reason Boise State has been passed over. They are not viewed as “academically sufficient.”

The Big 12 is all about making money, so I’m not sure what they will do in the future. But i don’t think Boise is seen as a big enough fish economically, while Provo can link itself to Salt Lake City.

Full wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:57 am

ViAggie wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 10:08 am

Agreed, B12 as we know it is not long for this world, they will essentially become the new AAC+ Baylor, TCU and ybu. The P4 conferences will probably form their own Athletics Association. That's where my money is.

I think the next big move is the Big 10 takes USC, Oregon, Washington and UCLA. Two 9 team divisions could be doable. Maybe the Big 12 step in and plucks Utah, the Arizona schools plus one back east (Memphis). The Big 12 is currently the 5 in P5, but it’s really it’s the SEC, then the B1G, then everyone else.

I'm not sure I see the B1G trying to pull in any West Coast teams, at least not as preferred targets. I see the B1G first going hard after UVA, UNC, Duke, and one other ACC school, possibly Clemson or Virginia Tech if they stay south or maybe BC or Syracuse if they want to go north more. Notre Dame would be the biggest possible addition, but that is only if ND wants to join a conference for football, which won't happen until the money justifies it for ND. Pitt would also fit geographically and academically (especially with its $5.65 billion endowment) but I think both Penn State and Ohio State would be against it.

Only if unsuccessful with pulling in any ACC teams do I think the B1G would move west again. Nebraska has been a huge disappointment for the conference and there are no other schools in the midwest to really go after except for possibly Oklahoma State or Kansas if it can be more than irrelevant in football. One advantage of pulling away Oklahoma State and Kansas is it likely means the death knell financially for the B12. None of the other schools really attract that much interest to justify the TV contract.

AggiesForever wrote:

bwcrc wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:27 am

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:11 am

Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 11:07 am

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

This has always confused me. Perhaps someone on the board can help clear this up for me.

Aside from being a "smaller market for tv revenue", I've heard NUMEROUS amounts of pundits and radio hosts point to Boise State's lack of academic prestige as being the next main factor for why they were never considered for PAC 12 expansion, even though it made sense geographically and BSU was in their golden hour during the time the PAC 10 expanded to 12.

Why would an athletic conference whose governing body's only concern is building and maintaining a league that can compete strongly on courts and fields, need or want to factor academics into the equation? I don't understand what academics or perceived academic prestige has anything to do with membership in an athletic conference. The only league where that makes any sense to me is the Ivy league (for obvious reasons).

Somebody please explain to me why you need to have a medical school or a law school to be a member of a P5 conference, and more specifically, the arrogant and self-assured PAC 12?

The Pac12 and Big 10 both actually do have very high academic standards. The only reason washington state or oregon state are in the pac12 is because they were founding members.

Most other conferences pretend to care about the academic level of their schools. But taking a school as bad academically as Bosie makes it very hard to pretend like you care, which creates a problem.

If only ADs were voting on who to invite, then I don't think academics would matter at all. But because you have university presidents as those ultimately voting on it, academics matter some. As bitter as some athletic rivalries are (think Michigan/Ohio State), there is often a lot of cooperation on the academic side of things between conference schools. That is one reason why academics play some small (very minor?) part in the decision.

This is why BYU has never been invited to the PAC 12. They have decent academics, but the Presidents of the PAC 12 schools, who form the governing body of the conference, “greatly dislike” BYU because of their conservative policies in many areas supported heavily by the liberal PAC 12. Could the conference make more money with BYU in the fold. Yes. But the Presidents don’t like the “Y” and for that reason the Y was passed over many times. Same reason Boise State has been passed over. They are not viewed as “academically sufficient.”

The Big 12 is all about making money, so I’m not sure what they will do in the future. But i don’t think Boise is seen as a big enough fish economically, while Provo can link itself to Salt Lake City.

Like it or not but BYU draws a crowd wherever they go due to the wide net their fan base covers. They also have the biggest football stadium and basketball arena in the Big12 once Texas and Oklahoma bolt. BYU will be a significant player in the B12 moving forward and their conference mates will grow to despise them but put up with them, just like all their previous conferences.

aggies22 wrote: ↑

May 19th, 2022, 6:07 pm

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑

May 19th, 2022, 5:44 pm

A little story from years ago about UTAH and the now PAC 12. Certainly a story, but a bit of digging years ago left me with some confidence there is some truth to the following short story.

For what it's worth, when UTAH got the PAC invite, their A D was traveling to Europe for a family vacation and received a frantic call from the school president to return to base Utah. Seems the PAC 10 originally wanted TEXAS and COLORADO, and were working against a hard time line. The Longhorns said a final no thank you to the PAC 10, and COLORADO was saddled with UTAH vs their primary choice of TEXAS as a traveling partner for the PAC10 invitation. Default then to COLORADO and eventually to UTAH getting the formal and published invitations, and smiles broke out for the UTES.

I want to say that at one time it was originally supposed to be Oklahoma and Texas.

Yes, there was a big move afoot several years ago where the PAC-12 attempted to poach Texas and Oklahoma. (Texas, despite its location, is a well regarded academic institution. Oklahoma was the Utah/Arizona State/etc of the deal.) The deal broke down when Oklahoma St and Texas Tech were forced into the mix - I think at the behest of state legislatures looking to protect the weaker schools. That was too much for the already hesitant parts of the PAC-12 and was possibly seen as too seismic of a change by other powers in the sport. I don't know the details of course, but the deal (obviously) blew up.

aggies22 wrote: ↑

May 19th, 2022, 6:07 pm

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑

May 19th, 2022, 5:44 pm

A little story from years ago about UTAH and the now PAC 12. Certainly a story, but a bit of digging years ago left me with some confidence there is some truth to the following short story.

For what it's worth, when UTAH got the PAC invite, their A D was traveling to Europe for a family vacation and received a frantic call from the school president to return to base Utah. Seems the PAC 10 originally wanted TEXAS and COLORADO, and were working against a hard time line. The Longhorns said a final no thank you to the PAC 10, and COLORADO was saddled with UTAH vs their primary choice of TEXAS as a traveling partner for the PAC10 invitation. Default then to COLORADO and eventually to UTAH getting the formal and published invitations, and smiles broke out for the UTES.

I want to say that at one time it was originally supposed to be Oklahoma and Texas.

Likely quite accurate 22, but that ball had been in play behind closed doors for so long the cover had worn off of it.

Hoot wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 8:10 am

aggies22 wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:35 am

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

So their lack of academic programs is what leads them to make unwise decisions with their money.

The people running the university studied at the university!

I must have missed this post from May - AH HA! Now it all makes sense LOL

NVAggie wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:42 am

Universities need to get back to preparing students for life. The lucre of athletics has been to great for them to maintain their true focus.

If I'm a university administrator who cares only about money and nothing else, research grants are how I'm going to try to get it since they are where the big bucks to universities come from.

I think we now have clear evidence that academics and quality of athletic programs take a big back seat to the number of TV sets a school brings to a conference AND how much a provider will pay for those TV sets. Otherwise, no conference is going to add any team. Unless BS can increase the value of B12 media rights beyond the share they'd take as member, it won't ever happen. As soon as they do add this value, then academics, quality of program, location, etc. come into play, and those considerations have an inverse relationship to the former, such that the greater the value Boise brings, the less the B12 will care about academics, quality of athletics, etc. It's a fairly straight forward analysis. Having said this, the entire analysis collapses or at least softens if a conference is looking to replace a lost member instead of simply adding another member to expand. Beggars can't be choosers.

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑

May 18th, 2022, 7:26 am

Boise is idiot. Their issue isn't their athletic spending and facilities, it's their academics. That's where their investment spending needs to go right now.

This is why I stand by the prediction of us going P5 down the road. We have continued to expand, have a real audience in person and tv, have serious academic money, we win a lot in the 2 big money sports, and area around and just in general in Northern Utah and Southeastern Idaho continues to grow at a rapid pace. Logan is an urban city now and continues to grows at a rapid pace.