Houston also has alumni from almost every university within the city and 4 highly active professional sports teams
In my opinion, UH wasn’t seen as a total package until recently. UH will be a commuter school for the foresable future, but it’s slowly but surely beginning to shed off being a “I’m going to UH because it’s cheap and I just need a degree” type of school. School spirit is increasing, and being in the Big 12 is definitely going to help
I understand, but picture if you will the high academic schools saying to hell with spending all of this money and now having to deal with NIL and unlimited transfers.
I could see them coming to the conclusion that this free for all doesn’t do anything for them. Stanford is still Stanford whether they are competing with Alabama or not for a national championship.
I could see them deciding that sports are a fun diversion but we want to do it within a structure that promotes the ideal of student athletes and this current mosh pit doesn’t fit what they are all about.
I could absolutely see this.
I hope they do. This house of cards needs to fall apart sometime.
The irony is that Stanford would start the football collapse considering their cost of education and return on that investment for their students is worse than the return on investment for playing top tier football.
I hope so too.
The current model has lost all of its charm.
It is minor league sports.
I don’t know what the critical threshold of interest is for the TV networks to take notice (or for it to factor into ratings) but it doesn’t seem to for ECU as far as nearby metro areas go. Like I believe their alumni base in DFW does a lot to negate the fact that they are in Lubbock, but while their attendance is impressive and their brand in NC isn’t weak, it doesn’t seem to translate into TV value or ratings.
At the time of the last realignment, ECU and (especially) USM were two of the strongest brands in the conference, and two of the best teams, but their place on the pecking order was below that of a lot of market schools with more limited fanbases (SMU, Temple, Memphis… even UCF at the time, and maybe Tulane insofar as they got a full invite first).
OTOH, some of that may have been academics/culture/etc. I’ve said before that institutionally ECU is a Sun Belt school (regional former teacher’s college, traditional student body, etc) in the AAC, while Georgia State is an AAC school (gigantic school, non-traditional student body, research) in the Sun Belt. ECU’s USNWR ranking is closer to the median of the new AAC membership, though.
A while back I sketched out what kind of central-western Ivy/Patriot/Pioneer sort of conference that Stanford could put together. The following have football and reasonably strong academic claims, depending on what factors they might consider:
Stanford
Cal
UC-Davis
Cal Poly
San Diego
Rice
SMU
Tulane
Colorado Mines?
Trinity?
AFA?
…
It gets harder after that. You’d have to lower academic standards to meet schools like Drake or Tulsa.
There’d be some non-FB options, though. Perhaps they could convince some of those to start football programs.
My home was close to Rice Stadium and I used to walk to their football games. I would go if the Coogs were not playing or on the road. Rice would be lucky to get 10,000 fans in the stands. Forget the academic and culture fit rationale, Rice makes no sense to the PAC 12. They add zero media value. Trying to get in to the Houston market with Rice? That will equate tens of additional viewers.
I think for Rice it’s just a matter of academics and location. The former really limits their options (see below list). Perhaps they are thinking that Rice can play Washington Generals in a sort of Texas Roadshow.
I know that the Pac-12 isn’t using USNWR, but as a proxy, here is a list of all of the top 200 universities west of the Mississippi: Rice, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Colorado State, Air Force, SDSU, and Hawaii. Wyoming is at 202, and San Jose State is on their regional list at #16 (which may be “top 200 equivalent”)
Can’t think of anybody I’m missing. UNLV, UTSA, UNT, UTEP, UNM, NMSU, USU, and Nevada all miss. As do Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech, ULM, and Louisiana-Lafayette.
Do you really want someone to go back and pull out the hundreds of post where you are saying the PAC is all about R1 and AAU and would NEVER invite a lower academic school?
You are assuming the value of Oregon and Washington is the same as the average for the whole conference. They are both worth more and other schools worth less, that is how the averages work.
Are they worth 70 million, I do not know (Maybe Washington to the Big 10). But considering the Big 10 has a conference network, that adds value to the Big 10 that is not there with the Pac. Washington is also in Seattle, a major media market which can be leveraged by the Big 10 network.
Have to remember valuation is not the same for each conference, but has to consider how they can use it.
Would more casual football fans go if Utah, Oregon, Deion and Colorado, Arizona, Stanford etc. Rolled into Houston to play Rice?
I would!
@92010Coogs is a proven liar who makes false accusations against fellow Coogs
This is still true since they have yet to actually invite a non-R1. Entertaining hungry schools that want to join is not the same as an invite.
I think Stanford would be okay with $20M as long as the conference can stay at 10.
The snobbery starts with Stanford then all the wannabes in the PAC10.
Stanford has more billionaires than any school not named Harvard, but they seem disinclined to spend any of their wealth on athletics.
Gotta love those Stanfy billionaires
Academics only matter in the B1G and PAC, and even then, they only matter IF the BRANDS in football, and to a lesser extent basketball, are GOOD ENOUGH.
As I said ACADEMICS DON’T DRIVE THIS.
BRANDS do. That’s the FIRST “screening criteria.”
Because Rice’s athletic brand is THAT sucky, they’ll never be in the P5. Doesn’t matter how good their academics are. If the PAC is truly considering such a sucky football/basketball brand, then it shows just how desperate they are:
Because Kansas’ football brand is so terrible, they’ll never be in the B1G. Doesn’t matter that they are AAU.
Likewise, Washington and Oregon, despite being AAU, are considered “tweener” brands that the B1G isn’t interested in.
Again, academics don’t drive this. BRANDS do.
Now. If your athletic BRAND is good enough, then the B1G may consider you.
If your brand is BIGGER than Washington’s AND you are either AAU, or Notre Dame, then you’re a B1G candidate.
But remember, BRANDS MATTER MOST.
More than academics, and more than markets.
Any questions?
Yes I have a question, how do you define brand and how do you define brand recognition?
It’s a “totality of the circumstances” test that includes things like attendance, fan support and fan base size, consistent high level success, season ticket holders, TV ratings, merchandising, and perhaps most importantly REVENUES.
UH is a small brand in that regard by P5 standards.
Michigan or ND are HUGE brands under the same criteria.
Washington would be somewhere in between.
Rice…….is too small to even be in the conversation.
If you want my honest opinion, if Rice was to ever join a P5, I could see it being the SEC
Based on your definition, you don’t think Oregon and Washington have a “brand”? What are they lacking?
© 1999-2025 CoogFans.com