Does anyone know if the the numbers being thrown around include a grant in rights agreement from Oregon and Washington?
See, the problem with that is that RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY, the MOST BASIC measure of academic excellence, isnât even a part of that.
Academia is a âpublish or perishâ environment.
The way an academian gains prestige in his/her/their field, and tenure for that matter at any top school, is based mostly upon his/her/their RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY.
Do they publish the latest discoveries and scholarship? Do they in turn bring in the biggest research grants, which is a direct reflection of the quality of their scholarship? Do the schoolâs faculty members in turn become nominated to National Academies and receive major international awards?
If the answer is YES (and thatâs measured by AAU and R1 metrics), then they are more prestigious academically.
If the answer is NO (i.e., NOT AAU or R1), then their academic prestige is less.
Without that AAU or R1 designation, you canât be sure that what you are being taught in the classsroom is truly the latest, greatest, and most state of the art scholarship.
Thatâs why UH is more prestigious as an R1 than it was as an R2, and will be even more prestigious as an AAU member.
It has NOTHING to do with USNEWS.
Come on now Bro.
Are you truly telling me that SMU is academically more prestigious than AAU members like Oregon, Buffalo, Stony Brook, and Kansas, based in their USNEWS ranking?
Donât make me laugh.
Itâs the other way around.
USNEWS rankings are better for comparing individual schools (law, medicine, business, etc), and departments than overall university quality.
AAU membership and R1 are better metrics for that.
1 Like
If I had to choose between that $24.5m deal with ESPN last year and this $26m with a lot of streaming Iâd take the former. (I think the GOR for the one last year may have been 7 and this one may be five, and that may have been a deal breaker.)
2 Likes
They do. The question is whether itâs five years (which those types will sign) or seven year (which they wonât).
I believe that if they were steadfastly refusing to sign a GOR altogether the conference would have fallen apart already
The pac is trying every avenue to pitch a media deal. Yes Shark Tank invited them to hear what they had to say:
Robert on pac business evaluation
Whatâs that Damon and Mr. Wonderful?
Mr. Wonderful behave please
Mr. Wonderful reached a decision
There are still four sharks to make a decision
Robert?
Barbara?
Daimon? He is out too
Letâs go back to Mark
Body language says it all
Only Lori is left
Lori, the QVC queen
The sharks shortly after
8 Likes
Even at $26M, in 7 year the will be behind the Big 12 by $42M. Why would I take a deal where Iâm losing money and my product is hidden away?
1 Like
Mostly because (a) itâs the conference they are already in, and (b) itâs the conference theyâd prefer to be in. So, at least compared to the alternative - joining the Big 12 - itâs the more desirable option.
We saw some of these dynamics when Colorado State and AFA were deciding between the AAC and the MWC. The AAC makes more money and has much better visibility, in addition to other advantages, but ultimately they decided that the MWC is where they want to be.
1 Like
Theyâre kind of in the same situation we were in when the AAC formed. No one wanted to take a risky bet on a new conference then, and no one wants to take a risky bet on a conference of semi-achievers now. We hoped NBC would ride to the rescue then and they didnât, the Pac 12-2 hopes the same thing now and they wonât. You have one buyer, so sadly thatâs that.
And if I were them, you figure out how to break even and sign that 5 year/$1.3B deal with Disney if thatâs what is on the table. No GOR. No new members. Rebrand as the Pac-10. Theyâll at least have:
- more than 3x what the entire G5 makes, combined
- access to ABC
- keeps them in the Mouseâs narrative
- their conference champion in the new playoffs every year
- still be perceived as a power conference
Do like the AAC did - win a bunch on national TV - and that Pac-10 is in position to be a big buyer in the next realignment cycle.
Dollars canât be the only factor. The Big12 is the better option for the future for the Az schools and likely others. I think the pac is just going through the process and once all the numbers are in, we will see movement.
1 Like
My impression of the Pac schools is that they are not putting as much emphasis on âlong term stabilityâ type questions as they should be. That, more than money (at least at the differentials we seem to be looking at), is the biggest reason to make the jump.
When even Pac-12 partisans like Wilner are saying âItâll probably fall apart in 2030 but itâll survive for nowâ that should be sending sirens blazing. If you think everything is going to fall apart for them in 2030, you want to find land right now. The thing about being on a sinking ship is that you do not wait for it to be under water.
But my theory is that with the exception of Utah they have all been fat and happy for a very long time. They believe that when 2030 rolls around of course the Big 12 will still be an option. Or of course something else will work out. The idea that their conference falls apart and they are left behind to be conference-mates with New Mexico or San Jose State is just unthinkable. They canât wrap their head around it, so itâs not a real possibility to them.
So for them I think it mostly is financial in the sense that the financials have to be conclusive for them to make the jump. UArizona may be excepted from all of this. They definitely have the most pro-XII contingent of fans, though I donât know how their leadership feels (other than a general preference for the Pac-12).
(As for Utah, Iâve become convinced that being in the Pac-12 while BYU is not in the Pac-12 has become their personality (or identity). They more than the others should realize whatâs at stake, but their fans are the most vocally anti-XII Iâve seen. I donât know if leadership feels the same way. Utah media doesnât seem to (though they have to be careful about crapping on BYUâŠ).
3 Likes
By 2030 the Big 12 might NOT be an option for all of them.
Today, we would most likely take 4 PAC schools, 6 with the knowledge O and UW will most likely leave by the ACC blow up, leaving 4 spots for ACC schools to get to 20.
If they wait to 2030, we are close to a ACC raid. What if the Big 12 decides to only take 2 PAC schools and 6 ACC schools to get to 20.
Right now 4 PAC schools (az, asu, uu, col) have a guaranteed long term spot in the Big 12, if they want it.
Bird in hand- that gurantee might not be there if they wait.
3 Likes
Yes SMU and Wake are more prestigious than Oregon and Buffalo.
How many highly selective LACs are R1? Those undergrads have more research opportunities than the large state university student.
1 Like
SMU isnât a liberal arts college though.
It is indeed a âresearch university.â
Itâs simply one with considerably less research productivity, and as such, less academic prestige in that regard, than, letâs sayâŠthose schools mentioned above, all of which are AAU (the ultimate measure of academic prestige for a research university)âŠor even R1 U of H.
Same for Wake ForestâŠanother R2.
Gang,
Hereâs the thing.
Letâs say we take UW and UO knowing they might bolt for the B1G someday (not sure the B1G is truly interested, but for argumentâs sake, weâll just pretend that they are).
Wouldnât UW and UO still have to pay exit fees, which, in the Big 12, are among the stiffest of any of the major conferences?
If so, then we might take a chance.
One of the things thatâs really stupid about the PAC is that they never saw the need to protect themselves with either a) an outrageously LONG GOR, which is the ACC strategy for stability, or b) outrageously high exit fees, which is the Big 12âs strategy.
Basically, the PACâs structure allowed just about anybody to walk away scoff free at any time.
Which is exactly what USC and UCLA are doing. Walking away scoff free!!!
Maybe they thought that no other conference would want any schools that far away, so they didnât see a need to protect their structure. Gosh. Were they ever wrong!!!
1 Like
The Pac thought they were a premier conference.
AAC schedule came out. We dodged a bullet.
Who are you using as a proxy for âweâ? UTSA? Rice? Just the general sense of not being in that conference?
We means UH.
Yes, we dodged that bullet.
And can look forward to a far more competitive and far more interesting Big 12 schedule as a result.
I know thatâs right
Speaking of UTSA, other than going to Tulane theyâve got a pretty easy conference schedule next year. Tough OOC though - at us, at Tennessee, Army, and a hopeful gimme at Texas State.
Agree, totally preposterousâŠKansas may not be the brightest school in Big 12, but even THEY arent stupid enough to leave Big 12, go independent in FBâŠ