I think they expand West to protect their West Coast investment and then finally convince Notre Dame to join because by then…being independent will be too much of a negative
As for SDSU, no.
G5s are gonna G5.
Only add poached P5s at this point
3 Likes
SDSU is far from a lock but they are not a true G5.
We’d havs to thoroughly compare them to Utah…is it better to be in Southern California or have two schools in the 30th most populated state in the US?
1 Like
I’d much rather have a P5 AAU state flagship that has been a national title winner or contender in the big two sports (like Utah) than a R2 SDSU that has a far weaker resume.
Can’t imagine anyone feeling differently.
3 Likes
This.
Funny…you always preferred to join the R2 full Big 12 over the AAU full PAC.
Why the sudden change of heart?
2 Likes
Answer: because this is about SPORTS first of all
Especially football and men’s basketball.
The Big 12 was and is far better than the PAC in both, hence my preference for joining it (the SEC and B1G were impossibilities, for obvious reasons, and no one wants to join the ACC’s stupid GOR).
Only you and Acres wanted us to join the PAC which hasn’t qualified a playoff team since 2015, and hasn’t produced a basketball national champion in 25 years. Dumb!
As far as football goes, Utah has been a Top 5 finisher in football, and is a P5.
I’m not sure SDSU has ever had a team in the final Top 10 at the I-FBS level, maybe not even the top 15 or 20, and is G5. They’ve never been to nor have they ever won a major bowl game.
Not close.
In basketball, Utah has a national title, a runner up, and four final fours to its credit. SDSU hasn’t made it past the Sweet 16 (and they have only made it there twice).
Again……NOT CLOSE.
So under the FIRST priority, which is SPORTS, it’s not close.
And when you add in the SECONDARY consideration of academics, a state flagship R1 AAU member blows away a local R2 nobody.
Again, NOT close.
You might be literally the ONLY guy that would rather take SDSU over Utah.
A G5 like SDSU would be a pretty sorry consolation prize if we can’t poach Utah.
It’d be like going on the price is right and taking home a case of turtle wax car polish instead of a new car.
2 Likes
Will there be a time when the B1G would be interested in a Texas school for a piece of the market share down here?
Maybe when the ACC’s GOR expires?
Unless and until UH becomes AAU, I don’t see it.
aTm and UT are unlikely to leave the SEC.
And even if UH becomes AAU, the chances are small.
Remember, the B1G already said no to larger football brand AAU schools like Washington and Oregon, and to AAU basketball blue blood Kansas.
Given that, what would smaller brand non-blue blood UH’s odds be?
Hint: little to none.
Given that, the Big 12 is likely to be our home for a long time. Get used to it. It’s not a bad place to be, and I’d rather be there than in either the ACC or PAC.
Yeah, but aren’t there studies out there of football participation being on the decline significantly in some regions of the country? I believe the west coast was pretty significant so I can see the concern there if Oregon and Washington were football heavy and the B1G didn’t see future value.
Texas is one of the few that is still heavy in football participation from this latest study.
I would consider Houston (AAU status required of course) if their value continues trending in the right direction with multiple sports. Remember, we are a T & F beast.
I got it, but ya gotta be AAU AND ya gotta be a big enough football brand.
UH is neither.
Gang,
I just looked it up.
SDSU has one #16 and two #25 finishes in its D1 football history, and only two Sweet 16s in basketball.
So yeah.
SDSU would be a really sorry consolation prize if we can’t get Utah.
1 Like
Embrace the healing power of “And”… the day when there are a limited number of slots in a conference are over. We don’t have to stop at 16. Or, down the line, at 20. Add schools that are additive looking at the fundamentals (market, performance, resources). Is that SDSU? I could see it (they have a higher ceiling than half of our conference, IMO), but I could see it either way. The same applies to Utah and Colorado and the rest.
G5 vs P5 is largely a product of history, chance, and labels. The idea that we are a fundamentally different school now than we were in 2020 is laughable. Or that we were fundamentally different than every other G5 program. There’s a pretty decent (I would say strong) likelihood that if Yormark had been commissioner instead of Bowlsby, he would have sold them on going harder west and SDSU would be in and we’d be out. Or that if Boise State (with its performance history) were Milwaukee State and had even Memphis-level academics.
All of that said… I don’t think we can afford more than one G5 at the present time without sustaining significant perception damage that would likely outweigh any benefit. So in that sense it is pretty zero-sum. And any G5 would need to come on a boat with P5’s. So I’m pretty lukewarm on inviting SDSU by themselves or SDSU+Arizona unless as part of a plan to destabilize the Pac-12 and grab more in due time.
This discussion of UH tying to prepare itself for a B10 invitation is amusing.
- I support UH’s attempt to qualify for AAU membership.
- UH would be a square peg in a round hole in the B10.
- Which university would sponsor UH? Purdue, since Dr. Khator has ties? Do they carry weight in the B10?
- Not one regional rivalry for UH.
- UH travel costs increase in all sports.
- Does UH add enough value to increase each member’s share of money, as determined by TV contracts?
At this stage of UH’s evolution, UH is right where it should be.
1 Like
Even putting the G5 label aside, consider HISTORIES.
UH has five major bowls, top five finishes, six final fours and two finals appearances. Utah has four major bowls, top five finishes, four final fours, two finals appearances and a Natty in basketball.
That what P5 material looks like.
SDSU has no major bowls, no Top 15 finishes, and only two Sweet 16 finishes in basketball
That’s NOT what P5 material looks like
There are obvious reasons why the PAC hasn’t invited them. Neither should we.
Given their history, it’s hard to see much upside.
1 Like
If she was unaware it was because she had passed out.
Like I said, I don’t consider it either/or between Utah or SDSU. If for some reason it had to be, the answer would depend largely on how the conference evaluates market vs performance and other competing arguments.
The case for SDSU would be:
- The main argument for Utah is performance, and the conference is already strong on performance. Further, Utah’s brand and level of performance is good but not great and that is not something the conference is short on. Arguably, from a performance standpoint the only two schools with added value are the ones with bigger brands than our conference presently has: Oregon and Washington.
- Performance is not guaranteed. Utah could have difficulty leveling up with the transition, in which case what value have they actually provided? SDSU’s advantages remain even if their performance is unimpressive.
- Market. San Diego is a major market that, unlike SLC/Utah, the conference doesn’t have a presence in. Further, the Big 12 is weak on media markets (one of the big reasons we want to expand, I believe). So where Utah is strong where the conference is already strong, SDSU is strong where the conference needs to be stronger.
- Recruiting. If we’re bringing in multiple western schools, we’re bringing in a bunch of schools that recruit heavily from California (IIRC six of the eight non-Cali teams in the Pac-12 have more Californians on their roster than local kids) without actually having a presence there. It’s easier to add and maintain pipelines in states/areas where you play. This was one of Houston’s arguments for the Big 12 and I think it was a good one.
- Time zone. We don’t have any schools in the Pacific Time zone full-time. The closest would be the Arizona schools part of the time. Utah is in the Mountain time zone, where our flag is already planted. It could also help with TV exposure on the west coast, which ties back to recruiting California.
I could make some really good arguments for Utah about performance, attendance, culture and the BYU rivalry. But it’s not clear to me which set of arguments the conference would – or should – value more.
1 Like
Utah is a much better and bigger football and basketball brand.
Not close.
Brands matter most. More so than markets nowadays.
Brands matter most when you are weak on brands, markets matter most when you are weak on markets, performance matters most when you are weak on performance.
Our weakness in brands is that we have no top shelf brands. Utah doesn’t help us with that because it isn’t one. The only schools that add here are Oregon and Washington.
Our weakness in football performance is the lack of national championship teams, which Utah isn’t (none of the Pac-12 are, in the modern era). We have no weakness in basketball performance.
Our weakness in markets is more significant, and it is one that having a school in San Diego would help with significantly. Ditto Phoenix and Denver, which is a big part of why ASU and CU are in the conversation (it definitely isn’t brand or performance).
I don’t know which truly has the stronger case. Personally, I’d rather it be Utah despite the best efforts of their fans to be jerks. Both have a stronger case than Arizona, though I hope Arizona gets in. They’ve become my favorite Pac-12 team.
1 Like
Any P5 has a better case than a G5.
Come on now.
A P5 is a lateral move. A G5 is a step down.
Markets mattered more ten years ago.
BRANDS matter now.
Just ask OU (Norman), aTm (College Station), or Clemson.
Utah is a bigger and better brand.