Pac-12 Expansion: The Case for Boise State

[cartm25]

How about Boise State?

 

I'm not suggesting that they should be #1 priority, nor do I think they should be added at the exclusion of the schools that have consistently surfaced (i.e., SMU, SDSU, etc.). But, I think any expansion should involve BSU.

 

Reasons For:

- BSU is located comfortably within the P12 footprint.

 

- BRAND. IMO, BSU has a bigger national brand than any other expansion candidate mentioned so far. BSU is similar to Oregon (*NOT at the same level) in that their brand and reputation EXCEEDS their regional market size/population. Over the past 20 years, BSU has become synonymous with being David slaying Goliath(s) year in and year out, both at the start of seasons in non-conference games, and at the end in bowl games. To this day, there is not a better game (at least finish) than the BSU vs. Oklahoma 2008 Fiesta Bowl (link to highlights included below): A wild trick play (hook and lateral) to force overtime, high pressure regulation and OT possessions (including 2-pt conversions), and going for the win in OT rather than a PAT to tie using the Statue of Liberty trick play. One last thought. If I was told that there were only three games on any given Saturday, and each featured one of the following teams: SDSU, SMU, or BSU, I'd bet most would tune into BSU, at least I would for sure.

 

- Built-in rivalry. If Oregon is the flagship of the P12, then best to have rivalries starting at the top. Oregon and BSU have had bad blood dating back 20+ years ("The Punch").

 

- Boise is growing rapidly. You'll find it near or at the top of lists of fastest growing US cities by population.

 

- I've been around Idaho, and the state team is BSU. There is no other competition.

 

- Iconic blue field. Personally, I can't stand it, BUT, it's unique and one of a kind that helps the program stand out. . . maybe this should have been included with the "BRAND" discussion above.

 

On second thought, after listing my "reasons for" including Boise State, I would rather have Boise State as #1 priority. When I eliminate the market size, population, census data, etc. factors, IMO, they are just the right FIT . . . from a purely football perspective.

 

Fiesta Bowl Highlights:

 

 

[David Marsh]

Academics is a huge sticking point with Boise State. 

 

I know I'm beating a dead horse... Or Bronco? At this point but Boise State doesn't meet the academic standards the PAC has and is looking for. 

 

From a business standpoint BSU might notmmake a ton of sense due to market size right now but it is growing but it will take quite a while to grow to a big enough size to be considered worth it. 

 

The quality of their football is good enough. Granted it has dipped since Petersen left and they aren't the same level of giant killer they used to be. 

[Jon Joseph]

On 7/24/2023 at 2:43 PM, cartm25 said:

For my benefit, since I don't know, what academic benchmarks are the key metrics for these types of decisions?

 

I agree in general about the "business" decision if based solely on market size, but I would be interested to see what sort of viewership numbers BSU pulls in. I wouldn't be surprised if they punch above their weight like Oregon.

 

To be fair, I don't think there's much of a business case for Oregon to be invited to the B1G based only on market size, but once you look at actual viewership, brand, Nike, etc. then I'd make the case Oregon should be in the B1G ahead of everyone except tOSU, Michigan, Penn St.

 

Some quick viewership stats I could drum up: Average Number of Viewers in 2022:

- BSU - 353K

- Colorado - 353K

- ASU - 314K

- SMU - 312K

- Fresno St. - 220K

- SDSU - 198K

Preferably AAU membership. What SMU and SDSU have that Boise does not are being located in major media markets and being competitive in CBB and other sports. And Boise as the little guy that could has lost a lot of its luster. 

 

IMO, Fresno, and UNLV both make more sense than Boise but again, for Pac Prez AAU membership matters. ASU recently joined the AAU club. 

[Tandaian]

Boise State is terrible at sports outside of football.  They have 2 national titles.  1958 Junior College football.  1980 I-AA football.  If the idea is to enhance the PAC, there is no reason to invite BSU, even though they do fit into the PAC footprint. 

 

Football absolutely wags the dog, but you can't bring in a university for only football.  They do have a very loyal fanbase, but do you really see them growing exponentially?  They don't have Nike and they don't have an exciting offense. 

 

I wouldn't add FSU either.

 

ASU = Phoenix 5th largest city

SMU = Dallas 9th largest city

SDSU = 8th largest city

Colorado = Denver 19th largest city

Fresno St. = 34th largest city

Boise St. = 94th largest city

[Jon Joseph]

On 7/24/2023 at 3:13 PM, Tandaian said:

Boise State is terrible at sports outside of football.  They have 2 national titles.  1958 Junior College football.  1980 I-AA football.  If the idea is to enhance the PAC, there is no reason to invite BSU, even though they do fit into the PAC footprint. 

 

Football absolutely wags the dog, but you can't bring in a university for only football.  They do have a very loyal fanbase, but do you really see them growing exponentially?  They don't have Nike and they don't have an exciting offense. 

 

I wouldn't add FSU either.

 

ASU = Phoenix 5th largest city

SMU = Dallas 9th largest city

SDSU = 8th largest city

Colorado = Denver 19th largest city

Fresno St. = 34th largest city

Boise St. = 94th largest city

CU going Prime Time is going to see a big jump in the numbers of folks watching the Buffs. 

[Haywarduck]

Would love to see us elevate SDSU at sc's expense. Giving SDSU the Pac spotlight would hurt one program, maybe two, and they both deserves a slap.

[Washington Waddler]

On 7/24/2023 at 11:43 AM, cartm25 said:

quick viewership stats I could drum up: Average Number of Viewers in 2022:

- BSU - 353K

- Colorado - 353K

- ASU - 314K

- SMU - 312K

- Fresno St. - 220K

- SDSU - 198K

     It’s important to differentiate between actual and potential viewers when looking at them as a market. Media companies are no different from any other business in that they’d rather take as few risks as possible.

 

     My guess would be that Boise has near maxed its current viewer market share, which makes of it anyone’s guess as to how that number might grow outside that market, given membership in the PAC. 
 

     On the other hand, the viewer growth potential in both Texas and southern California can be more reliably seen as an open-ended local response to a program that can create buzz by simply raising its profile to a higher level.

 

     Boise’s national fan base might grow in a similar manner given PAC membership, but I’d guess that investment capital would likely hedge its bet towards the local potential of SMU and SDSU.

[Charles Fischer]

This is all very interesting--some great facts presented, and I thank you.  But we do not know what GK and the Pac-12 Presidents have in mind as the longer play, the overall strategy.  As it is--the whole stay-at-ten-teams, and two-schools-object-to-expansion are news that we only just recently learned.

 

And it is becoming apparent that Oregon has their own plan...which may not want a larger conference, or may be totally focused on only what is best for the Ducks?  So that conferences get into a bidding war for our membership in five years?

 

Or...

[Annie]

On 7/24/2023 at 10:46 AM, David Marsh said:

Academics is a huge sticking point with Boise State. 

 

...

This. Both on the academic/presidents level, but also I remember Bellotti saying BSU could recruit players that PAC couldn't because BSU had a lower grade standard.

[AllOregon]

No thanks.  Boise St market and academics are terrible. Boise ~100th largest U.S.  city (yawn) and per uS News and World Reports, “Boise State University is ranked #331-440 out of 443 National Universities.

Source link: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/boise-state-university-1616/overall-rankings#:~:text=your college needs%3F-,Boise State University Rankings,about how we rank schools.

 

Athletics are not great outside of a couple football games.  Hanging a hat on a game from 16+ years ago that only one team was fired up to play their opponent…no prospective recruit let alone current college student even remembers that game.

 

San Diego St is light years ahead in every category: market, academics, athletics.

[Dave23]

cartm25, I believe your thought process on this is correct, living in Montana I see BSU gear all the time. The media market in rural states are much larger geographically than a small  college in a big city in Texas that also has big time competitions from a top tier programs in the same city.

 

I would definitely count the close to 2 million people in Idaho as part of the market and quite a few of the rural parts of Eastern Oregon, South East Washington, Northern Nevada and Western Montana as well. Ten years ago when BSU was doing well the only only jerseys that out number BSU here in Montana was the Montana schools. PS I'm 9 hours drive from Boise. 

 

I have never liked the media market metric as it make assumptions about the reach of any given market as being a very small geographical area. This may be true in Dallas or Houston area but it's not true in many of the best college towns of US. You have to look no further than North Bend or Eugene to prove this.

 

Just promoting any of these teams to the PAC will raise their viewership can SDSU over come BSUs lead? BSU fans are as dedicated and hardcore as they come can we say the same for the SoCal market? Jugging from the current viewership I'd take BSU as favorite to be ahead of SDSU in viewership if they where both invited into to the PAC at the same time.

 

SDSU taking away USC viewers is nothing but a pipe dream. There's just too many other things to do in Southern California than football. Compare that with the middle of nowhere Idaho where the only thing to do is football.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Dave23
Spelling

[David Marsh]

At the end of the day here the only way BSU gets considered for the pac-12 regardless of viewership is if they can get their academics in order. 

 

That is going to always be the biggest sticking point for university presidents involved in the decision making. 

 

I do think SDSU's brand will grow if they join the PAC much like how Utahsybrand grew. They will never take fans away from USC but they can certainly develop their own fanbase. 

 

I've heard from some people in San Diego that they don't default to USC fans because that's the closest team to them. 

 

Just like how as I live in Portland and I don't have an NFL team in my city I don't default to being a Seahawks fan because it's the closer team. Same way as people in Seattle when they lost the Sonics they didn't all of the sudden become Blazer fans because they were the closest team to them geographically. 

 

Sometimes a fan base doesn't develop because they don't have the opportunity that fits for them.

 

Give SDSU five years (or basically one media cycle) and they will develop a fan base.  I where near as.laege as USC's but they'll fill their stadium and become an asset.

 

I don't see BSU having much growth potential. Sure the city is growing but creating a fan base can be a whole lot faster than growing a city.

[Dave23]

On 7/25/2023 at 10:11 AM, David Marsh said:

I don't see BSU having much growth potential. Sure the city is growing but creating a fan base can be a whole lot faster than growing a city.

I believe the footprint of of BSU viewership is much larger than just Boise same as Oregon is much bigger than just Eugene. The viewership growth will come from playing other PAC teams on nationally televised games. How many people on this forum are even able to watch a Boise State game if they wanted to? I for one in Montana cannot watch a BSU games easily. 

 

BSU with their blue field and absolute rabid fan base will do quite well with greater TV exposure. SDSU games are available to a huge population and still have very poor viewership, not that I believe that SDSU shouldn't be part of the PAC but that BSU is in just as favorable a position if not more. I know anything out of the West Coast is not desirable to the media people with their headquarters on the coast but us people in the middle are extremely avid football watchers.

 

When it really comes down to it football is decentralizing and becoming a nationwide sport with fan bases all over the world not just in the city that they are based in. Brand and brand loyalty will be the basis going forward for viewership. I know to people on the west coast Boise is the middle of nowhere but I'm five times more likely to root for them than I am a Southern California team.

[DUCati855]

On 7/25/2023 at 8:44 AM, cartm25 said:

Or, alternatively, you could articulate those "levels" rather than disparage someone else's sincere opinion . . .?

You are right and I apologize for not stating some of my reasons for not wanting BSU in the PAC(?).

 

Honestly, my reasons are quite petty. It pretty much comes down to me not liking the team, the fans, the stadium, or the landscape of Boise. I would not travel to Boise to watch our Ducks play. Same way I will never go back to Pullman.

 

But, as others have pointed out, the institution itself is not on par with the other schools already within the Pac(?) academically. Their athletics will not help future media negotiations.

 

To me they just don't seem to as good of a fit as SDSU, SMU, UNLV, or even Hawaii. But, that's just my opinion.

[Wrathis]

On 7/24/2023 at 3:26 PM, cartm25 said:

How does not being an AAU Member impact a university's academic qualifications?

 

I'm intrigued by UNLV as well; would be an intriguing addition.

 

I must say, I'm confused how to apply the "market size" and "viewership" standards. When USC and UCLA joined the B1G, we on the OBDF argued it should have been Oregon to go with USC and not UCLA. Opponents said, "Oregon has a much smaller 'market size' than UCLA and wouldn't make sense from a "media/business" standpoint." In response, and rightfully so, everyone on the OBDF, nearly in unison, pointed to how our viewership numbers were better than both USC and UCLA; basically, the OBDF used all other arguments in defense of Oregon.

 

Now when I use similar arguments in favor of BSU that were used in favor of Oregon, there is an appeal to "market size" to oppose the idea.

 

I'll take a school that has a higher % viewership relative to market size (not just higher %, but higher raw numbers) over apathetic markets.

This is very well thought out and I appreciate you bringing it up. I for one prefer SDSU to BSU, mostly bc I believe they have a higher ceiling. Although Albertons Stadium has a slightly larger capacity when compared to Snapdragon, San Diego is a destination location while Boise really isn't. Both are small (by comparison), but for now they can do the job.

 

As many have pointed out, the academics are more in line though. Finally (and maybe most importantly), SDSU is in fertile recruiting grounds. Granted, we pulled Sadiq from there and Gatlin Bair is making waves as well, but BSU just doesn't check as many boxes as Southern California does. 

 

When it comes to UNLV vs SMU, it's kind of a toss-up for me. Personally, I live in Texas and would LOVE to see SMU in. If nothing else, it would give more access to recruiting down here and I know multiple SMU grads that are frothing at the mouth to join the PAC and to become relevant again. However, UNLV I believe is a T1 research facility, and a better geographical fit. Recruiting is sufficient in the area and it also is a destination location.  Both make sense to me...

 

That being said, there's also rumor of no expansion whatsoever...and I hope that doesn't end up being the case. Personally I believe we either expand or become absorbed. With the ACC, B1G, B12 and SEC all being 14-15 teams, us staying at 10 seems dangerous.  Realistically I'd like to see us follow suit by bringing in SDSU, UNLV, SMU, BSU and maybe Fresno State if for no other reason than b/c I want to see the PAC survive. College football was much more appealing to me b/c it was tradition rich and filled with hungry athletes willing to put it on the line to make the NFL. Now you can get rich playing college ball and media is killing the tradition.  Here's to our thriving and surviving into the next decade...cheers!

[David Marsh]

On 7/25/2023 at 9:38 AM, Dave23 said:

BSU with their blue field

I'm also pretty sure if they were to receive a pac invite they'd probably have to get rid of the blue field. 

 

I remember reading somewhere that many conferences have rules about fields that are any color other than green. 

 

I see BSU getting a "power 5" invite at some point... Just not to the PAC...  They'd probably get the invite from the Big-12 at this point. 

[Jon Joseph]

On 7/24/2023 at 4:26 PM, cartm25 said:

How does not being an AAU Member impact a university's academic qualifications?

 

I'm intrigued by UNLV as well; would be an intriguing addition.

 

I must say, I'm confused how to apply the "market size" and "viewership" standards. When USC and UCLA joined the B1G, we on the OBDF argued it should have been Oregon to go with USC and not UCLA. Opponents said, "Oregon has a much smaller 'market size' than UCLA and wouldn't make sense from a "media/business" standpoint." In response, and rightfully so, everyone on the OBDF, nearly in unison, pointed to how our viewership numbers were better than both USC and UCLA; basically, the OBDF used all other arguments in defense of Oregon.

 

Now when I use similar arguments in favor of BSU that were used in favor of Oregon, there is an appeal to "market size" to oppose the idea.

 

I'll take a school that has a higher % viewership relative to market size (not just higher %, but higher raw numbers) over apathetic markets.

It impacts the academic status and the ranking of a given university by Forbes and others. 

 

For academicians in the B1G and the Pac-12/10, the AAU ranking matters a great deal. 

 

Boise State is not a 'selective university.' It has far more acceptances per applicant than a top-drawer university. 

 

And IMO, the blue field is a gimmick designed to give Boise more of a home-field advantage. There is no way that 8 Pac-10 schools would vote to add on Boise and there is also no way that a media company would insist on the Pac-10 adding Boise and the Boise, Idaho market.

[HappyToBeADuck]

Its difficult for me to get on board with a potential PAC invite for BSU.

 

They just dont meet the metrics for viewing numbers or academics. Yes, regional viewers may watch but will BSU draw Texas and SoCal viewers. Probably not?

 

Tulane, along with SMU would give thr PAC a footprint in SEC and big 12 country. More viewers and more time zone broadcast spots.

 

I enjoy BSU and rooted for them, in their big games. I can see how some on this forum would support them.

 

Charles was spot on that we dont have enough inside knowledge, at this point, on what the PAC and Oregon future plans are.

 

Remember, the PAC Presidents gave GK permission to explore 4 schools for possible expansion fit;

     SDSU

     SMU

     CSU

The 4th school was a mystery....

 

Do any on this,Forum feel that BSU was the mystery team?

[David Marsh]

On 7/25/2023 at 12:29 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

Do any on this,Forum feel that BSU was the mystery team?

UNLV or Fresno is far more likely. 

[Dave23]

On 7/25/2023 at 5:57 PM, cartm25 said:

Gimmick or not, the blue field, IMO, is horrific and ugly, but it is unique and gives them national recognition . . . for better or worse.

For the record I absolutely hate that field, the only one that is worse is Eastern Washington's which is bright red.  But you remember it.