Here is the reality of the Pac-12 situation. To be admitted, it requires a 3/4 vote of the university presidents - 9 of 12. University presidents are not the same type of folks as ADs or boosters. They care about the money for and from athletics, but care about academic prestige and total endowment more. Athletic contributors and boosters contribute to total endowment, but are only one group that does. There are other contributor groups that care more about academics, research, politics, and other issues. The presidents also have faculty, boards of trustees and other stakeholder groups to deal with. With that in mind, the PAC12, its schools and presidents have traditionally been committed to and used the following criteria in their expansion decisions (not necessarily in order of importance): 1) public universities (Stanford and USC being the only exceptions as original members from way back who also meet the other criteria), 2) secular educational philosophies (USC is the only school that ever had a religious affiliation, long ago abandoned, and it was with a denomination that favored secular education over religious and Stanford was always a secular school), 3) research universities, preferably members of the Association of American Universities, a very exclusive, invitation-only group of research universities (there are only 60 American members and ironically 2 Canadian universities) - USC, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Colorado are all members of the AAU and only the Big 10 has more AAU members among major conferences (more on this later); the academic prestige of AAU membership can overcome a lot of negatives in an expansion decision (see, e.g. Colorado), 4) academic and athletic competition with the Big 10 (see 3 above), 5) loyalty to donor bases that are mostly left coast, liberal/progressive and non-to-anti religious constituencies, including the entertainment, computer and green technology communities. When I went to USC, the mostly-true joke was that USC and Stanford were the only Pac 8 (yeah, I’m that old) schools where you could find a conservative on campus. USC was one of the few PAC schools that would play BYU in the days of the Black Student Union boycotts against BYU, and one of the few that didn’t shut down during the Cambodia War Moratorium. However, both USC and Stanford have largely abandoned any conservative roots they used to have, academically, though both still have a more tolerant attitude towards conservative faculty members than the other PAC 12 schools (such as Condie Rice at Stanford).
While university presidents want to enhance the finances of the conference, they will not do so at the expense of these other considerations or they will find themselves at odds with their Boards of Trustees and looking for a new job. Therefore, sports money will likely not drive a decision on expansion, though it will be a factor. If finances are anywhere close, the other factors will control.
Let’s apply these factors to BYU on a 0-10 point basis: 1) BYU is a private, religious institution known to be one of the most religiously committed institutions in the country. 0 points
-
BYU has a religiously-oriented educational philosophy and mandatory religious education requirements. 0 points
-
BYU is ranked RU/H (Research University - High Research Activity) by the Carnegie Classification of Higher Education and is therefore a legitimate research university (despite what our Ute friends say about us). However, EVERY Pac 12 school (including Utah) is ranked RU/VH (Research University - Very High Research Activity) by Carnegie. Furthermore, BYU is not now, nor ever likely will be invited into the AAU. In fact, I don’t believe BYU will ever even want to be a member of AAU. The AAU publishes its “indicators” for “consideration” for membership. Remember there is no automatic qualification, its an invitation-only club run by academics on their own terms. The indicators are grouped into “phase one” and “phase two” on their website. Phase one consists of: 1) Competitively funded federal research support (BYU accepts no federal funds), 2) Membership in the National Academies, 3) Faculty awards, fellowships and memberships, and 4) “Citations” related to research volume and quality. If the review panel feels that an institution has the basic qualifications in this phase, the phase two indicators are: 1) USDA, state, and industrial research funding (again, BYU accepts no federal funds or other government grants that could require surrender of academic control or philosophy), 2) Doctoral education, 3) Number of postdoctoral appointees (this criteria is tied very directly to federal grant funding), 4) Undergraduate education. Since federal and government funding are the #1 criteria at each phase, and BYU’s philosophy values undergraduate education as its highest priority, which almost an afterthought with the AAU, AAU membership is not going to happen for BYU (and I’m fine with that, by the way). maybe 5 points
-
academically, we do not help the PAC v. BIG, since they are focused on the research component rather than undergraduate education. Athletically we would help, and might be at least a wash as to the finances. So, maybe we get half credit on this criteria. 5 points
-
this is where the political/religious philosophy issue comes in to play. The donor class for the Pac 12 schools are largely liberal, environmentalist, pro-abortion, pro gun control, anti-Religious Right, pro-big state welfare-ism, etc. Many of the Pac 12 powers that be - presidents, trustees, donors, etc. remember BYU from the black student boycott days and associate the Church members and BYU with Prop 22, Prop 8, anti-abortion, pro-guns, opposition to federal power (much of which is exercised through those federal research grant programs they value so highly) All of this analysis would apply to any religiously conservative institution. Any overtly anti-Mormon sentiment would merely be icing on the cake. 0 points
Final score 10 out of 50.
The anti-Mormon thing, if it exists, would only be a small part of one factor. Even without it, I don’t see us getting more than 2 or 3 of the 9 votes needed to get in to the PAC. Wish it weren’t so.