Realignment talk not going away

[TKthunder2 5010]

7 minutes ago, pops said:

Cal and Stanford are never joining a conference with Boise and some cal state schools. Ever. And how is San Jose attractive? And don't give me metro tv numbers. Those don't matter when none of those TV's are tuned in to watch any San Jose sports. 

TV market, recruiting, competitiveness.

They’ve moved out of the basement and are now a solid program over the last five years or so.

New Mexico, Nevada-Reno, and Hawaii have been the recent stinkers.

Utah St, UNLV, and San Jose fit the mold of what the other PAC schools are.

edit: 5 years

Edited September 24 by TKthunder2

[Lonestar88 4702]

16 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

They aren’t choosing to stay. They politically have trouble leaving Nevada-Reno. Rumor is Reno stopped investing in athletics after they got the MWC invite and has done next to nothing to improve. That has irritated the MWC members so they don’t want to invite them and UNLV can’t easily leave them.

I’m familiar with the rumors. But they don’t make sense to me. UNLV and Nevada have been in separate conferences for the vast majority of their histories. Nevada didn’t join the MWC until 2012. Before that, the only other time they were in the same conference at the same time was like a 3 year span in the 90s when both were part of the Big West.

 

[Lonestar88 4702]

This is a soap opera.

[bullet 1600]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

They aren’t choosing to stay. They politically have trouble leaving Nevada-Reno. Rumor is Reno stopped investing in athletics after they got the MWC invite and has done next to nothing to improve. That has irritated the MWC members so they don’t want to invite them and UNLV can’t easily leave them.

If the PAC gets to 7, I assume they would give UNLV an ultimatum, join now or never, which might give them enough cover to leave Reno. I’d bet if they stay on this path that UNLV will be #8.

MWC is trying to get commitments.  its going back and forth.  Air Force has committed.  SJSU has committed.  New Mexico and Wyoming I haven't heard, but the 6PAC has no interest in them.  Air Force and UNLV are supposed to get $10 million bonuses to stay from the Pac money.

UNLV agreed to stay, but after Utah St. decided to leave, is now waffling.

Latest is Utah St. to 6Pac and talking to Gonzaga all but football and UConn football only!

['stache 21895]

The “state teams tied together” has always turned out to be bullshit when the final decision is made. It’s just so stupid and messy. 

[thunderlounge 7979]

20 minutes ago, Lonestar88 said:

This is a soap opera.

 

Not a good one.

[pops 7007]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Once the others declare their intent to leave they can’t vote to dissolve. The only way they get out of the fees now is if they do a full merger.

Also San Jose State is a VERY attractive member. The only reason they likely weren’t included is that they think they might get Cal and Stanford back who would NOT want to share a conference with SJSU who they think is basically a JUCO.

Still only 75 percent of remaining schools with a vote need to vote to disolve. So now it takes 6 out of 7 instead of the 9 out of 11 it took a week ago (Hawaii has no vote as a partial member).  So they could have gone to 11 (or paid one school to go away....or airforce agrees to disolve if they get an AAC invite or whatever) and be at 10 and no fees. Then invite Gonzaga and St maries or whomever for hoops and have a 12 team hoop league.

But now to get a dissolution they would have to go to 12 total.  Complete clusterfuck by the pac 2. 

[Al_4_ISU 12513]

This is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

[Texas Wahoo 3420]

42 minutes ago, bullet said:

MWC is trying to get commitments.  its going back and forth.  Air Force has committed.  SJSU has committed.  New Mexico and Wyoming I haven't heard, but the 6PAC has no interest in them.  Air Force and UNLV are supposed to get $10 million bonuses to stay from the Pac money.

UNLV agreed to stay, but after Utah St. decided to leave, is now waffling.

Latest is Utah St. to 6Pac and talking to Gonzaga all but football and UConn football only!

Why would they want UConn football without basketball???

[bullet 1600]

19 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Why would they want UConn football without basketball???

They're desperate for football members.

[bullet 1600]

https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/conference-realignment-update-recap-gonzaga-pac-12-mountain-west-aac?

McMurphy's summary:

 

"For college football fans wondering what conference realignment would look like if they could speed date for new partners, Monday provided a real-time glimpse.

And like most reality TV shows, it was part lovefest, part trainwreck, and you couldn’t look away.

It started with Memphis, USF, UTSA and Tulane — all of which had offers to join the Pac-12 — announcing they were committed to the AAC. They sent out a 120-word commitment to the AAC ending with “The American Way.”

Lately “The American Way” has been conference realignment...."

[TKthunder2 5010]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

MWC is trying to get commitments.  its going back and forth.  Air Force has committed.  SJSU has committed.  New Mexico and Wyoming I haven't heard, but the 6PAC has no interest in them.  Air Force and UNLV are supposed to get $10 million bonuses to stay from the Pac money.

UNLV agreed to stay, but after Utah St. decided to leave, is now waffling.

Yes, Air Force wants the money, UNLV agreed in principle because it puts it out there that time is ticking. SJSU, Wyoming, Reno and New Mexico ain’t getting invites. These 4 schools are pushing the other 3 for their commitment because its the only way it could force the PAC12 to merge with them.

A full merger is the only way those four will be invited. If the PAC12 gets to 8 members then the game is over. UConn football is just a bargaining chip. It’s a short term filler to get them to 8 fb teams with Utah State. They could use Hawaii but they’d have to pay the MWC a fee for them. They’d have to get a basketball team but there are some easy options out there if they can’t land Gonzaga.

Edited September 24 by TKthunder2

[Texas Wahoo 3420]

18 minutes ago, bullet said:

They're desperate for football members.

Then just add UTEP or New Mexico State, lol. 

Edited September 24 by Texas Wahoo

[statsman 5486]

2 hours ago, pops said:

 And don't give me metro tv numbers. Those don't matter when none of those TV's are tuned in to watch any TCU, SMU, UH or Rice sports. 

Amended IFY

Edited September 24 by statsman

[TKthunder2 5010]

21 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Then just add UTEP or New Mexico State, lol. 

Then they have to play them. Not easy to kick members out.

They want Utah St and UNLV but don’t want to pay that ridiculous penalty for poaching them.

UConn gets them to 8 temporarily, and once that penalty expires they can poach for free and then kick out UConn since they are not a full member.

[TrashMaster G 17664]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

The “state teams tied together” has always turned out to be bullshit when the final decision is made. It’s just so stupid and messy. 

Washington-WSU and Oregon-OSU say hello.

Then again UCLA-Cal was quite the expensive split

[TKthunder2 5010]

3 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Washington-WSU and Oregon-OSU say hello.

Then again UCLA-Cal was quite the expensive split

It’s not always bullshit, here just a few historical examples:

Texas couldn’t leave aggy for the SEC back in the late 80s and then had to take Tech as a tagalong when we tried going to the Big8.

Virginia Tech got into the ACC over Syracuse (who was the first choice) due to politics, and the only reason UNC isn’t suing the ACC currently is also politics.

Alabama and Auburn were forced to play each other after 40 years due to the state legislature which is why even 60 years later, Auburn remained in the SEC West after adding two members West of the Mississippi River, and Missouri ended up in the SEC East despite being West of the majority of SEC West members.

The State of Louisiana blocked the University of Louisiana from upgrading to FBS for year and then only allowed it if they changed their branding to Louisiana Lafayette and also upgraded along with Northeast Louisiana who they made them change their branding to Louisiana Monroe so people wouldn’t think ULL was the flagship over LSU and because Louisiana Tech was worried about being perceived as a weaker football program in the state.

Just because it’s not 100%, doesn’t mean it’s not real.

[TrashMaster G 17664]

6 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

It’s not always bullshit, here just a few historical examples:

Texas couldn’t leave aggy for the SEC back in the late 80s and then had to take Tech as a tagalong when we tried going to the Big8.

Virginia Tech got into the ACC over Syracuse (who was the first choice) due to politics, and the only reason UNC isn’t suing the ACC currently is also politics.

Alabama and Auburn were forced to play each other after 40 years due to the state legislature which is why even 60 years later, Auburn remained in the SEC West after adding two members West of the Mississippi River, and Missouri ended up in the SEC East despite being West of the majority of SEC West members.

The State of Louisiana blocked the University of Louisiana from upgrading to FBS for year and then only allowed it if they changed their branding to Louisiana Lafayette and also upgraded along with Northeast Louisiana who they made them change their branding to Louisiana Monroe so people wouldn’t think ULL was the flagship over LSU and because Louisiana Tech was worried about being perceived as a weaker football program in the state.

Just because it’s not 100%, doesn’t mean it’s not real.

Oh, I know it's real some times. Just pointing out that in the cases of UW-WSU and UO-OSU many people were convinced those pairs could not be broken up.

[Josef Pwag 1750]

There is an FSU alum who is an attorney, Doug Rohan, who is doing the podcast circuit. He is insisting that, to save the ACC, ESPN is going to go above & beyond their contract and throw in more money just for Clemson & FSU to stay put. I remember when there was talk of the SEC wanting to go to 9 conference games, but not doing it, because ESPN didn't want to pay more for that additional SEC inventory. Can someone explain to me how ESPN sees the same amount of ACC games being more valuable than additional SEC conference games (with an SEC that now includes Texas and Oklahoma). 

[locodos 5417]

4 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

There is an FSU alum who is an attorney, Doug Rohan, who is doing the podcast circuit. He is insisting that, to save the ACC, ESPN is going to go above & beyond their contract and throw in more money just for Clemson & FSU to stay put. I remember when there was talk of the SEC wanting to go to 9 conference games, but not doing it, because ESPN didn't want to pay more for that additional SEC inventory. Can someone explain to me how ESPN sees the same amount of ACC games being more valuable than additional SEC conference games (with an SEC that now includes Texas and Oklahoma). 

No

[bullet 1600]

10 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

It’s not always bullshit, here just a few historical examples:

Texas couldn’t leave aggy for the SEC back in the late 80s and then had to take Tech as a tagalong when we tried going to the Big8.

Virginia Tech got into the ACC over Syracuse (who was the first choice) due to politics, and the only reason UNC isn’t suing the ACC currently is also politics.

Alabama and Auburn were forced to play each other after 40 years due to the state legislature which is why even 60 years later, Auburn remained in the SEC West after adding two members West of the Mississippi River, and Missouri ended up in the SEC East despite being West of the majority of SEC West members.

The State of Louisiana blocked the University of Louisiana from upgrading to FBS for year and then only allowed it if they changed their branding to Louisiana Lafayette and also upgraded along with Northeast Louisiana who they made them change their branding to Louisiana Monroe so people wouldn’t think ULL was the flagship over LSU and because Louisiana Tech was worried about being perceived as a weaker football program in the state.

Just because it’s not 100%, doesn’t mean it’s not real.

ULL has always been FBS.  They didn't move down in 1982.  LT didn't move up until 1989 and ULM until 1994.  

[bullet 1600]

"...But that plan is going to be limited by another reality: Memphis, one consultant told USA TODAY Sports, is not valued by TV rights holders significantly more than, say, Utah State. And Oregon State and Washington State, the two original Pac-12 leftovers who decided to bring the conference back, aren’t valued much more than Memphis. 

In other words, the new Pac-12 was not going to be a power conference no matter which of the potential members jumped in. And the notion of a $12 million per member payday, which had been the carrot for a school like Memphis (currently making around $8-9 million in the AAC) was merely theoretical and based on calculations from the Pac-12’s paid consultants that few people across the college sports industry actually believed...."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/09/23/pac-12-conference-realignment-aac/75354941007/

This is the part that made me skeptical of all these plans.  It just didn't make sense based on the values.  WSU/OSU are not much more valuable than a typical G5, maybe less than Boise.  And after that, you've probably got Memphis, USF and Temple.  Then its all pretty fungible, some slightly worse than others.  Besides the money they are spending, SDSU seems to be mentioned mainly because they are the only G5 school in southern California.  Below are the TV ratings from Sic-em for non power schools.  The schools with 36 games over the 9 years were ranked.    Oregon St. was #66, near the bottom of the P5 and a little below Boise and Memphis and just ahead of USF.  Below that, I've ranked the schools with less than 36 games in order.  UNLV was dead last in MWC and SDSU didn't do that well either, ranked right between Buffalo and Kent.

School	All 2013-2021	Top 36 (4 Per Year)	Top 36 Rank
Navy	45 Games, 2.33mm	2.819mm	35
Washington St.	56 Games, 1.407mm	1.905mm	50	P12
Boise St.	72 Games, 0.827mm	1.258mm	63	MWC
Memphis	52 Games, 0.918mm	1.257mm	64
Oregon St.	40 Games, 1.124mm	1.214mm	66	P12
USF	48 Games, 0.861mm	1.103mm	68
Temple	42 Games, 0.773mm	0.891mm	70
Tulsa	51 Games, 0.603mm	0.82mm	72
Northern Illinois	36 Games, 0.648mm	0.648mm	74
East Carolina	37 Games, 0.547mm	0.56mm	75
Army	24 Games, 3.331mm	N/A	N/A
Rice	13 Games, 0.836mm	N/A	N/A
Fresno St.	33 Games, 0.697mm	N/A	N/A	MWC
Coastal Carolina	10 Games, 0.647mm	N/A	N/A
Ball St.	15 Games, 0.635mm	N/A	N/A
Colorado St.	22 Games, 0.605mm	N/A	N/A	MWC
Western Michigan	26 Games, 0.603mm	N/A	N/A
Appalachian St.	27 Games, 0.587mm	N/A	N/A
Air Force	30 Games, 0.584mm	N/A	N/A	MWC
Florida Atlantic	13 Games, 0.583mm	N/A	N/A
Connecticut	31 Games, 0.571mm	N/A	N/A
Utah St.	33 Games, 0.563mm	N/A	N/A	MWC
ULL	25 Games, 0.562mm	N/A	N/A
Western Kentucky	18 Games, 0.553mm	N/A	N/A
UAB	8 Games, 0.552mm	N/A	N/A
Hawaii	15 Games, 0.55mm	N/A	N/A	MWC
Southern Miss	11 Games, 0.541mm	N/A	N/A
Buffalo	25 Games, 0.529mm	N/A	N/A
San Diego St.	28 Games, 0.522mm	N/A	N/A	MWC
Kent St.	25 Games, 0.503mm	N/A	N/A
Marshall	18 Games, 0.498mm	N/A	N/A
Nevada	24 Games, 0.493mm	N/A	N/A	MWC
Bowling Green	25 Games, 0.478mm	N/A	N/A
Arkansas St.	24 Games, 0.472mm	N/A	N/A
Massachusetts	6 Games, 0.468mm	N/A	N/A
Wyoming	29 Games, 0.45mm	N/A	N/A	MWC
UTEP	12 Games, 0.444mm	N/A	N/A
Ohio	29 Games, 0.44mm	N/A	N/A
Toledo	31 Games, 0.439mm	N/A	N/A
Georgia St.	9 Games, 0.434mm	N/A	N/A
South Alabama	15 Games, 0.42mm	N/A	N/A
Tulane	35 Games, 0.419mm	N/A	N/A
Miami (OH)	15 Games, 0.405mm	N/A	N/A
San Jose St.	20 Games, 0.398mm	N/A	N/A	MWC
New Mexico	25 Games, 0.371mm	N/A	N/A	MWC
Middle Tennessee St.	12 Games, 0.359mm	N/A	N/A
Eastern Michigan	9 Games, 0.35mm	N/A	N/A
Central Michigan	17 Games, 0.347mm	N/A	N/A
Texas St.	15 Games, 0.337mm	N/A	N/A
Louisiana Tech	14 Games, 0.334mm	N/A	N/A
UTSA	16 Games, 0.314mm	N/A	N/A
UNLV	20 Games, 0.307mm	N/A	N/A	MWC

 

[JBJ 3671]

Deleted

Edited September 24 by JBJ
Responding to old shit

[TKthunder2 5010]

27 minutes ago, bullet said:

ULL has always been FBS.  They didn't move down in 1982.  LT didn't move up until 1989 and ULM until 1994.  

You’re correct, bad memory on my part.

[BigHornedLurker 1969]

a few thoughts 

1. i think its hilarious all the holier than though teams and conferences survive long enough to be the villain 

2. im up for thoughts on creative ways for Texas to steal the latest wave of realignment valor 

[USC Traveler 488]

19 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Sounds like they did all of this just to get away from Nevada-Reno (because apparently they have just stopped investing as much in athletics after they got the MWC invite) and San Jose St (because they think they have a one in a million chance at getting Cal or Stanford back).

New Mexico and Wyoming are well liked institutions but in small markets which probably hurt their projected per school payout from a new TV deal.

No one seems to have an issue with Air Force at all, and they could drop Hawaii at anytime since they are not a full member.

So the PAC12 is paying out around $200 million in order to get rid of 4 members only a single one of which the other teams seem not to like.

WSU/OSU could have joined the MWC and kept that $100 million windfall and had the best facilities and NIL in the conference for the next decade and keep them in conversation annually for a playoff spot that could possibly turn into a P4 invite…

But instead, they chose this rebuild the PAC12 path where they will pay out a bunch of money to “lesser” schools and be in a conference of their peers that will have more motivated fan/donor support while WSU/OSU fans/alumni are still sad and unmotivated, which in turn will push WSU/OSU to the middle of the pack where they fall into even further obscurity.

Which would have been the better investment?

The people running Wazzu, OSU and the carcass of the PAC are part of the same  group that kept Larry Scott in power, who pushed through equal revenue distribution to subsidize their programs to create parity in football,  and wanted to emphasize Olympic sports for the identity of the conference.

Not shocking that these same idiots (newPAC is run by a PAC lifer) don't think strategically, don't know how to close a deal, and in general, make horrendously bad decisions.  

I'm so glad to never be in a conference with these clowns again.

Your suggested path would have been much better.  Invest in facilities and NIL to create G6 powerhouse programs that make the playoff regularly, which would then spur more fan donations to NIL and help build their brands up over time.

[Horn of Gabriel 1855]

48 minutes ago, BigHornedLurker said:

2. im up for thoughts on creative ways for Texas to steal the latest wave of realignment valor 

Didn't you see the articles over the past few months tracing all this realignment happening today back to big mean Texas?

[LTbear 4171]

49 minutes ago, BigHornedLurker said:

 

2. im up for thoughts on creative ways for Texas to steal the latest wave of realignment valor 

This is easy. Texas leaves Big XII ->  Big XII takes four corners schools -> 2-Pac raids MWC = Texas killed the MWC. Why did you Longhorns hate Wyoming so much!?!

[Evil Bill Obrien 3304]

4 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

The people running Wazzu, OSU and the carcass of the PAC are part of the same  group that kept Larry Scott in power, who pushed through equal revenue distribution to subsidize their programs to create parity in football,  and wanted to emphasize Olympic sports for the identity of the conference.

Not shocking that these same idiots (newPAC is run by a PAC lifer) don't think strategically, don't know how to close a deal, and in general, make horrendously bad decisions.  

I'm so glad to never be in a conference with these clowns again.

Your suggested path would have been much better.  Invest in facilities and NIL to create G6 powerhouse programs that make the playoff regularly, which would then spur more fan donations to NIL and help build their brands up over time.

This is the part that I think everyone is finally realizing, that the people trying to birth the newPAC are the same people who ran the Pac 12 into the ground... makes me kind of curious what the hell the Boise State and Colorado State administration are thinking bailing on the MWC to a possible dead-on-arrival newPAC

[Texas Wahoo 3420]

3 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

This is the part that I think everyone is finally realizing, that the people trying to birth the newPAC are the same people who ran the Pac 12 into the ground... makes me kind of curious what the hell the Boise State and Colorado State administration are thinking bailing on the MWC to a possible dead-on-arrival newPAC

They're thinking the same thing they thought when they left the WAC, they are trying to ditch the bottom half of the conference.

[USC Traveler 488]

For all the OGs in this thread, today is the day it's all going down, and you know why.

.

.

.

.

.

It's Tuesday!

The Dude, Mhver and all the rest of the frauds will finally be able to say they were right about something (15 years later).

[USC Traveler 488]

On 9/20/2024 at 3:21 PM, closetohumping said:

Cal should just own who they are and make that their logo.  Would boost attendance and they would instantly get a lot more support from admin and faculty.

Would certainly add an extra layer of spice to games at Clemson, FSU, and SMU.

It actually looks pretty badass as a helmet logo.

[USC Traveler 488]

21 hours ago, Lonestar88 said:

The PAC-12 screwed up imo. If they had just taken 8 MWC teams from the start, those 8 teams could've voted to dissolve the MWC and the PAC wouldn’t owe anyone any money. Now we’re talking about them taking 6 MWC teams anyway.

They’re  going to pay a shit ton of money for the right to take 2 less MWC teams.

This would have been the move if the newPAC was run by smart people.  Wazzu and OSU could have kept the money and invested in their programs.

The only thing that may save them is if the MWC is run by even dumber people, and they haven't changed their bylaws to remove voting power from a member as soon as they announce they're leaving.

If that's the case, PAC could still take three more schools and dissolve the MWC.

[Evil Bill Obrien 3304]

Oh boy, here come the lawyers...
 

 

[USC Traveler 488]

19 hours ago, LTbear said:

I'm betting they really believed they could get Memphis + friends and build what would have been the clear-cut best G5, which would have been the obvious favorite for the 5th conference champ spot in the playoffs each year. 

Agreed.  The idea was good, but the problem is that they didn't do enough to motivate the AAC schools to leave, probably because they didn't look at it from the AAC schools' POV.  They're also focused on keeping membership numbers low for better revenue, and maybe also living in a fantasyland that Cal and Stanford will eventually come back.

I posted last week that if I'm running Memphis or Tulane, I'm not going to the PAC unless there are enough schools in an Eastern division to limit travel to the West Coast to once per year.  PAC would have been smart to take the top 8 from the MWC to dissolve it, then offer Memphis, Tulane, USF, UTSA and six more AAC/Sunbelt schools to kneecap the AAC and create a G6 "superconference" that would almost always get the G6 playoff bid.

Even though it would be 20 schools, the AAC and MWC both have a lot of games broadcast on ESPN, FS1 and CBSsn, so the money would be there.

But all of this assumes that the people running the PAC, Wazzu, and OSU know what they're doing.  As we know- they don't.

[pops 7007]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

This would have been the move if the newPAC was run by smart people.  Wazzu and OSU could have kept the money and invested in their programs.

The only thing that may save them is if the MWC is run by even dumber people, and they haven't changed their bylaws to remove voting power from a member as soon as they announce they're leaving.

If that's the case, PAC could still take three more schools and dissolve the MWC.

I can assure you the mwc is run by people at least as dumb. I haven't looked at the full bylaws nor the agreement entered into when the scheduling agreement was put in place but I've seen snippets of the bylaws that do seem to show you are still a voting member until you file a formal notice of intent to leave with the league office. I guess we will see if agreeing to go to a new conference constitutes notice or not. 

['stache 21895]

I would bet good money that the "poaching penalty" is unenforceable. These clauses are a form of liquidated damages and every jurisdiction literally has in their laws that liquidated damages clauses must be a logical estimation of actual damages and cannot be a "penalty." The law used that word, "cannot be a penalty." 

Edited September 24 by 'stache

[Huckleberry 33159]

The talk in here that the 2-Pac is clueless is silly, especially when it comes from the fan of a school that was surprised to lose in court and see all the Pac-12 assets remain with those two schools. 

Edited September 24 by Huckleberry

[gatormarc 916]

 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

On 9/20/2024 at 10:20 PM, TKthunder2 said:

I have zero love for the Big Ten but I disagree with your assessment. If we’re just going off who can win a national title, then yeah it’s a down year for the Big Ten, but even then they have more than Ohio St. Penn St, USC, Oregon, and maybe even Nebraska (look at their schedule) could all be playoff teams. But when we’re talking about realignment, year to year isn’t that important as you can discount Michigan’s value just because they are down a little a year after winning it all.

To your tier list, sure, the Big Ten has 5 blueblood or near blueblood schools in Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, USC, and Nebraska that the Big 12 has no chance to match but they also have another 5 schools that would still clearly at the very top of the upper echelon of the Big 12.

You might be able to argue that Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Michigan St, and Iowa wouldn’t be number one in the Big 12, but even if true, they would absolutely be in the top quartile at a minimum.

Yeah we've had a version of this debate dating back before realignment was getting started.    The premise being how many blue bloods do you need to maintain the conference coffers.    Originally the math said about 25% of the conference needed to be big hitters.   We can argue about who exactly is the bluest of blue bloods or, Le Bleu Bloods, but for this convo let's just say biggest brands.  The creation of the Big 12 and ACC, dissolving the SWC and Big East, moved it to this 25% camp to a state of equilibrium.    

The math changed though to get more bucks.    The Big Ten has the benefit of having a far, far, far better business apparatus around its conference than the SEC and the two largest brands in the sport.   The SEC has the benefit of more top brands overall:

B1G Football:  Top (28%) - Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, USC     Secondary (17%) - Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin

SEC Football: Top (44%) - Texas, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee    Secondary (13%)- A&M, Auburn

The ACC has diluted its brand percent to the point where I'm not sure it even matters any more.   The Big 12 has gone the other direction and has all its value in secondary, but has a lot of it.   

As to the last point, which I think is Al's original point, is that after you get past that Top area, you're basically left with the Big 12/ACC.    You can't really compare finances when Ole Miss get's paid $80m by the SEC and VTech gets $30m by the ACC.    Who plays in the 2m+ games, the 4m+ games and the 8m+ games, that's your tiers.   The top 12 schools are easy to figure out, the next 36 are waaaaaay harder.

[DigglerontheHoof 21263]

On 9/21/2024 at 2:15 PM, Lonestar88 said:

 

Wouldn't it have been much easier for OSU and WSU to join the MW?  

[bullet 1600]

5 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Agreed.  The idea was good, but the problem is that they didn't do enough to motivate the AAC schools to leave, probably because they didn't look at it from the AAC schools' POV.  They're also focused on keeping membership numbers low for better revenue, and maybe also living in a fantasyland that Cal and Stanford will eventually come back.

I posted last week that if I'm running Memphis or Tulane, I'm not going to the PAC unless there are enough schools in an Eastern division to limit travel to the West Coast to once per year.  PAC would have been smart to take the top 8 from the MWC to dissolve it, then offer Memphis, Tulane, USF, UTSA and six more AAC/Sunbelt schools to kneecap the AAC and create a G6 "superconference" that would almost always get the G6 playoff bid.

Even though it would be 20 schools, the AAC and MWC both have a lot of games broadcast on ESPN, FS1 and CBSsn, so the money would be there.

But all of this assumes that the people running the PAC, Wazzu, and OSU know what they're doing.  As we know- they don't.

I read they were only offering $2.5 million for exit fees for the AAC schools.  Those fees would probably be around $15-$18 million.

[bullet 1600]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

I would bet good money that the "poaching penalty" is unenforceable. These clauses are a form of liquidated damages and every jurisdiction literally has in their laws that liquidated damages clauses must be a logical estimation of actual damages and cannot be a "penalty." The law used that word, "cannot be a penalty." 

Well its a recent contract.  It was done in order to give the 2Pac games this season.  It goes away in another year.  I don't think it is like the exit fees that are to approximate damages.  This is intended to be painful, just as breakup fees in a corporate merger are painful.  Its much more of an agreed purchase price.  Strikes me as a frivolous lawsuit.

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

The talk in here that the 2-Pac is clueless is silly, especially when it comes from the fan of a school that was surprised to lose in court and see all the Pac-12 assets remain with those two schools. 

If you’re referring to me, you’ve got the wrong poster.  I never thought the PAC schools that were leaving had any chance of maintaining control.  They lost their voting rights as soon as they announced they were leaving.

As for the PAC being clueless, we can agree to disagree, but I saw it up close for multiple decades, through multiple commissioners and Presidents of the various universities.  And they were clueless.

The objective evidence is that despite there being more money available in tv deals than ever before the conference no longer exists in its former form, and is only a shell of itself, due to a long, dreadful series of mistakes, starting with Stanford vetoing Texas joining, the PAC 16 falling apart over LHN, the PACNet, all the way up to Klownkoff rejecting the ESPN offer last year.

Nothing about this botched attempt to turn the PAC into the top G6 conference looks any different than previous decades of ineptitude.

Do you think the PAC has played their hand well ?

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

I read they were only offering $2.5 million for exit fees for the AAC schools.  Those fees would probably be around $15-$18 million.

That’s even more stupid than I thought.  That’s laughable.

[TKthunder2 5010]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah we've had a version of this debate dating back before realignment was getting started.    The premise being how many blue bloods do you need to maintain the conference coffers.    Originally the math said about 25% of the conference needed to be big hitters.   We can argue about who exactly is the bluest of blue bloods or, Le Bleu Bloods, but for this convo let's just say biggest brands.  The creation of the Big 12 and ACC, dissolving the SWC and Big East, moved it to this 25% camp to a state of equilibrium.    

The math changed though to get more bucks.    The Big Ten has the benefit of having a far, far, far better business apparatus around its conference than the SEC and the two largest brands in the sport.   The SEC has the benefit of more top brands overall:

B1G Football:  Top (28%) - Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, USC     Secondary (17%) - Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin

SEC Football: Top (44%) - Texas, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee    Secondary (13%)- A&M, Auburn

The ACC has diluted its brand percent to the point where I'm not sure it even matters any more.   The Big 12 has gone the other direction and has all its value in secondary, but has a lot of it.   

As to the last point, which I think is Al's original point, is that after you get past that Top area, you're basically left with the Big 12/ACC.    You can't really compare finances when Ole Miss get's paid $80m by the SEC and VTech gets $30m by the ACC.    Who plays in the 2m+ games, the 4m+ games and the 8m+ games, that's your tiers.   The top 12 schools are easy to figure out, the next 36 are waaaaaay harder.

So what are the Big 12’s secondary teams that are on the same level as Oregon or Auburn? Because I can’t think of any.

That’s the part I don’t agree with. In a mock draft of college football teams I think you’d see more what you call 3rd tier SEC and Big Ten team come off the board before you get to the first Big 12 selection.

[Texas Wahoo 3420]

22 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

If you’re referring to me, you’ve got the wrong poster.  I never thought the PAC schools that were leaving had any chance of maintaining control.  They lost their voting rights as soon as they announced they were leaving.

As for the PAC being clueless, we can agree to disagree, but I saw it up close for multiple decades, through multiple commissioners and Presidents of the various universities.  And they were clueless.

The objective evidence is that despite there being more money available in tv deals than ever before the conference no longer exists in its former form, and is only a shell of itself, due to a long, dreadful series of mistakes, starting with Stanford vetoing Texas joining, the PAC 16 falling apart over LHN, the PACNet, all the way up to Klownkoff rejecting the ESPN offer last year.

Nothing about this botched attempt to turn the PAC into the top G6 conference looks any different than previous decades of ineptitude.

Do you think the PAC has played their hand well ?

He didn’t say the fan was surprised. He said it was a fan of a school that was surprised. 

[jTower 241]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

Well it’s a recent contract.  It was done in order to give the 2Pac games this season.  It goes away in another year.  I don't think it is like the exit fees that are to approximate damages.  This is intended to be painful, just as breakup fees in a corporate merger are painful.  It’s much more of an agreed purchase price.  Strikes me as a frivolous lawsuit.

Things are happening when bullet is back and it’s Tuesday. 

Edited September 25 by jTower
Spelling

[USC Traveler 488]

24 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

He didn’t say the fan was surprised. He said it was a fan of a school that was surprised. 

Ah, got it.  Well USC's admin has also been clueless for most of the last 15 years.  

That's part of why Commissar Scott and Co were able to stay in power for so long.  USC didn't fight tooth and nail to make the PAC16 happen, and let Scott, Wazzu, Cal, etc kill the deal over LHN even though unequal revenue had been in place in the PAC for years.  They also never tried to push Scott out.  

They self-sanctioned with Haden and Swann as ADs, and Clown Helton as HC.

And they were so petrified of the NCAA boogeyman hiding under the bed that USC is now 3 years behind schools like UT on NIL.

So yeah, no surprise that they thought they could win an open and shut case.

 

[Lonestar88 4702]

Utah State makes it official