Green Otaku

All good, I was just confused haha. If you remember back in the original "SMU to the PAC" thread there's a reason I said I was in full support of them leaving, and that they should do so and sign immediately 😂. Indeed SDSU got lucky, and they should by all accounts be paying for their reckless decision to put in notice before having an invite in-hand. Considering there were reports that they tried to lead a "best of the rest" effort to cherry pick the AAC/MWC with the PAC4, I'd say they are still pretty interested.

Did you quote the wrong post? My post you quoted was about SDSU.

Of course they did, what's that got to do with anything? My comment is in no way about them looking into the PAC financials. It is about SDSU changing their mind about joining. Every step of the way SDSU was begging to join the PAC. They never backed out, the invitation never came.

The highlighted is not true in any way. SDSU was waiting on hands and knees for any invite from the PAC. They even notified the MWC they were leaving before even having the invite in hand, just in case they got one. There's no need to make up a false narrative.

Like with anything realignment it's always good to be weary of all info, and only believe something when you see that official school statement put out.

Another key thing is if we all take the PAC name we become the conference, meaning we get voting rights and rights to all of its assets. If let's say we let the PAC4 keep the name in some hybrid agreement, and the league does really well they can then in the future take the PAC name and rebuild by cherry picking the best teams. The first way forces them to leave the conference if they want to do any kind of rebuilding.

That was a quick change of mind.

You'd think PAC since they are specifically names as having autonomy. That brings along $80m a year in CFP money for the conference.

Caring about fake internet points is just so bizarre.

I don't understand why people make a thread for every new headline. Why not have 1 realignment thread with everything in it?

Pods of 5. Cal, Stanford, WSU, OSU, SDSU UNT, SMU, UTSA, Tulsa, AFA Rice, Tulane, UAB, Memphis, CLT FAU, USF, ECU, Temple, Navy I'm sure there will be some adjustments here and there. Play a 9 conference slate so thats 4 teams in your pod, and 5 crossover games. Or you can do 5 pods of 4 teams, with 6 crossover games. There's a lot of creative solutions.

I clarified later that in my mind I was thinking of P5s that had come to our new stadium. Looking back on things it's kind of wild that we got teams like Baylor and Tech to come to Fouts.

I thought we were trying to get rid if the North Texas "State" connection?

Whoops, meant to put at Apogee/DATCU.

It's kind of funny, with all the perceived elitism and snobby attitudes associated with Cal they are (IIRC) only the 2nd P5 team to agree to come to play at UNT.

It's Aresco, I think it's strange you are always misspelling his name. As someone highly skeptical if this whole PAC-AAC merger can actually be pulled off I think ESPN has a huge amount of power here, and one that is a bonus for us. When the AAC expanded I really think ESPN hade a huge hand in saying they won't pay for teams that are already in the ESPN umbrella. I'm sure a couple of SBC teams might have gotten a look if ESPN didn't shutdown the idea. ESPN doesn't want to cannibalize their own inventory, in the same vein I don't think ESPN is going to approve a new conference that messes with what they already have set up. Fox is tapped out, CBS might be interested since they are losing the SEC. That really leaves Apple or Amazon, so we will see if they can put out a deal worth jumping to.

That's the problem with leaks as they are often lacking context or leave out crucial info, and sometimes I think that's intentional to protect the source. How can both of those statements be true? I saw another tweet that said a vote/decision was made to not hold a vote about expansion. Meaning that's a nicer way to say "No." to Cal/Stan. They didn't reject those schools, they just decided to not hold a vote about adding them.

No to Boise St. unless they change that awful field.

Cal/Stan are already a long shot to the ACC, where is the money going to come from for them to join? IIRC ESPN controls the ACC, why would they shell out another $40-60M a year if they didn't already want to pay the PAC those numbers?

Precedent was that schools paid $18m with a little under 2 years of notice. A notice of 10 months is going to cost them quite a bit more, I'd guess from $25-28M.

Part of the allure of bringing any PAC teams in is to keep the conference name so that you keep the autonomy label (for however long that lasts, but they have it right now), as well as basketball credits, CFP money, bowl ties, withheld conference payouts, etc. Those things are the only things that are giving the PAC schools any leverage, choosing to join the AAC right now would be foolish of them. They will wait and see what happens with Cal/Stanford and after that is resolved they will plan what to do next.

You can't have sports split across conferences. If the conference you are in sponsors that sport, your sport must play there. That's why every football only member has it's olympic sports in a non-fb sponsoring conference.

Which is why I think any partnership should be equal and fair to both sides. If they do bring the PAC name with them, there should be no provisions about them being able to take it back if they leave. If the choose to leave the conference they will be losing any right to their traditional conference affiliation.

I always picture Plumm as a rambling old man: "So, I tied an onion to my belt which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel. And in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you'd say."