Green Otaku

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."

Well they are the #3 school in the country, with a $36b endowment.

This is where it gets complicated. A PAC conference by name must exist to keep their 5 year backlog of BB credits as well as their $80m a year CFP payout. I'm not 100% clear as to what type of set up you are talking about, but if they go football only in the AAC they would lose their autonomy/cfp share status, as well as their bowl contracts. If they add a bunch of non-football schools they still have a problem with not having the minimum number of schools to play football.

Possible, but this would mean the conference would be dissolved and they would give up their basketball credits as well as their larger piece of the CFP pie.

If that happens that would be a huge pressure release for the AAC.

6 for rule changes yes. I was talking about votes needed to dissolve the conference, which I think is 9.

Right now I think the PAC still holds some of that name recognition. It will slowly fade as years pass and streaming only makes it more obscure. I still think it comes down to how much money they can guarantee.

It will all come down to what kind of deal they can cobble together, the money has to be there to entice teams. Taking a guess they would have to offer something around $12m for that to entice AAC teams. The legacy teams make $7m, so if the deal was $10m is that really enough to jump? I think you would need a little more than that.

TCU, TT, Baylor, and Houston would not want to share the same conference either. Do you want to be in a conference with SFA, ACU, SHSU, Houston Baptist, UIW, TSU, Prairie A&M? I'm guessing here, but I wouldn't think so.