DentonStang

You have to have a good staff and program. Its playing out all over the the G5, as I showed above. You're going to lose some occasionally who are, or have the hubris to think they are, able to move to LSU and dominate. But on the whole, you are going to benefit, like most G5s have been. Again, just the schools I happened to select - over 40 P5 level players that wouldn't be in the conference anywhere without transfers. How does that hurt parity?

Just rolling through the AAC randomly grabbing teams, looking at transfers for 2023, ignoring transfers that haven't landed yet: USF: 18 in (12 from P5) 16 out (8 P5) ECU: 11 in (6 P5) 9 out (3 P5) Memphis: 19 in (14 P5) 12 out (3 P5) Tulsa: 8 in (7 P5) 5 out (4 P5) SMU: 26 in (20 P5) 19 out (2 P5) Temple: 8 in (5 P5) 4 out (1 P5) UTSA: 6 in (3 P5) 3 out (1 P5) That's over 40 P5 talent players coming in than going out. I know UNT is negative on P5 talent this year in the portal, but that's a (fixable) UNT problem, not a portal problem.

That's just not what actual data shows. Yes, there are good players transferring up, but far more #2 guys transferring down for playing time rather than ride the bench at Texas. UNT has not learned to exploit it yet, but go pull up teams on a recruiting service page. Stopping the transfers protects the big brands who will always be able to put recruit the smaller brands with promises of glory, way better funding, and under the table money and now NIL.

Most players are transferring down, not up. This protects the Alabamas of the world who can continue to recruit (dirty) and stockpile talent on their bench, not the UNTs. Transfers level the playing field.

Doesn't make sense does it? That's because it's just BS thrown against the wall to see what sticks. It's not based on actual reporting, sources, or fact. That's what practically ALL of the reporting on this topic has been for 6+ months (including pro-PAC articles). We're a long way from Walter Kronkite.

Doesn't really mean anything other than they aren't immediately kicked out over their bizarre letter stunt

If only those conference executives were as smart as poster on this board

Yes, it is objectively better. It's looking like 3 tiers. If it ever gets to just 2 tiers, well everyone is going to reconfig into geographic conferences and cut way back then anyway. Why give up and not try just because there is a possible scenario 15 years down the line where you end up......no worse than you are today.

Any attempt to restrict NIL is racist. The only equity blah blah blah is unrestricted NIL like today

So you think that's all that different financially from where soccer and volleyball are going now already, like Temple, or UConn, or the multiple west coast games they play?

I'll be crying into our extra $20M+/yr in media money

Believe me, I'm not saying it's totally fine. If it were known to be totally fine there would be a deal in place. I'm just saying we don't know if it's fine, kinda fine, not very fine, complete disaster, or something else. None of the info leaking is reliable, and the vast major is just total BS. Practically every media personality who has commented positive or negative has been wrong repeatedly over the last year. It's all BS clickbait. Equally BS is the idea of deadlines. If media day or any of the other "must be done by or" dates mattered the PAC would have at least attempted to soften the publicity or make excuses or throw a bone. They haven't. They don't care. The dates don't matter. They obviously don't care about the publicity. They have at least 6 more months before they approach real contractual deadlines that matter due to the expiration of the current contract a year from now.

So, no sources, no actual info on the negotiations, just talking head opinion piece. As meaningless as everything else. What would "dire" even mean? This data is a bit long of a time period and includes USC/UCLA and UT/OU but this shows Stanford would be the #2 team in viewership among the B12 left behind, and just barely. https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-viewers-did-your-ncaa-team-attract

No they aren't. It makes no rational sense for they to happen for a ton of reasons, including from the B12 perspective. If the PAC is so worthless that their media deal is so low teams will want to bolt, why would the B12 want one of their lowest value teams? It would be substantially dragging B12 down. It's gobbledygook.

Really? If you are really asking this question, then you are pretty clueless. I don't mean this as an insult. There are obvious and substantial benefits to joining a post-USC/UCLA PAC.

Again, sure, if the PAC money is vastly less than B12. But nobody legitimate thinks this will be the case. Maybe less than B12, but not substantially. By legitimate I mean industry people, retired network executives, media that write serious articles on sports media (not people relying on Twitter traffic or who write for single conferences like Swaim or Canzano).

Sure, if Oregon & Washington or anyone else gets raided by B10, situation changes. But that's not happening, at least not soon. If the B10 wanted those schools they could have them tomorrow. Now's the time with ending PAC contract. B10 either doesn't want them at all, or they are waiting on raiding ACC first. Who knows. But waiting a year and having Oregon try to fight out of a new PAC GOR is nonsense. In the likely scenario where PAC is not raided (ever or soon) it makes zero sense for a variety of reasons for any other PAC team to go to the B12. It doesn't make financial sense, academic sense, prestige sense, cultural sense, etc.

I've got plenty of criticism for PAC, they seem deeply disfunctional which shouldn't be a surprise for a California-based institution, I guess. They have totally bungled the PR aspect of this process, totally given away the narrative, etc. None of that has anything to do with whether it would make sense for Colorado, ASU, or any other PAC team to jump to the Big12. It doesn't. It's like starting a rumor Duke is going to switch to the Big12 because they are focusing on basketball. Makes no sense once you start thinking about the details.

No PAC team was ever going to move to B12. It's a ridiculous scenario contrived by B12 propaganda efforts

Yes, It's very logical why they added who they did and who they didn't. I wouldn't add us if I were them given their current make up. Still don't have to like it.

Really, no. UNT gets no more thought than other teams like Rice joining, which aren't any worse than most of the other AAC teams that were already here and not leaving. But really, we are salty about being left behind by UCF UH Cincy. Who we're left with are all pretty much interchangeable.

Yes. It's going to be hard to fill the stadium against Charlotte or UNT unless we are undefeated

Excuse me, we have money, AND coke

For sure. But since you're limited to what conference you are in and what OOC will agree to play you (this gets harder when you are a real threat) you can maximize attendance with what you have. No reason you couldn't be filling Apogee with undefeated seasons and proper marketing

I don't understand why everyone wants to put some historical or even metaphysical wrap around this topic. Every school's potential is mostly the same, with some exception for extreme geography (Boise), etc. The only thing that brings fans and attendance is winning. The thing that brings winning is an administration that wants to spend resources, and more importantly provide curriculum and support programs and admissions policies etc. Do that and recruit and win. Win enough and demonstrate financial commitment and get attention and move up in conference. That's how everyone who has ever moved up has done it. Could be just about anyone. UNT could be Utah or TCU or UCF but has chosen not to be. NIL is a potential wrinkle but we'll see how that plays out long term.