DentonStang

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.

Current make up of the AAC

Informal deadline according to who? This speculation. There have been endless "informal deadlines" guessed at. Just guesses. No evidence to assume this deadline is any more real. PAC has a year before they must have a deal. Time is getting short but nowhere near critical.

I don't know when the deal will be done, but this guy 100% just makes up stuff. Scroll through his history

This whole Colorado thing is so silly. It's not happening for many reasons. Most of all logic. Big12 Mouthpieces: PAC is so worthless their deal will be less than Big12 Also Big12 Mouthpieces: But we are going to add one of their worst, lowest value programs, Colorado, and it'll get us more money. Those two things are direct contradictions

What do you mean travel? They've all moved to Frisco from what I can tell

Nothing was retaining Dykes except a conference change. As far as success with NIL, this is year one. Last year was the real first year of NIL being open, but we had to use it to keep Dykes from raiding the roster. We were pretty successful, but it didn't allow for mass upgrades like this year

The ability to show off a nice locker room is insignificant next to the power of the NIL

It would be a distraction, but nobody actually knows if they are trying to beat that deadline. It's been a distraction for a year. They may not care if it is a distraction on July 21, or may believe it's worth the distraction to continue whatever they are doing. It's a fan/media derived deadline

Yes. It's still 8 figures of additional media income every year, it still comes with much more visibility in the media, better opponents that people have heard of and have credibility, this easier recruiting and better attendance, and associates SMU with some premier national universities. There are almost no downsides, despite having to deal with California idiots and dysfunction. Plus, think about Cal fans showing up at SMU and realizing the Bush II presidential library is there! Perfect.

It's a valid question. I think the reasonable answer is it's foolish to leave before you have a sure thing in hand. Anything could always blow up. Leverage that risk against the $17M, which likely won't actually be $17M. Pretty much every conference change we've seen has had a negotiated exit for better terms. I will push back against the idea that someone had to have changed recently. The original SDSU letter to the MWC said they were not giving notice of leaving before July 1, but that they intended to give notice at some point after that. Nothing was ever happening on June 30. Their strategy may be dumb, but it hasn't changed.

Yes, we should. And if we don't then there is something majorly wrong.