DentonStang

Give me a worse scenario starting with SMU to PAC

There's no scenario that's significantly worse than staying in the AAC, and Aresco would take us back anyway. Literally no downside to trying, only upside. If it all completely blows up, we've lost nothing. If it survives, fantastic.

Even with academics not mattering as much it's hard to imagine UTSA being acceptable. Their academics don't even register as academics. In 10 years they could be an new UCF though

I admit I framed it around money. And that nobody in the PAC was going to jump unless it was insanely low. I stand by this. What I couldn't foresee was the commissioner screwing around so long that Colorado lost all trust in even getting a deal done. That's all unbelievable failing so bad it's hard to even comprehend. I still wonder if there is something else afoot but I have no evidence

As we've seen, most trustworthy doesn't mean much, but I'd have to go find where I read it. It was legitimate reporters not mhver3 or whatever. Who the hell knows.

The story being propagated is that Colorado demanded to see the number by PAC media day (secretly because Big12 game them an Aug 1 deadline) and PAC commissioner blew them off. So they took the bird in the hand (B12) over the bush. I find it hard to believe they saw NO numbers ever, so the truth is probably in the middle. And some elements of Colorado have been quite vocal about going to B12 (including Deion Sanders). The most trustworthy reports are PAC is looking at even or slightly more money than B12, but extremely streaming heavy. Or significantly less than B12 with heavy linear. But really, you have a sure thing with long term stability in B12. PAC you have even money at best, untrustworthy leadership, and a guaranteed raid at some point in the future. Its the right move.

Yeah. I admit that. I underestimated the incompetence off PAC. It's pretty unbelievable. I stand by that the move doesn't make sense if PAC is even half way run well. But faced with guaranteed money on B12 vs..... A bag of PAC nothing, I would make the same move. B12 is safe. PAC is chaos

I knew dealing with California institutions meant some level of dysfunction, but it was impossible to imagine this level of incompetency. It's impossible to predict what PAC will do because they are not rational people. Its pretty obvious what B12 will do

And it seems CU was interested in moving purely for stability. Perhaps everyone else wants to see numbers before considering

At that point, why would the top 10-14 schools break off and drop the dead weight?

Boise and SDSU make revenue, the rest are zeros. And I don't think you're familiar with the relative revenue of each PAC team. What I described isn't $30M/yr by any means but it's higher than AAC post-UH/Cincy/UCF departure

Let's consider a worst case. Oregon & Washington gone, 4 corners gone. Left with Cal Stanford OSU WSU. Now backfill with SDSU, SMU, Tulane, CSU, Boise, UNLV. That's still a significant upgrade in media money and prestige over AACUSA. It's more like AAC from last year. Nothing like hoped but.... At least no Charlotte. In that scenario Big12 is full, maybe PAC can merge with ACC leftovers when it is raided.

Oregon seems to have been debunked as already having been scheduled with a normal agenda. Don't know about other two. Honestly I would think any competent board would meet to at least discuss

We'll see what that looks like. Could still be better...... Could be MWC plus Stanford and Cal. Who knows. At least we'll finally get a resolution

Still an upgrade at this point

This has to be one of two things: 1. PAC media deal is a disaster. Most likely, but where are the others bailing? 2. CU wants the stability of the B12 vs poachable PAC. Why now? But could explain why one moving first. Either way likelihood of others joining is high. Colorado doesn't add much to the B12 by itself, I don't know why they would want them if not to get others too.

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