keith

I don't understand the question.

I was thinking the same thing GrayEagle. If Stanford wants to take their ball and play by themselves, then maybe it's time for the AAC to make a new offer to Cal, OSU and WSU to see if they would be interested. If those three agree as a unit maybe they force Stanford's hand, but they simply may not be interested. Would love to have Stanford, but can't be held hostage. If they aren't interested, see if any of UNLV, AF or CSU would bite.

I'm not sure the marquee matchups would be gone, but they would be out-of-conference instead of conference games. However, this raises a question. Let's say Stanford still plays USC, UCLA and Wash/Oregon OOC on semi-regular annual basis. Which provider carries the game and is the money associated with the game split between the two conferences? Is it a matter of who the home team is? Likewise, Stanford plays Notre Dame on occasion. So, if they schedule correctly, I think they will still be able to play marquee games on an annual basis along with 3 former PAC conference mates.

You're forgetting the annual UNT-SMU conference championship game...hahaha.

I believe most exit fees are paid or negotiated to be paid over time instead of a lump sum amount. I think Houston, UCF and Cincinnati are paying theirs over 14 years or something, so these exit fees are not a onerous as you would think if the annual benefit far exceeds the annual exit fee commitment.

Sometimes it's good to be the best of the worst options (for the Pac-4). As some of these now far-flung conferences have shown, geography is not that important. Geography is what's causing some to say the Pac-4 should just merge with the MWC. Given the onerous exit fees, it sounds like it would be hard for the Pac-4 to reconstitute by picking off MWC schools one at a time. It would require the MWC voting to dissolve itself and moving whole or in part to join the Pac-4. Could happen, but seems unlikely. On the flip side, I'm not convinced the MWC has the pull for things to go the other way and absorb the Pac-4/2. Assuming the AAC institutions stick together, the other options the Pac-4 are pursuing evaporate and nothing happens with the MWC, the AAC is the next best option for the Pac-4 (or the Pac-2). The Pac-4 picking off AAC schools one a time is probably the biggest risk for the AAC. We all know who I'm talking about. Stick together, stay strong and I think the entire AAC emerges out of this mess in a better place (although it may have a different name).

I actually did not punctuate my sentence correctly... It should have been: Any talk from AAC circles of Oregon State or Washington State going to the MWC because they think "that's where they belong" is insane.

Perhaps a good model to think about this is the AA-USAir merger that was really a merger in name only. In reality, the "smaller" USAir acquired the "weaker" AmericanAirlines that was still emerging from bankruptcy. However, AA was the better brand with a long and deep history in the airline industry and it still had a lot more cachet than USAirways. So, the smart people running the deal decided to keep the AmericanAirlines name. The Pac-4 are wounded, but they also have been long-standing members of a storied college athletic conference. Publicly, they need to save face. A "merger" between the Pac-4 and the AAC can take place, but it needs to be presented as the Pac-4 being in the driver's seat and that can be done by keeping the PAC name and associated conference benefits that goes along with it. This would be a win for all institutions currently in the AAC. Any talk of Oregon State and Washington State going to the MWC where they belong is insane. Why would anyone associated with the AAC suggest a configuration that makes its biggest conference competitor stronger? If it's possible to pull off, the Pac-4 need to stay together and be seen as rebuilding the PAC even if in reality it's the AAC acquiring the Pac-4. Aresco can lead the new PAC in the same way the USAir CEO took over that role in the new AmericanAirlines. Make it happen.

If somehow, the Pac-4 and AAC "merged" and the new conference was able to maintain the PAC name and associated status (yes I know the whole P5 thing is going away, but it will remain in perception for some time), then SMU will get what its been looking for with the exception of being in the same conference as UNT and the fact that a lot of other tag-alongs just got elevated as much as they did.

Apple wants sports content. If the Pac-x crumbles they are going to be blocked if everyone is in the Big12, MWC or AAC. They will probably make a deal to keep the Pac-x together with their pick of teams from the MWC and AAC and make it financially attractive for them. This would worst case scenario IMHO for the AAC.

I’ve been around UNT athletics long enough to know that I need to start worrying about that sinking feeling that’s invading the pit of my stomach. Hopefully it’s just something I ate.

Sound like they may have. If the PAC is now collapsing, the Big 12 may be able to bring in ASU and Utah for less than if they would have if the PAC was going to survive. You snooze, you lose. Hopefully, the AAC isn't snoozing.

If academics are important, would they be open to joining with fellow AAU members, Rice and Tulane in the AAC? UNT, UAB and UTSA are part of the NewAAU. And while the AAC is at it, see if OSU and WSU are interested for the core of the western division. Then convince SDSU, CSO and Air Force they are now landlocked in the MWC. Give them a path out. Get Army to join in the east and run the new AAC 22-school super conference as two 11-school conferences in one. Seems like everyone is getting bigger, maybe the AAC should too.

If the MWC was able to add the four remaining PAC teams (and maybe even keep the PAC name and Rose Bowl) it would be a significantly better conference than it is today. There would be no incentive for schools like AFA or CSU to leave. The AAC better make moves before the MWC does.

Assuming, Arizona, Arizona St and Utah are gone too, that leaves four remaining in the PAC (Cal, Stanford, Oregon St. and Washington St.). Not sure that's enough to rebuild around. So assuming the PAC is dead and it just a matter of picking over the remaining carcasses, what's the next move for the AAC (if there is one)? Do we get aggressive? If the MWC is able to add 4 previously P5 schools (regardless of who they are IMHO), they would move decidedly up the totem pole.

So, the heart and soul of the Pac12 is....wait for it.....Oregon St and Washington St? That's enough to maintain the conference? Would it keep its tie to the Rose Bowl? Internet gold.

If all this happened a couple years ago and the Big12 was able to bring in Arizona, Arizona St and Utah, would they have ever gone after Houston, UCF and Cincinnati? Timing is everything.

SMU is almost always mentioned as a potential "move-up" target. Whether true or not, they seem to be top of mind for a lot of people. Compare that to how many times UNT is included in the conversation, any conversation...never? I dislike SMU as much as everyone here, but they've been able to position themselves well.

It would be great to have authoritative data on all the various deals, payouts, etc., because it's difficult to keep up with the math and know exactly what UNT is getting annually from the conference. rough/rounded numbers, but shat seems to be public knowledge is the legacy payout per school was $7M. At 11 football playing schools that is $77M. If the deal is $83.3M, then that leaves $6.3M surplus. What does Wichita State get as a Bball school? Does Navy get less as a football-only member? Does the Conference take a piece for, you know, expenses? Anyway, if we take the simple assumptions.... 8 legacy schools @ $7M = $56M (they were promised to be kept whole and not diluted by adding 3 more mouths to feed) 6 new schools @ $2.5 = $15M (new additions agreed to partial shares to keep legacy schools whole). Most news articles reported the new schools would receive "around $2M" initially and go up significantly from there. I'm using $2.5M. Does anyone know the actual payments UNT will receive through the current media deal? That gives us, $56M + $15M = $71M in the first year. At a $83.3M deal, the surplus has now almost doubled to $12.3M. What is the extra surplus being used for? The AAC is also getting $18M from Houston, UCF and Cincinnati (payable over 14 years).

Does anyone know the details around the $$$$ amount and term?

What did we get annually from C-USA? I suspect it was under a million, maybe way under a million. We're going to start out with, I believe, $2.5 million from the AAC and go up from there. I don't know what the go up from there means....$500K a year? Using that, in 5 years we'll be pulling in $5 million a year (maybe) and probably still at a revenue-sharing disadvantage with the existing AAC members. Let's say the Pac-# media deal is horrible by Pac-# standards at $20 million a year. That still dwarfs what the AAC and MWC pays. The Pac-# raids the MWC and AAC, but only offers 50% share or $10 million a year. For those already pulling in $7 million, it's nothing to sneeze at, but for someone like UNT it would be huge. In just a few years we would go from under a million to $10 million a year (and probably grow from there). Realignments/shake-ups are not over and we are jockeying for position with every other "G5" out there. If/when the Pac-# reloads with some number of AAC or MWC schools, they will be the ones getting the $10 million and using that money to position themselves ahead of whoever they left behind.

Your bank probably has an auto-pay feature. Set it up from your end to "pay" $x each month.

When we joined the AAC with the other 5, the deal cut was to keep the remaining members "whole" in terms of annual per team payouts for the ESPN media deal (goes through 31'-32') by reducing the payout to the incoming members relative to the existing members. The payout per team was approximately $7M annually. As I recall, the incoming members would receive around $2M annually and "go up from there." Does anyone know the details around the "go up from there" statement and is there a point in the future where media revenues are shared equally? Assuming the total annual revenue to the conference doesn't change, the only way to "go up from there" is for the payouts to the remaining members to "go down from here," right? There is a clause in the contract with ESPN that can trigger a renegotiation if the composition or value of the composition changes materially. The exit of the three and addition of the six did not seem to trigger a renegotiation. Something like this proposal seems like it would. I understand why the payout deal was structured the way it was when we joined, but I'm not sure it's healthy for a conference to have two classes of members for an extended period of time.

Agreed, I don't think comparing to last year is very meaningful (if last year was a down year). We need to see at least a 10-year trend line.

We all knew it was just a matter of time (and opportunity). Hate that it's due to an injury, but as the saying goes, "next man up?"