Several AAC and MWC schools have reached out to the Pac 9

[untphd]

41 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

Go ahead and change the title to:

"Several AAC and MWC schools have/will reach out to the Pac 7 and what's left of the ACC"

It's happening fast now

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-expansion-rumors-clemson-florida-state-oregon-washington

 

 

Wow. The big ten on a run.

[Mean Green 93-98]

19 minutes ago, southsideguy said:

Perfect world scenario is SMUT accepts the invitation to the the pac whatever they are now today, pays the exit fee and tomorrow Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon and Washington say they are joining other conferences.  Wonder if any teams have withdrawn their interest in the pac number of the day? 

It's pretty clear SMUT wants out of the AAC and in the PAC regardless of whether all those teams leave.  And, I have to admit, a conference with Oregon State, Washington State, and Stanford is still going to be much higher on the media and fan interest totem pole than a conference with Charlotte, South Florida, and UT-San Antonio.

[Harry]

11 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

It's pretty clear SMUT wants out of the AAC and in the PAC regardless of whether all those teams leave.  And, I have to admit, a conference with Oregon State, Washington State, and Stanford is still going to be much higher on the media and fan interest totem pole than a conference with Charlotte, South Florida, and UT-San Antonio.

Oregon State and Washington State really move the needle for you eh?

I would argue, Charlotte, UTSA and USF all have much bigger upsides, and are in locations much better positioned for growth.  Standford is a different animal.

I think with the new 12-team playoff, and conference realignment, it will be harder for schools like Oregon State and Washington State to benefit so much from conference affiliation alone.   They will now have to stand on their own feet.  I also think being on the west coast hurts them in terms of viewership and media coverage.

Remember this is not just about today but also what the future may hold.

 

[southsideguy]

Stanford does have a lot of prestige to it and is well know.   Can you say what Oregon State or Washington States football record or where they were in the standing.  UTSA will draw more fans for SMUT than those two teams combined.  Washington State and Oregon State have been overshadowed by their counterparts.  The PAC 9 will have to take some teams from the mountain west.  You think anyone will care about those teams.  Fresno State, SDSU (has some name recognition) and UNLV .  Only thing about UNLV it was good in the past in basketball and no so much in football.  It was a nail in SL termination as HC.

It would open a new recruiting area for them and that is plus. In the end each team will do what is best for them.  If they leave good luck to them and they should dominate the conference along with Utah if they stay.   I thing everything is dependent  on the TV deal the PAC gets.  I have no idea what that number will be but losing USC, UCLA, Colorado and now Arizona is rumored to be leaving.

I know nothing and I just was kidding.  I sure SMU, Rice and others are not monitoring what I say.  Just having some fun

[ColoradoEagle]

18 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

It's pretty clear SMUT wants out of the AAC and in the PAC regardless of whether all those teams leave.  And, I have to admit, a conference with Oregon State, Washington State, and Stanford is still going to be much higher on the media and fan interest totem pole than a conference with Charlotte, South Florida, and UT-San Antonio.

I mean, South Florida was in the Big East when it was still a BCS conference. I'd be willing to wager your average fan doesn't care at all about WSU or OSU. They're potentially the next South Florida's, but with less upside.

[Mean Green 93-98]

16 minutes ago, Harry said:

Oregon State and Washington State really move the needle for you eh?

I would argue, Charlotte, UTSA and USF all have much bigger upsides, and are in locations much better positioned for growth. 

"Upside" and "potential" are what people always say about North Texas.  But actual onfield results clearly mean more.

And your comments about Oregon State and Washington State in comparison to those other teams are laughable.  Oregon State just finished up the season ranked #17, and beat Florida 30-3 in their bowl game.  Do they really move the needle for me, personally?  No, not really.  But North Texas fans still remember that win we had over Oregon State back when they were terrible as one of our bigger upsets in our history.  And I certainly believe your average media figure and your average football fan will pay more attention to Washington State, Oregon State, and Stanford than they will Charlotte until actual results demand otherwise.

It's probably all a moot point, as the B1G already told Washington and Oregon "no."  So unless they somehow end up in the Big 12--that's not happening, is it?--SMU will probably get to be in a conference with those teams as well, at least for a while.

[keith]

41 minutes ago, Harry said:

Oregon State and Washington State really move the needle for you eh?

I would argue, Charlotte, UTSA and USF all have much bigger upsides, and are in locations much better positioned for growth.  Standford is a different animal.

I think with the new 12-team playoff, and conference realignment, it will be harder for schools like Oregon State and Washington State to benefit so much from conference affiliation alone.   They will now have to stand on their own feet.  I also think being on the west coast hurts them in terms of viewership and media coverage.

Remember this is not just about today but also what the future may hold.

 

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.

Edited July 31, 2023 by keith

[TheColonyEagle]

13 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

… as the B1G already told Washington and Oregon "no." 

They did?

[Mean Green 93-98]

2 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

They did?

Supposedly.  Of course, it's all unofficial and off the record until they extend an actual invite.  But the reports said that the Big 10 would actually lose money if they added Washington, Oregon, and/or Stanford, who all expressed interest in joining after the USC and UCLA announcement.

[emmitt01]

20 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

"Upside" and "potential" are what people always say about North Texas.  But actual onfield results clearly mean more.

And your comments about Oregon State and Washington State in comparison to those other teams are laughable.  Oregon State just finished up the season ranked #17, and beat Florida 30-3 in their bowl game.  Do they really move the needle for me, personally?  No, not really.  But North Texas fans still remember that win we had over Oregon State back when they were terrible as one of our bigger upsets in our history.  And I certainly believe your average media figure and your average football fan will pay more attention to Washington State, Oregon State, and Stanford than they will Charlotte until actual results demand otherwise.

It's probably all a moot point, as the B1G already told Washington and Oregon "no."  So unless they somehow end up in the Big 12--that's not happening, is it?--SMU will probably get to be in a conference with those teams as well, at least for a while.

You're talkiing about the Oregon State of last year.   I believe Harry is talking about the Oregon State of tomorrow.   

 

Is Oregon State #17 when they're no longer boasting wins over Oregon, Cal, and Arizona State (or close losses to USC)?  What are they ranked when their big wins are against SDSU and SMU??

[MrAlien]

Th PAC is in trouble... Their potential media deal is shrinking by the day... I dont think any of the MWC schools are going to pay the exit fee to leave.  It doesnt look like that conference will have a easy way into the playoffs, and probably a 1 bid conference in March. 

I am not even sure a merger with the MWC is what the remaining PAC schools would want, certainly there would be a disparity with compensation and payouts. 

[greenminer]

49 minutes ago, Harry said:

Oregon State and Washington State really move the needle for you eh?

I would argue, Charlotte, UTSA and USF all have much bigger upsides, and are in locations much better positioned for growth.  Standford is a different animal.

I think with the new 12-team playoff, and conference realignment, it will be harder for schools like Oregon State and Washington State to benefit so much from conference affiliation alone.   They will now have to stand on their own feet.  I also think being on the west coast hurts them in terms of viewership and media coverage.

Remember this is not just about today but also what the future may hold.

 

The bigger picture here is the increasing gap between the SEC/B10 and everyone else.  Oregon State and WState move the needle for me, but their brand is going to get watered down while ours (UNT/Charlotte/etc) will likely move up a little bit.

Long term, it would not surprise me to see all of us sharing the same pool, on the outside looking (together) into the SEC/B10.

Not sure about the future of the B12, but it doesn't look good.

On one hand, I understand (and relate) to SMU getting amped about possibly moving to the P12 NOW, but on the other hand I see the future and it isn't good.  The PAC12 in the same conversations and TV payouts as the American, but paying for all those ridiculous travel costs (and alumni/businesses navigating astronomical NIL commitments)

[NTXCoog]

On 7/29/2023 at 6:32 AM, southsideguy said:

Will Rice have to pay an exit fee to the AAC.

TCU had to pay $5 million exit fee to the Big East although they didn't spend a day in the conference 

[southsideguy]

so we now know the answer to the question,  thank you

[NTXCoog]

It was a settlement and they did waive the notification period

[Green Otaku]

We need two different scenarios to happen if we want the AAC to benefit from this. Either the PAC loses a 1 to 3 more schools, enough to weaken them, but not enough to need a massive backfill that could threaten the AAC. Or the entire thing crumbles leaving OSU and WSU as the only members; making the exit fee, reduced payout, and increased travel not worth it to AAC schools. If let's say 6 to 4 teams stick together we could see some AAC teams poached. 

[ColoradoEagle]

20 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

We need two different scenarios to happen if we want the AAC to benefit from this. Either the PAC loses a 1 to 3 more schools, enough to weaken them, but not enough to need a massive backfill that could threaten the AAC. Or the entire thing crumbles leaving OSU and WSU as the only members; making the exit fee, reduced payout, and increased travel not worth it to AAC schools. If let's say 6 to 4 teams stick together we could see some AAC teams poached. 

Best of luck to anyone whose in-conference games will only ever be seen on Apple TV for the next several years.

Edited July 31, 2023 by ColoradoEagle

[Green Otaku]

5 minutes ago, ColoradoEagle said:

Best of luck to anyone whose in-conference games will only ever be seen on Apple TV for the next several years.

True, but money talks and even with bad exposure making something like $12M a year will entice teams. 

Rumors that the PAC is meeting tomorrow to discuss actual media numbers. If true expect leaks and possible quick movement if the deal is bad. 

[NT80]

3 hours ago, TheColonyEagle said:

They did?

Not so much.  After taking USC and UCLA in 2022 there was discussion of the Big10 adding additional PAC schools then, but the Presidents wanted to wait.  They didn't want to be responsible for killing off the PAC.  Their new Commish said they would revisit expansion if other PAC schools started leaving.  Now that Colorado has left and the Big12 is shopping for more, perhaps the Big10 sees an opportunity to get more elite programs.

Edited July 31, 2023 by NT80

[NT80]

10 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

True, but money talks and even with bad exposure making something like $12M a year will entice teams. 

Rumors that the PAC is meeting tomorrow to discuss actual media numbers. If true expect leaks and possible quick movement if the deal is bad. 

The main issue with their Media Deal now is it has to be adjusted to changing conference members, plus and minus.  Whatever that Deal was, it's now minus Colorado and the Denver market, and is less value than with them still in it.  Even less if Arizona leaves, and add a little if SDSU is added, and so on....

[TheColonyEagle]

19 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

True, but money talks and even with bad exposure making something like $12M a year will entice teams. 

Rumors that the PAC is meeting tomorrow to discuss actual media numbers. If true expect leaks and possible quick movement if the deal is bad. 

But why would anyone pay $12 million per school to the schools that are left over? $10 million? $8? Would they make money back on that? How? 

Edited July 31, 2023 by TheColonyEagle

[Green Otaku]

3 minutes ago, NT80 said:

The main issue with their Media Deal now is it has to be adjusted to changing conference members, plus and minus.  Whatever that Deal was, it's now minus Colorado and the Denver market, and is less value than with them still in it.  Even less if Arizona leaves, and add a little if SDSU is added, and so on....

Definitely, and I don't think anyone they can add will raise their payout. There will be a point where they find a number that works with whatever they have left and that will determine what happens next. I feel like a lot of posters here feel like this whole PAC thing is in a vacuum, when there are some scenarios where this could affect us. If they are desperate and take SMU, Memphis, and Tulane our payout will also take a big hit. 

[Green Otaku]

6 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

But why would anyone pay $12 million per school to the schools that are left over? $10 million? $8? Would they make money back on that? How? 

It depends what's left. Cal, Stanford, OSU, WSU, Utah, Arizona St. is still a good base to work off of. The P5 and prestige will take a bit to wear off since these are historically schools with strong support. Then you take SDSU, CSU, SMU, Tulane, Memphis. Someone will take that, even of it's not on a premier network or time slot they will get programming across 3 time zones. The AAC is getting $7m per school with what we have, can you honestly say that this lineup wouldn't get more? 

[ColoradoEagle]

36 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

True, but money talks and even with bad exposure making something like $12M a year will entice teams. 

Rumors that the PAC is meeting tomorrow to discuss actual media numbers. If true expect leaks and possible quick movement if the deal is bad. 

The rumors that I've seen are ~$200m/yr from Apple for rights to all broadcasts (even tier 3), and they even want control of the Pac 12 Network. That was before Colorado left.

If that number is accurate, a) it's completely awful from a dollars standpoint, and b) even worse from an exposure standpoint. Again, if accurate, I'd have to imagine it's Pac-9 or bust, maaaybe Pac-10 with SDSU. They're not going to split that money any more than they have to.

Edited July 31, 2023 by ColoradoEagle

[TheColonyEagle]

35 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

It depends what's left. Cal, Stanford, OSU, WSU, Utah, Arizona St. is still a good base to work off of. The P5 and prestige will take a bit to wear off since these are historically schools with strong support. Then you take SDSU, CSU, SMU, Tulane, Memphis. Someone will take that, even of it's not on a premier network or time slot they will get programming across 3 time zones. The AAC is getting $7m per school with what we have, can you honestly say that this lineup wouldn't get more? 

But (and correct me if I’m wrong) that $7 million was negotiated when UCF, UH and Cincy were in the conference right? If the AAC we’re negotiating NOW, would it be $7 million per school?

Edited July 31, 2023 by TheColonyEagle