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

[Green Otaku]

43 minutes ago, ColoradoEagle said:

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.

 

Yes, for a P5 those are not good numbers. It's going to come down to who stays, who goes, and if networks are willing to pay more $$ for additional teams. 

[Green Otaku]

21 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

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?

Yes, they locked their deal down in 2019 before those teams left. So those teams leaving would have triggered a re-negotiation, but Aresco smartly kept the same deal by adding more programming with 6 teams to replace the 3. The networks were satisfied with this being enough to keep the deal in place. 

As for re-negotiating the deal now, no because that would require 14 teams x $7M = $98M a year. The current AAC deal is $83.3M a year, so we are taking a hit to keep the legacy schools at their current payout. 

[El Paso Eagle]

 

 

[NT80]

1 hour ago, Green Otaku said:

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. 

Yes, the AAC could be somewhat affected by losing Smut, but I believe we stand to actually gain from this shifting.  I doubt the leftover PAC schools will reach for Tulane and especially not Memphis (new sin city). 

It's the MWC that is in the most peril.  The leftover PAC will fruit pick the best of the MWC.  Then I can see the AAC offering some of their eastern edge schools to join us.... AF, Colo St., maybe UNM?  

[Green Otaku]

4 minutes ago, NT80 said:

Yes, the AAC could be somewhat affected by losing Smut, but I believe we stand to actually gain from this shifting.  I doubt the leftover PAC schools will reach for Tulane and especially not Memphis (new sin city). 

It's the MWC that is in the most peril.  The leftover PAC will fruit pick the best of the MWC.  Then I can see the AAC offering some of their eastern edge schools to join us.... AF, Colo St., maybe UNM?  

With Colorado gone I'd be really surprised if CSU isn't in as well. I could also see that grabbing some central time zone teams might be a strategy for their media partner. Pecking orders are real, and unless the PAC is severely weakened they are still ahead of us. Look at how many school were reported to have reached out on this thread alone. That willingness to go is something the AAC might have to fight off if the PAC survives but needs a heavy re-build. I'm not saying it will happen, but it's important to acknowledge it as a possibility. 

[outoftown]

16 hours 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. 

If its down to that kind of amount:

Might the most valuable schools go independent rather than stick with the conference? If you come over: Are you getting a full share? If you do not, is it still worth going? Almost certainly not for MW schools who would have to pay 34 million. With 17 its iffy enough as you are paying now and can really only recoup if things stay surprisingly stable. A bad bet.

For AAC schools who would incur even more travel than MWC jumping: How low would the exit fee have to be for it to be worth it? Who would have to come with to make it bearable travel wise?

By when do you have to stabilize the membership to have a tv deal be valid, because times is of the essence? I feel the fact that time will run out on the PAC because it is so expensive for MWC members to get out by 24 is what will kill the PAC. If they were 2 months earlier they could have eaten the best pieces of the MWC. Now it is likely the MWC will eat some of the leftovers instead. The PAC leadership incompetence is staggering. Add the financial albatrosses of the PAC-12s HQ and past tv network troubles and it makes more sense that way around

Edited August 1, 2023 by outoftown

[Green Otaku]

8 hours ago, outoftown said:

If its down to that kind of amount:

Might the most valuable schools go independent rather than stick with the conference? If you come over: Are you getting a full share? If you do not, is it still worth going? Almost certainly not for MW schools who would have to pay 34 million. With 17 its iffy enough as you are paying now and can really only recoup if things stay surprisingly stable. A bad bet.

For AAC schools who would incur even more travel than MWC jumping: How low would the exit fee have to be for it to be worth it? Who would have to come with to make it bearable travel wise?

By when do you have to stabilize the membership to have a tv deal be valid, because times is of the essence? I feel the fact that time will run out on the PAC because it is so expensive for MWC members to get out by 24 is what will kill the PAC. If they were 2 months earlier they could have eaten the best pieces of the MWC. Now it is likely the MWC will eat some of the leftovers instead. The PAC leadership incompetence is staggering. Add the financial albatrosses of the PAC-12s HQ and past tv network troubles and it makes more sense that way around

 

It's a good chance that everyone who can leave will. It'd have to be full shares to even entice teams to go. MWC schools make $4m a year, $12m is still a bump of 3x what they make. 

Exit fees are a definitely a roadblock, but like I said many schools are reported to have been in contact with the PAC. Those schools know those factors and are willing to consider jumping.

Not P5 has been raided by a G5 ever. Perception is still a thing, bowl ties and history still matter, and the PAC name is still more valuable than the MWC. The PAC may very well become the MWC, but it will retain its name. 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Green Otaku

[outoftown]

7 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

No P5 has been raided by a G5 ever. Perception is still a thing, bowl ties and history still matter, and the PAC name is still more valuable than the MWC. The PAC may very well become the MWC, but it will retain its name. 

The first sentence is obviously true. however anything that ever happens has to happen a first time. And we also never had a situtation where the G5 had 30 million higher exit fees than the P5 and where the P5 was under much more time constraint than the G5. The PAC is really providing a master class in leadership mess up.

Also while the PAC name may be more valuable as a brand, its infrastructure and other liabilities are much more problematic than those of the MWC. That too is worth money.

[Green Otaku]

3 minutes ago, outoftown said:

The first sentence is obviously true. however anything that ever happens has to happen a first time. And we also never had a situtation where the G5 had 30 million higher exit fees than the P5 and where the P5 was under much more time constraint than the G5. The PAC is really providing a master class in leadership mess up.

Also while the PAC name may be more valuable as a brand, its infrastructure and other liabilities are much more problematic than those of the MWC. That too is worth money.

There would just have to be a monumental event for a G5 to take from a P5. I equate it to water flows down because of gravity, can it flow up? Yes, but that's going to take some insane cosmic event for it it to happen. The PAC could apply for a waiver from the NCAA to have football/other sports with fewer members, as long as they had other teams lined up, they can wait for the exit fees to lower.

[outoftown]

15 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

There would just have to be a monumental event for a G5 to take from a P5. I equate it to water flows down because of gravity, can it flow up? Yes, but that's going to take some insane cosmic event for it it to happen. The PAC could apply for a waiver from the NCAA to have football/other sports with fewer members, as long as they had other teams lined up, they can wait for the exit fees to lower.

Yes they could apply for such a waiver and it could indeed save them. But while such waivers have been granted in the past, one has to say that this time there would be a lot of interest of G5 leagues to not have such a waiver granted to the PAC, as the G5s would profit directly as it would free a playoff spot likely taken up by the PAC otherwise. The ACC and B12 may see it similarly as they may want to take a competitor off the board for good. Even if such a waiver is granted, if you are in a situation where it is not worth to move for 34 million but potentially for 17, the margins are slim. You still need good reason to believe you will see enough stability for that to get recouped. And you probably need to continuously renegotiate your media deal as you lose and add members unless you finally manage to get things done in a coordinated fashion, which we are yet to see from anything PAC. That creates soo much uncertainty. Administrators usually do not like uncertainty.

Edited August 1, 2023 by outoftown

[Green Otaku]

2 minutes ago, outoftown said:

Yes they could apply for such a waiver and it could indeed save them. But while such waivers have been granted in the past, one has to say that this time there would be a lot of interest of G5 leagues to not have such a waiver granted to the PAC, as the G5s would profit directly as it would free a playoff spot likely taken up by the PAC otherwise. The ACC and B12 may see it similarly as they may want to take a competitor off the board for good. And if you are in a situation where it is not worth to move for 34 million but potentially for 17, the margins are slim. You still need good reason to believe you will see enough stability for that to get amortized. And you probably need to continuously renegotiate your media deal as you lose and add members. So much uncertainty. Administrators usually do not like uncertainty.

The whole purpose of this thread is to show that there are teams reaching out and willing to think about jumping to the PAC. These teams know the fees, factors, and risks involved in this type of move. Maybe some lose interest if more teams leave from various factors including payouts and exit fees, but right now (if this report is true) as things stand Memphis, USF, and Tulane have reached out to the PAC. That's the remaining valuable brands of the AAC ready to go if they get the call. 

[outoftown]

4 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

The whole purpose of this thread is to show that there are teams reaching out and willing to think about jumping to the PAC. These teams know the fees, factors, and risks involved in this type of move. Maybe some lose interest if more teams leave from various factors including payouts and exit fees, but right now (if this report is true) as things stand Memphis, USF, and Tulane have reached out to the PAC. That's the remaining valuable brands of the AAC ready to go if they get the call. 

Fair. I am sure they are willing to look at it. It is their ADs job after all to turn every stone. And no, that would not be good for UNT. But I feel it is way too early to panic, when the conditions for that happening include a bet on PAC leadership competence.

[Green Otaku]

26 minutes ago, outoftown said:

Fair. I am sure they are willing to look at it. It is their ADs job after all to turn every stone. And no, that would not be good for UNT. But I feel it is way too early to panic, when the conditions for that happening include a bet on PAC leadership competence.

Also for the record I'm not saying the AAC is for certain in trouble, just that there are real possible scenarios out there that could affect us. As I'm reading through the threads I just see a lot of posters who seem pretty confident that this PAC thing will not affect us, and that we will be free to pickup top teams from the MWC. Anything can happen and things can change quickly, but instead of only the positive spin that's been posted here I wanted to discuss some realistic negatives as well. 

[Green Otaku]

5 minutes ago, NT80 said:

I really doubt all those schools "reached out" to the PAC in a public manner.  That puts those named school's at a disadvantage in their existing conferences.  Aresco is not awarding Rice prime committee seats or letting them host a soccer championship tourney if they are bidding out. 

A PAC expansion committee would decide what programs to target that they have real interest in.  Then they find out if there is mutual interest, usually thru back channels so as not to be public info.

While I don't take the report as truth, It'd be in every school's interest to explore all available options. Aresco and Co. are smart, they know that teams would be looking out for themselves if the opportunity presented itself. 

[NT80]

53 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

The whole purpose of this thread is to show that there are teams reaching out and willing to think about jumping to the PAC. These teams know the fees, factors, and risks involved in this type of move. Maybe some lose interest if more teams leave from various factors including payouts and exit fees, but right now (if this report is true) as things stand Memphis, USF, and Tulane have reached out to the PAC. That's the remaining valuable brands of the AAC ready to go if they get the call. 

I really doubt all those schools "reached out" to the PAC in a public manner.  That could put those named school's at a disadvantage in their existing conferences by appearing to want out .  Aresco might not award Rice prime committee seats or let them host a soccer championship tourney if they are openly campaigning to leave the AAC. 

I think the way it works is a PAC expansion committee would decide what programs they have real interest in.  Then they find out if there is mutual interest, usually thru back channels so as not to be public info.

[TheColonyEagle]

So things have changed since this original post. Now it’s the Pac4

Assuming Arizona(s), Washington and Oregon leave…..Does a “Pac 12” with these 4 leftovers and no TV deal look attractive to these same schools that are “reaching out?”

Does the immediate answer: “oh yeah, anything’s better than this” still apply? 
 

For example, Does an SMU look down on this version of the AAC so much they would potentially spend more money and get a potential worse TV deal just to distance from it? 

Edited August 1, 2023 by TheColonyEagle

[keith]

On 7/31/2023 at 6:23 PM, Green Otaku said:

Yes, they locked their deal down in 2019 before those teams left. So those teams leaving would have triggered a re-negotiation, but Aresco smartly kept the same deal by adding more programming with 6 teams to replace the 3. The networks were satisfied with this being enough to keep the deal in place. 

As for re-negotiating the deal now, no because that would require 14 teams x $7M = $98M a year. The current AAC deal is $83.3M a year, so we are taking a hit to keep the legacy schools at their current payout. 

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).  

[wardly]

On 7/28/2023 at 6:19 PM, Cougar King said:

More realignment coming.

A friend of mine is highly connected at Tulsa and according to him there is no way they have applied to PAC 12.

[DentonStang]

2 minutes ago, wardly said:

A friend of mine is highly connected at Tulsa and according to him there is no way they have applied to PAC 12.

Nobody applies u til they know they will approved. Either the tweet is BS, or "applied" means "called up an stated their interest"

[Green Otaku]

1 hour ago, keith said:

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).  

I think we won't know the exact numbers until next year when someone uses the FOIA to get the actual numbers. I always thought we would be getting half shares, but if it is how you say that extra $6.3M may go to cover entrance fees over a few years for new schools. I know that eventually the contract will get us all to the same payout, but that information has not been revealed. 

I'd assume Navy and Wichita split 1 share, but maybe someone like @DentonStang or @Cougar King who've been in the conference know the details. 

As fas as the exit fees, I'm not sure what those will be used for. Maybe to bolster the legacy members, or something else. I don't think the 6 new members would see any of that money, as we weren't in the conference when they left. 

 

 

[NT80]

30 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

Nobody applies u til they know they will approved. Either the tweet is BS, or "applied" means "called up an stated their interest"

Yes.  "We'll call you...don't call us!"

[GrayEagle]

On 7/30/2023 at 11:39 AM, NT80 said:

Conferences reach out to schools they are interested in, to see if there could be mutual interest.   They don’t just ask for applications.   The PAC is a pitifully run conference at the top…just ask SDSU!

Not saying you're wrong about the Pac 12 being a pitifully run conference but in SDSUs case it was the enormous exit fee from the MWC ($34 million) that caused the long delay.

[greenminer]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38116124/sources-pac-12-leaders-presented-apple-streaming-deal

[emmitt01]

1 hour ago, greenminer said:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38116124/sources-pac-12-leaders-presented-apple-streaming-deal

 

TV sources: Pac-12 deal is 'Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic' (on3.com)

[Mike Jackson]

On 7/31/2023 at 11:37 AM, Mean Green 93-98 said:

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 heard that it isn’t out of the question for Stanford to shutdown its FBS level football.  I could see them doing the Ivy League thing.  They would play a FCS schedule and rotate non-conferences visits to their old FBS rivals.   And like the Ivy League they wouldn’t have a post season have some kind of “bowl” like MEAC vs SWAC championship.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Mike Jackson