TX State to the PAC 2?

keith · January 25

On 1/22/2025 at 12:45 PM, greenminer said:

Is there some reason this deal is not already done? PAC doesn't seem like it's in a position with all the leverage...they need someone to join them and complete the membership.

Maybe there are others lobbying behind closed doors?

On 1/22/2025 at 1:06 PM, MeanGreen22 said:

If they truly wanted Texas State, it would be announced by now. Seems pretty plain that they are the back up to the back up plan. Unfortunately for the Pac, that plan is the most likely at this point in time.

Interesting questions. I wonder...and this is not meant to disparage any school or conference, but I wonder from a purely perception perspective if some of the hesitancy (if that's what it is), is due to elevating a SBC school over other options? Historically, there has been a hierarchy or pecking order when it comes to schools moving up the conference food chain. Usually, the raiding conference looks to those schools in the adjacent conference (one level below) for replacements. SBC plucks from FCS, CUSA plucks from SBC, AAC plucks from CUSA, B12 plucks from AAC and so on. If the new PAC is somewhere between AAC and P4 and they need to dip down 3 levels to the SBC for a replacement what does that say about their placement in the hierarchy of college athletic conferences?

Again, I'm not bashing Texas St or the SBC, I'm just thinking about the psychology of this and the egos involved. I think the overall perception of the conference hierarchy is still out there especially for those that don't follow the moves closely. Separating the SEC and B1G on the top level, the new PAC (certainly WSU and OSU) desperately want to be seen as on the same level as the Big12 and ACC. If their only choice is to elevate a SBC school (and let's face it, a relative newcomer on the scene), then it may be perceived as weakness (fairly or unfairly) and prima facie evidence that they are no longer peers with the B12 and ACC, but with the AAC and MWC.

keith · January 25

On 1/22/2025 at 11:21 AM, wardly said:

I don't know if any AAC university can afford the buyout required to change conferences.

Are we assuming a school has to have $27M cash on hand in order to make a move? Not sure that's the case. It's never clear how much really exchanges hands. Did Marshall, Southern Miss and Old Dominion ever pay the full amount to CUSA when they bolted early? It seems that once a school and conference have accepted that separation is a fait accompli, they work something out. Pay over time, give up distributions, negotiate a reduction, etc. Either way, it's probably financed anyway.

Edited January 25 by keith

NorthTexasWeLove · January 25

59 minutes ago, keith said:

Interesting questions. I wonder...and this is not meant to disparage any school or conference, but I wonder from a purely perception perspective if some of the hesitancy (if that's what it is), is due to elevating a SBC school over other options? Historically, there has been a hierarchy or pecking order when it comes to schools moving up the conference food chain. Usually, the raiding conference looks to those schools in the adjacent conference (one level below) for replacements. SBC plucks from FCS, CUSA plucks from SBC, AAC plucks from CUSA, B12 plucks from AAC and so on. If the new PAC is somewhere between AAC and P4 and they need to dip down 3 levels to the SBC for a replacement what does that say about their placement in the hierarchy of college athletic conferences?

Again, I'm not bashing Texas St or the SBC, I'm just thinking about the psychology of this and the egos involved. I think the overall perception of the conference hierarchy is still out there especially for those that don't follow the moves closely. Separating the SEC and B1G on the top level, the new PAC (certainly WSU and OSU) desperately want to be seen as on the same level as the Big12 and ACC. If their only choice is to elevate a SBC school (and let's face it, a relative newcomer on the scene), then it may be perceived as weakness (fairly or unfairly) and prima facie evidence that they are no longer peers with the B12 and ACC, but with the AAC and MWC.

I think it has very little to do with what you're implying, but rather the Belt schools being a cheaper option due to the AAC having to disintegrate before individual entities cut 27M checks. Given the schools that are in the PAC they will be placed just fine in this hierarchy. Also, the Belt is a much better conference than we were in it.

Green Otaku · January 25

2 hours ago, keith said:

Interesting questions. I wonder...and this is not meant to disparage any school or conference, but I wonder from a purely perception perspective if some of the hesitancy (if that's what it is), is due to elevating a SBC school over other options? Historically, there has been a hierarchy or pecking order when it comes to schools moving up the conference food chain. Usually, the raiding conference looks to those schools in the adjacent conference (one level below) for replacements. SBC plucks from FCS, CUSA plucks from SBC, AAC plucks from CUSA, B12 plucks from AAC and so on. If the new PAC is somewhere between AAC and P4 and they need to dip down 3 levels to the SBC for a replacement what does that say about their placement in the hierarchy of college athletic conferences?

Again, I'm not bashing Texas St or the SBC, I'm just thinking about the psychology of this and the egos involved. I think the overall perception of the conference hierarchy is still out there especially for those that don't follow the moves closely. Separating the SEC and B1G on the top level, the new PAC (certainly WSU and OSU) desperately want to be seen as on the same level as the Big12 and ACC. If their only choice is to elevate a SBC school (and let's face it, a relative newcomer on the scene), then it may be perceived as weakness (fairly or unfairly) and prima facie evidence that they are no longer peers with the B12 and ACC, but with the AAC and MWC.

Not at all. The PAC has a few more months to work things out, so why rush? While it's true they would want Memphis and Tulane, they have their wishlist and will work down the pecking order with however their media deal turns out. We just haven't gotten to that point yet.

GMG_Dallas · January 25

22 hours ago, MCMLXXX said:

The vast majority of the 82% who live off campus probably live within 3 miles of the campus. Denton is saturated with student apartments.

22 hours ago, wardly said:

I didn't realize how many students lived off campus.

The writer should have checked that number against other schools. My quick research shows SDSU and Texas Tech have about 75% of students living "off-campus", Texas-Austin is at 83%, Utah State is at 80%, and Boise State is at 82%. Didn't bother looking at any others but I'd imagine this is pretty standard amongst public universities, especially now with online classes.

NT80 · January 25

1 hour ago, Green Otaku said:

Not at all. The PAC has a few more months to work things out, so why rush? While it's true they would want Memphis and Tulane, they have their wishlist and will work down the pecking order with however their media deal turns out. We just haven't gotten to that point yet.

The MWC schools took a leap of faith joining the PAC without a media rights deal. They "assume' it will be higher than the MWC's current deal. Here is an article from last year on what could be in store for both...

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/09/16/pac-12-mountain-west-conference-media-rights

NT80 · January 25

1 hour ago, GMG_Dallas said:

The writer should have checked that number against other schools. My quick research shows SDSU and Texas Tech have about 75% of students living "off-campus", Texas-Austin is at 83%, Utah State is at 80%, and Boise State is at 82%. Didn't bother looking at any others but I'd imagine this is pretty standard amongst public universities, especially now with online classes.

Some of the 23,000+ "off-campus" housing beds that UNT controls are closer to the Super Pit than many of the "on-campus" dorms are. "Off-campus" is really a valueless term to imply students are very far away, when like our situation they are not.

GMG_Dallas · January 25

1 hour ago, NT80 said:

Some of the 23,000+ "off-campus" housing beds that UNT controls are closer to the Super Pit than many of the "on-campus" dorms are. "Off-campus" is really a valueless term to imply students are very far away, when like our situation they are not.

Agreed. I doubt the PAC, or any other conference, really cares about that stuff.

NM Green · January 25

It’s interesting because I know the perception of the new PAC and AAC is that the PAC will be stronger, but where would Texas State rather go? It seems like AAC for a variety of reasons. I’m not convinced the new PAC is better than the AAC. UNLV and New Mexico holding back in the MWC, with the Northern Illinois and GCU ads have the future PAC in a bit of limbo. They have to keep performing or they will fall back fast. The SBC and AAC currently are the more stable forces, hence a certain level of power and leverage lives there.

To me the PAC must break the bank to get Memphis or they are not going to lift on takeoff.

GMG

Cooke County Kid · January 26

UNT, memphis, tulane and utsa to the PAC and pay us all $10,000,000 a year on media rights for 12 years and I say let’s go. Other than something like that we probably ought to stay and hope that memphis and tulane stay as well and they just might.

NT80 · January 26

On 1/23/2025 at 12:45 PM, TXSTFB_Fan said:

They don't, since about $150m of that is owed to the Mountain West. The PAC is trying to sue to get out from under that obligation. The outlook of that case doesn't look favorable for the PAC, and will it happen before their July 2026 deadline? Adding another $27m for each additional AAC team would drain the $255m (figure I read) even further. A poster mentioned earlier, TXST is in the right place at the right time with the right leadership and trending upward. TXST is a good buy for a $5m exit fee. Will the PAC make the purchase? I have no idea.

As you mention, decisions will come after the court decides if the PAC will have to pay the MWC poaching penalties or not.

Media rights estimates are also important to the PAC decisions. Does adding TSU (on the cheap) offset the value lost in the future not getting Memphis and Tulane?

Green Otaku · January 26

On 1/25/2025 at 9:54 AM, NT80 said:

The MWC schools took a leap of faith joining the PAC without a media rights deal. They "assume' it will be higher than the MWC's current deal. Here is an article from last year on what could be in store for both...

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/09/16/pac-12-mountain-west-conference-media-rights

There is definitely uncertainty, but my post had to do about timing. The PAC isn't going to make a decision early if it doesn't have to. Right now they are looking at media numbers in various scenarios and trying to see what's possible. They aren't going to prematurely take TxSt if a better option is out there. Keith was asking why did they not just take TxSt already? Because they don't have to yet, no other reason.

keith · January 29

On 1/26/2025 at 1:14 PM, Green Otaku said:

There is definitely uncertainty, but my post had to do about timing. The PAC isn't going to make a decision early if it doesn't have to. Right now they are looking at media numbers in various scenarios and trying to see what's possible. They aren't going to prematurely take TxSt if a better option is out there. Keith was asking why did they not just take TxSt already? Because they don't have to yet, no other reason.

Actually, I didn't ask that question. Others did. I simply offered one potential reason (the optics one) why, if Texas State is bound to happen, it hasn't already. Sometimes these things move with lightening speed and other times at a snail's pace. I'm sure the new PAC wants to make sure it considers all options and, as you say, currently has (some) time on its side, but the clock is ticking. Hopefully, our leadership is engaged and working either to put an attractive package of schools together for the new PAC to consider or making the case unilaterally for North Texas as a member. If nothing else, the exercise forces you to take a closer look at your strengths and weaknesses.

R2BEATCHU · January 29

On 1/19/2025 at 9:29 PM, Green Otaku said:

TxSt pays $5M to get out of the SBC, a very accessible number.

I sincerely doubt it will be anywhere close to $5 in the end. Only thing that doesn't help TXST is that there isn't any real recent 'precedent' with anyone paying SBC exit dollars. If I was the commissioner, I would let TXST walk for less than a mill. $5M is way too much of an exit fee for the SBC when it doesn't even have a formal GOR in place like I think CUSA does which is only around $2M to leave.

Green Otaku · January 29

4 hours ago, keith said:

Actually, I didn't ask that question. Others did. I simply offered one potential reason (the optics one) why, if Texas State is bound to happen, it hasn't already. Sometimes these things move with lightening speed and other times at a snail's pace. I'm sure the new PAC wants to make sure it considers all options and, as you say, currently has (some) time on its side, but the clock is ticking. Hopefully, our leadership is engaged and working either to put an attractive package of schools together for the new PAC to consider or making the case unilaterally for North Texas as a member. If nothing else, the exercise forces you to take a closer look at your strengths and weaknesses.

My mistake.

1 hour ago, R2BEATCHU said:

I sincerely doubt it will be anywhere close to $5 in the end. Only thing that doesn't help TXST is that there isn't any real recent 'precedent' with anyone paying SBC exit dollars. If I was the commissioner, I would let TXST walk for less than a mill. $5M is way too much of an exit fee for the SBC when it doesn't even have a formal GOR in place like I think CUSA does which is only around $2M to leave.

It's what the reported fee is, unless your saying they can negotiate that amount.

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/texas-state-ends-mountain-west-talks-stays-sun/story?id=114414085

I'm sure some of that would be from forfeiting conference distribution.

TripleGrad · January 30

New PacX rumors about raids on the MW. The MW commissioner has put out a "conference strong" press release, which sounds much like some of the ones the old PAC-12 put out as it was snapping out of existence.

El Paso Eagle · January 30

I'm just curious; I'm not saying we should leave, but if we're not getting a full share from the Americans, would there be room for North Texas not to pay the full exit fee?

Also, Not sure how it would make sense for Texas State or the pack to have only one team on the eastern side of Texas or in a neighboring state. You would also think, based on everything you're reading from schools in the Big 10 and ACC, that traveling is taking a larger toll than they expected.

El Paso Eagle · January 30

5 minutes ago, TripleGrad said:

New PacX rumors about raids on the MW. The MW commissioner has put out a "conference strong" press release, which sounds much like some of the ones the old PAC-12 put out as it was snapping out of existence.

Could the PAC now be looking at a merger with the MWC to avoid paying the penalties?

NM Green · January 30

A merger won’t happen with the new additions. They wouldn’t want Northern Illinois in the group or even Davis for that matter. It will be interesting to see who the MWC goes after to replace the Silver State schools. Probably more MAC schools or WKU and MTSU.

GMG

NT80 · January 30

1 hour ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Could the PAC now be looking at a merger with the MWC to avoid paying the penalties?

Doubt it, but it would make a much stronger conference for all. But, there is too much bad blood and the individual conference staffs want their own kingdom.

Plus, UNLV was given financial incentives to stay...

According to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by President Whitfield, the Mountain West will pay an estimated lump sum of $10-to-14 million to UNLV in 2025, and also pay UNLV approximately $1.5-to-1.8 million annually over a six-year period beginning in July 2026. The new payments are on top of the current revenue streams from existing contracts and media assets. The current media deal expires in June 2026 and negotiations for a new media deal will begin in the near future. The university will also have the flexibility to explore future membership in an autonomous “Power Four” conference without penalty should the opportunity become available.