outoftown

a leprechaun wearing a clown suit playing QB1....I'd watch that for sure!

While I am absolutely worried about the opportunity cost of letting the MWC have them... do you really want a coast to coast conference? Clearly it is the hot fad right now. however, I am not so sure it really adds all that much in terms of tv value in the future and it definitely adds cost in terms of travel and in terms of student-athlete time. AND I am worried it will reduce the already tenuous identity finding of the AAC completely. Cohesive identity vs lack of identity is pretty much why the sun belt managed to catch up to (and now overtake) C-USA and why so many schools left, not just for the AAC. I think many of those that now came to the AAC could have developed much faster and way beyond what they have become now, had they been in a more cohesive conference. i hope the AAC will become that for UNT. But I am not sure adding the west coast really facilitates it. Also, just because the B1G and B12 now are trying to do the 16+ conference memebrs thing, i am not sure they will fare so much better at it in the end than the WAC, where strife eventually left half the programs behind, and I think this could easily also happen to a 16+ member AAC. But...as I said, i am worried about the opportunity cost of letting the MWC have them (even though I can see bobs point above on them really being good G5s that had lucked out too).

People or degrees?

If those two get into the ACC the upside for the AAC s that it will be stable and can probably develop. The downside is that this would make it very likely that WSu and OSU join the MWC over the AAC. The risk with that is that the MWC could reasonably close the gap to the AAC financially and otherwise, which if the CFP reduces to 5 conference bids is a real negative (and i fear that is likely to happen after 2026). In that case the AAC really has to develop to take that spot on the regular. Otherwise it risks not losing it only rarely to a Belt/MWC/Liberty as would be the case with the current setup.

If you go by these "experts", then UNT has caught a pretty maximally tough AAC schedule this year (which itself is not that unreasonable to suggest). It misses the bottom two teams and 3 of the 5 teams generally considered worst (USF, Charlotte, Rice, only playing Tulsa/Temple), plus ECU which is considered in the middle, while playing all 3 teams generally considered at the top (SMU, Tulane, UTSA). The closest thing to a break appears to be missing FAU (which folks have ranked as high as 2nd and as low as 11th) Also, for some reason only Tulane has lower variability in how it is assessed, which is fairly surprising given that UNT is generally thought to be in the middle (betwenn 6 and 9) and has a new coach (although that is true for a lot of temas this year). I gues it means people look at Morris and see someone in a similar mold to SL and think things will continue on a similar track as before, while they have very differing opinions on how folks like Dilfer or Herman a FAU wil do.

Not sure that would be a smart move. Feels to me like overplaying his hand. If Stanford does not want to come, the AAC should still take the remaining teams. Otherwise it runs the risk of getting overtaken by the MWC. Since he should be worried that the CFP will reduce to 5 conference winner bids, getting overtaken by the MWC would be very serious problem.

Mods, please move to the appropriate forum. Also in that forum said tweeter (Xer?) already has his own thread(s)

UNT is better prepared for the enrollment cliff than a lot of other universities it competes with in football.

I know we folks here never feel for SMU. But it is the same for them as it would be for UNT if the series with SMU got cancelled. The sport would be the loser, but if UNT starts winning that series on the regular, mean green fans will still want to continue the series (I assume SMU fans will be more split). But given all the loss of regionality from the sport, I deplore the loss of such rivalries even more. On that notion, TCU will be travelling a lot more starting in 24. Something has me thinking that once they made that expereince for a few years, they will eventually come back on the idea of having a very regional game they can play every year. It doesn't have to be SMU though, could be UNT, or even Tulsa.

I am guessing that they may actually get that money in 24/25 (after that it is almost certainly gone). But it will not be without a fight from the SEC, G5 and ACC, who will all angle to get a piece of that. I doubt the B1G and B12 will play hardball on that money, because they don't want to get sued.

The problem is that this is the wrong way around for it to work. Its administrators trying to get security for themselves and have the tv networks carry the uncertainty. The Tv networks however want certainty for themselves. You can't really negotiate a tv contract if you don't know what your product is (i.e. who your your member schools are). Its what the PAC10 got wrong in the first place. You can't negotiate on: we got these 4 schools and likely, but not yet contractually signed, these other schools. No tv network is gonna shell out top dollar if they are currently hurting for something that insecure. If the PAC had expanded first, and only then tried to negotiate, I am fairly certain it would have gone at least slightly better. If you are a TV exec at the negotiation table, the whole SDSU fiasko doesn't make you want to give the PAC presidents the benefit of the doubt in all of this.

Honestly if the AAC loses Tulsa... thats a win for the AAC in my book.

If its just Wazzu and OSU, then i doubt the additional money is good enough for them to choose the AAC over MWC and its geographically closer programs. But if it is just those two I also doubt they can just rebuild as the pull would likely be very small. Wazzu and OSU have much less power by themselves. MWC and AAC (and sun belt) would all happily take them as normal members. Even as members with slightly increased payouts. But none of them would risk conference peace over them. I also do not see why Arresco would meet with Luck to discuss anything other than a merger/ AAC picking up teams, or at least a coalition that benefits his conference membership as a whole.

I doubt there is much to this. The story of this account is always interesting, but it changes everyday. Eventually it will be right, because if you spray the board with darts, eventually you hit the bullseye. I doubt this one is the even the bull though. For example, I doubt the north California schools really want Boise over some of the other MWC options. But just for fun lets entertain this for a moment: I don't have much empathy for Tulsa, (they have a huge endowment and do nothing with it, neither athletically nor academically), but I would really feel for Charlotte in this deal. I guess navy wouldn't care too much and go back to independence. Also I would assume that those three schools would sue the crap out of this conference. Whether or not that would succeed, that shadow would remain over the conference for a while. Also, that'd be a LOT of westward travel for UNT. Nothing short distance like the last few years. And you probably wouldn't even be guaranteed to play SMU every year. But at least the names coming into Denton would be recognizable.

I am afraid, given tv contracts and all, we are more talking like 5-6 years of calm. maybe less if teams start finding ways to get out of the ACC early (doubt anyone can, but it keeps getting brought up)

I could see it being a leverage play to get schools to accept a steeper unequal revenue share in the PAAC merger, so that the PAC4 get enough to sign on the line. Several of the newly arrived schools - UNT included - might balk at the idea of unequal revenue sharing if it gets enshrined long term rather than -as it currently is- being on a schedule where they eventually catch up to equal parts.

ooof. That would be a loooooot of travel for USF.

Maybe. But they are gonna have to fight for that money. Because the PAC does not actually have any exit fees. In essence its not at all clear that they are even allowed to keep the money from this year that should be paid out next year. The schools who are leaving are going to want their piece of that. I bet some of them are going to have their lawyers fight for it too. Add the 50 million the PAC owes to comcast, and you are not actually in a situation where you can be sure you have all of that money to play with. Also: are these PAC4 teams who are about to have to make budget cuts really gonna want to use any of that money to front exit fees for schools coming in? SMU might, I doubt wazzu wants to, Cal is running a huge deficit in its AD.

That would obviously be the worst case scenario. But I doubt they will get the AAC to dissolve the conference. Too many teams for whom that does not make sense. Not sure what kind of majority it would take to dissolve the conference, but I would be surprised if it was simple majority. I doubt FAU, Charlotte, ECU, UNT would even consider it, no matter what. The consequences would be too negative, and there is no way they get taken aloong. It will not be that cheap for all of those to get out.

If you could TRUELY afford it, then I might think about it. By truely affording it I mean footing the whole bill yourself AND investing as if you actually got the media money and THEN continue to invest when you finally start getting some media money in. I doubt any school would be willing to do it for a situation as unstable as the ACCs. I don't even think Fertita at Houston would have been willing to underwrite this kind of thing, had UH been in the same position as SMU now, even if the ACC had been more stable. People seem to think SMU with its boosters can afford it. Color me more skeptical than most folks. When it comes time to really fork over 200 million, I get the feeling some of those boosters will start having second thoughts and at a minimum start skimping on the other stuff they usually support at the athletic program. Being conistently at the bottom of your conference will not do all that much for you. All it will make people think is that you got a shot and couldn't actually make it in that conference, how much you had an arm tied behind your back, they will not consider.

Maybe. On the other hand, UNT wants to catch up in terms of perception to some of the programs it has just now drawn level with in terms of conference membership. I think folks here are aware that might take a few years. That is when UNT will pull past of some of them. I think the realization that UNT might actually pull that off, is why a lot of SMU folks are soooo annoyed at being in a conference with UNT. Folks here are aware that if the end times of CFB are now, UNT isn't fully ready for them. Yet. And That can't be changed overnight. SMU is laser focused on making that cut now to a degree it might cost itself opportunities later on, should the end times be further away. Dead scared of the alternative of not making it now... UNT is building for the possibility that it might get there later. It has built well the last 15 years and eliminated more of the gap than some folks want to acknowledge. It really only needs a bit of a perception bump.

25'127. The real question is whether parking and stadium staff are ready for that many on game one of the season.

Provided this is what you mean, I am ok with that: They can leave whenever they want. Just leave a 25+ million check at the door on your way out.

Partially agree. If this happens, then SMU would still be in the west for one year, because these two would come in in 25 at the earliest.

That can be negotiated. Says so even in the bylaws. however that means exit fee for 25 (PAC4 schools NEED it to be 24) would be more like 20 million. It was for the three Big12 defectors... and those gave a longer notice (21 months actually) than these defectors would be giving. Here it would only be 11 months or even less. Aresco would have plenty of reason to say he wants more than what those 3 paid.