outoftown

That is catchy. However, it appears that in terms of conference size, twenty is the new twelve. I am not sure its smart to follow the trend... but it IS the trend right now.

Its not impossible this happens (I don't think it is super likely though). But I would assume the MWC schools would only join in 25, not in 24.

I think in the mind of Aresco what it would do is guard to some degree against future changes to the playoff. If- as i am sure Sankey is aiming to do- from 27 onward they reduce to only the 5 best champions and 7 at larges (or maybe 11) using the PACs demise as an argument, then you can't be behind the MWC in quality. Getting these teams allows you to keep a foot in the playoff every year. Letting them go the the MWC could squeeze you out down the road.

I take it you want to find out so you can do the opposite?

I think I will have it both ways here: Something like this was absolutely going to happen with the current state of gambling, and it is definitely on the lawmakers that they allowed gambling on non-professional sports (which CFB is at least partially non-professional, and most importantly with young folks who are not that smart yet), and it was really very obvious this was coming somewhere to some kid stupid enough to do this. On the other hand you really have to be dumb to think you can get away with that in modern "everybody is tracked" days. Then again nobody should be surprised to find 18-22 year olds are sometimes really dumb. In fact one assistant coach even got hit. And from any sports authority's perspective , you really can't let this one slide, as it kills whatever integrity the actual games still have (the NBA, MLB or NFL wouldn't either). You allow it, you don't have viable product anymore. So those folks will get banned for life. And in Iowa apparently they may also end in jail. Its just sad that has to happen for just a few bucks. On top of everything... he lost the bet

I wish i were as certain that all AAC schools will be as level headed. SMU strikes as so desperate to find anything that may hold even the slightest potential of being more reputatble, they would do it and not blink about paying out. After that it gets more difficult, but if SMU does leave for such a conference, it might increase the pressure on others, similar to what colorado leaving did. UNT wouldn't have a choice though. It would be blackballed.

This may be true. But I would be feeling better about it if it came from a more reputable source that hasn't been wrong pretty much all along this process.

The bolded part would be true... if negotiated at the same time. However this is not a sellers market. Negotiating right now is a lot tougher than 2-3 years ago. They may still get more, but I wouldn't bet on the difference being huge.

Well.... that's what happens when you are on a team where you have to do it all yourself

I think they actually will go indie if they can't get into the ACC. I think they want out THAT bad. It would not be smart, because it would reduce their access to the playoffs (for 25 and 26 at least), but they might do it anyway. Reflective thought does not seem to be driving this discussion on their side. The only reason they didn't go beserk against UNT coming in at the time is that they couldn't imagine being stuck in the AAC long term. As will Stanford in my opinion. The whole ACC thing doesn't really make financial (or otherwise) sense for Stanford anyway. If they have to come in at 70% or so, that means they'll get like a little over 20 million. If they are an independent I have a hard time imagining they can't find at least 10-15 million in tv rights. The fact that it is only one school will reduce the risk and size of the networks necessary (i.e. this truly IS something CW or similar could stem). The difference in money will be almost nothing if you deduct the cost of travel. Cal is a different story, as worth less if they sell their rights by themselves.

Which part is fake news?: That SDSU was the ringleader of such a try, or that they tried at all, or that it failed? Its actually just a smart way by the AD to deflect of what is actually going on and not to have to give any details of what they are trying.

Really? I know the folks at FSU and Clemson are terrified of being left behind. But if they do not get taken up they will be in a BAD spot. Haven't we jsut learnt from the PAC fiasco, that currently the negitioation position for sellers to the media are Terrible (capital T on purpose). I know the people think the AAC is having a terrible deal. But even if they could renegotiate right now i doubt they would get much more.

Add that the PAC owes 50 million to comcast. If the conference folds in 2024 likely all schools are evenly responsible for this. if it doesn't i would assume the remaining and new teams are left holding the bag.

I could see them do that. The answer is: You swallow the pill and take more than 6 with you.

Slightly worried about the MWC getting stronger and trying to go big. Or splitting in two. Not worried about the PAC. Its a conference who is down to essentially 4 teams, 2 of which are still hoping to get into the B1G and, finally they also owe still about 50 to 70 million elsewhere (comcast etc). Why keep that albatross around if you don't need to? Much more likely teams will get absorbed by the MWC than the other way around.

Hmmm. I don't hate-hate it, but I am also not impressed by any of these 6 games. I am fairly certain that it is no coincidence that they put all 6 games/ 4 series out there together on friday afternoon when the college football world is completely absorbed elsewhere. Talk about a news dump. That indicates they too know these are not games that will excite any of the stakeholders, rather just games that give certainty to the schedule and bring in beatable opponents.

Its a fairly random list. You could easily swap UNT and UTSA. Or some of the MWC schools on the list (for example bringing in Air force instead of someone else). Add that it is not a given that Cal and Stanford are going to the B1G. If the PAC survives that IS dangerous. However it is all going so fast, and there is soo much uncertainty for potentially joining schools, that the pull the other way seems fairly likely. Who will spend 34 million to join that league. Or even just 17. If you are left behind, at least you are gonna be made whole by exit fees, and even if teams leave for a new PAC, the AAC and MWC will not implode completely. Staying is the far safer play at this point in time Many scenarios remain in play. But most likely to me is Wa and Oregon State to MWC, Cal and Stanford B1G or independent (gonna be playing Notre Dame and each other every year if independent)

The B1G dug the hole with a golden shovel, and after the BIGXII had lowered the casket into it, the B1G adornished it with some roses standing in a mostly broken bowl. The only disagreement arose when the BIGXII later asked whether they wanted to dance together on that grave, and the B1G declined, responding that it needed to show a somber face of grief for the loss of the PAC12 to the outside world. Several folks in the BIGXIIs party danced anyway.

If you go over to ponyfans, it is really funny how many posts there are about having to get out of a conference with UNT and how many creative ideas are proposed about how they might achieve that. If UNT somehow beats SMU this year, I might get hospitalized to an insane asylum, because of all my laughter. I might meet some of those ponyfan posters there who will have gotten interned for very different reasons.

I didn't want to hijack the thread, so created a new one about winning and attendance, and attendance increases across the years as I think it speaks to what you say here: UNT needs to bring its own people in. it has been att this, and winning more is a major part of it. There is still good room for imporvement there.

For a thread almost 8 years ago I made a graph, that looked at winning and loosing streaks going into home games, and how it was related to average attendance. I now have 5 more yeas of data (i did not include 2020 and 2021 because of their numbers being low due to the pandemic (although 2021 would not have skewed things by all that much). I looked into streaks coming into the game, because I suspect that the non-hardcore fans look at results/fan mood coming into the game to get hyped / evaluate whether it is worth coming. It remains that winning and losing streaks of 2 and 3+ games when coming into home games explain almost 70% of the variance in attendance. One also has to say that attendance has also grown across the years, abut to some degree that falls with UNT having had a better decade than the decade prior to that on the field. if you take 2015 out from there (the Portland state year) it is also fairly linearly increasing, with the year also explaining 60% of variance.

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.

Agree on pretty much all of this. One really important part is that the PAC somehow managed to have no exit fees, making all of their programs free agents. It means that if a comparable conference has a slightly better deal you can jump, but if it is inversed there is little to no incentive to jump. Its part of what put the PAC at risk in the first place and it is a sign of arrogance and negligence, as they figured they couldn't be raided. But even if you think nobody would ever want to leave, you should protect yourself -just in case. Leadership in the PAC failed to do so. When OU/UT left the B12 they still had to pay enough for it to actually hurt so they would leave a after several years and not within a year or so. The MWCs exit fees blow those of the PAC out of the water and even those of the AAC are higher. Heck even leaving C-USA has a clearer penalty system for leaving the conference than the PAC.

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.

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.