keith

Is there any more to this story? Seems like TCU is making this decision unilaterally. This is a long-standing annual matchup, there has to be more going on here.

Assuming this happens, it's better than the PAC-4 raiding 4+ schools from the AAC. The AAC can recover from losing 1, losing 4 or more would hurt. Now, it's on to see what the PAC-2 can pull off or accept. With this part settled, we can move on. It's back to a 3-way tug-o-war between the AAC, MWC and PAC-2. If we had the ability to do what SMU is about to accomplish, we would and if we didn't, we'd be fools. Ultimately, these decisions are made by the presidents of the institutions and there is a lot more to conference membership than athletics maybe significantly more so in the eyes of the presidents. There is much more integration at the institutional level among conference members than simply playing each other in sports. This cannot be under estimated. UNT needs to continue elevating its academic status. ADs and staff call each other and talk, but only provide input to the decision-making process and are often out of the loop. Cal and to a lesser extend Stanford see themselves stronger together than they do apart. Together they "own" the bay area market and see that as a positive, not a negative. Sharing/controlling a market is a good thing in their view. Cal has major budget issues. They need the annual dollars coming in from media deals. If they are forgoing that for several years or taking a reduced distribution along with the increased costs, I don't know how they are going to manage. They will be taking a haircut and navigating the next few years will be a challenge. I have a friend significantly high up within Cal that's right in the middle of this. None of the previous points should be a surprise and isn't confidential. It's more confirmational than anything. What happens in year 8 (?) when SMU starts taking distributions from the conference? Will that money come out of the mouths of the other conference members?

I like what he said about not waiting for someone else (*cough* Stanford and Cal *cough*) to do something and take control of their own destiny and it got me thinking. What if WSU and OSU got together without Stanford and Cal and worked hard to "rebuild" the PAC with the AAC or MWC and then down the line Cal realized they didn't have any other options and could not go the indy route that Stanford can and came back to ask WSU and OSU if they could be included? Could WSU and OSU (and the rest of the new PAC) say, "awww, bless your heart, thanks but no thanks." Could WSU and OSU rebuild the PAC and exclude Cal and Stanford or would those two be included by default because they are existing members? Would suck if WSU and OSU did all the heavy lifting and Cal benefited by doing nothing.

Sounds like he's been hanging out at the Conference Realignment board at GoMeanGreen.com.

I have spent 0 minutes on any of the Pac-4 fan boards, but man this whole process must be hard on the psyche of the diehard fans. For they last 30 or so years of "realignment" in college football, there have always been left-behinds, but then they were able to call up or reload with the next-in-line candidates. It's generally been a "move up" process or at least a lateral move as schools jockey for position. If any one or any combination join the AAC or MWC, they would forever be labeled with the stigma of the first major college football schools to "move down." That's a bitter pill to swallow. If the AAC or the MWC sees accretive value in these 2-3 schools (assuming Stanford is a no-go under any circumstance) and even if the AAC or MWC are the ones in the position of power, the 2-3 need to save face from a psychological standpoint. It needs to be structured as the left-behinds calling up the AAC or the MWC (in whole) to rebuild the PAC. There is no benefit in leaving anyone out. The AAC or the MWC would truly be offering a life-line and the 2-3 should be thankful to take it.

No telling how this all turns out and I don't want to do anything to boost SMU's already inflated ego, but one has to wonder where the AAC would be right now, if they worked as hard for the betterment of the conference as they have for the betterment of themselves. There are good conference mates and poor conference mates. I'm not suggesting that schools should not look out for their own best interest, but sometimes they need to realize that those are often aligned with their current conference mates. One thing is obvious, no one ever wants to find themselves sharing a foxhole with SMU.

Stanford recruits nationally (and internationally) for some of the best athletes available. It's not like us where we recruit Texas and the DFW area. The athletes are already from everywhere, so they aren't close to family now.

I don't think those 3 can apply nearly enough pressure to force Stanford to stay and rebuild, but you may be right. I think more pressure is being applied within the Stanford family to get out and if they can't, go independent until the next opportunity presents itself. Of the 4, Stanford is the only one with the money and brand to do that. The sooner those 3 accept the fact that Stanford is gone, the sooner those 3 can move on.

Fantasy world, I'm sure, but it could go down like this. I haven't done the math on this, but let's say the SEC, B1G, ACC and B12 turn on a weakened and out-numbered PAC. It would not be hard to get 51% and a simple majority. We are now down to the A4. Then the SEC, B1G and ACC get wary of the resurgent B12, so they do the same thing. The SEC, B1G and ACC don't like the B12 having a say in their affairs, so the three ensure 51% and a simple majority. Down to an A3. Finally, SEC and B1G realize they are the ones driving the boat. Why should the ACC get a 1/3 say. They vote out the ACC and get to what's they've always wanted, an A2. All autonomy conferences are created equal, just some are more equal than others. Hahaha. This is why if the PAC wants to stay around they need numbers, but even then, it may not be enough.

Given the size and the number of schools already in the west, I suspect we would be in a central pod/division (if it's segmented by geography).

Is it time to put an AAC/MWC merger back on the front burner. Getting tired of the intransigence of the PAC-4 and a "rebuild" that wounds the AAC and/or the MWC by picking off a handful of schools. There is strength in numbers and a combined AAC/MWC would have a lot of numbers (26 of them) and deny any opportunity for the PAC-4 to rebuild from the AAC or MWC and effectively kill off the PAC for good. The combined AAC/MWC conference would obviously have a lot of complexities to work out, but could be arranged in 3 or 4 pods or divisions. OSU and WSU eventually realize their place in the world and join for a 28-school super conference. Stanford and Cal can fend for themselves.

Exactly. While all of the PAC-4 seemed to have expressed interest in rebuilding the PAC, I think more is at stake for OSU and WSU and to a lesser extent Cal keeping the PAC alive. It's my understanding the repayment to Comcast are the obligation and liability of the schools and not the conference, so it doesn't go away for these schools or get transferred to new PAC members whatever happens. Stanford may say they want to reconstitute the PAC, but they will always be looking for a way out to the B1G, the ACC or B12, so they are a short-timer whatever happens with the PAC. OSU, WSU and Cal need to realize Stanford is looking out for its own best interest and will screw them in at the first opportunity. There is already a crack between the three and Stanford. Can the AAC drive a wedge between them and get this band-aid ripped off? The lifeline the AAC proposed should be amended to reflect the reality everyone knows and include only OSU, WSU and Cal in the offer. Stanford can pound sand. Could this force the PAC-3 to act? Either accept the AAC offer or proposed a counter offer from the PAC-4 voting 3-1 to invite all members of the AAC to join the PAC and therefore "rebuilding" the PAC (it's really an AAC take-over with it's media agreements, etc., but preserving the PAC conference and everything mentioned above). If Stanford comes along or not, it doesn't matter as they will do whatever they want. Even if Cal leaves at some point, all the institutions of the AAC will have further separated themselves from the rest of G5s they were previously part of.

Does the game turn out the way it did for TCU?

I wonder what he means by "get the majority of the schools to merge with the PAC." Don't all of us want to merge with the PAC or are there some that don't? If there are some that don't, that's their choice. If it's an open offer to all, I assume we're a yes and I'd be fine with this. If it's a limited offer to certain schools up to a number, then that may be a problem.

Hopefully no news is good news and the principals are just working out the details. While this is a distraction to the upcoming season, it's just one season. What happens with this realignment situation will set the course for UNT athletics for the foreseeable future (at least the next decade and probably much longer).

I don't understand the question.

I was thinking the same thing GrayEagle. If Stanford wants to take their ball and play by themselves, then maybe it's time for the AAC to make a new offer to Cal, OSU and WSU to see if they would be interested. If those three agree as a unit maybe they force Stanford's hand, but they simply may not be interested. Would love to have Stanford, but can't be held hostage. If they aren't interested, see if any of UNLV, AF or CSU would bite.

I'm not sure the marquee matchups would be gone, but they would be out-of-conference instead of conference games. However, this raises a question. Let's say Stanford still plays USC, UCLA and Wash/Oregon OOC on semi-regular annual basis. Which provider carries the game and is the money associated with the game split between the two conferences? Is it a matter of who the home team is? Likewise, Stanford plays Notre Dame on occasion. So, if they schedule correctly, I think they will still be able to play marquee games on an annual basis along with 3 former PAC conference mates.

You're forgetting the annual UNT-SMU conference championship game...hahaha.

I believe most exit fees are paid or negotiated to be paid over time instead of a lump sum amount. I think Houston, UCF and Cincinnati are paying theirs over 14 years or something, so these exit fees are not a onerous as you would think if the annual benefit far exceeds the annual exit fee commitment.

Sometimes it's good to be the best of the worst options (for the Pac-4). As some of these now far-flung conferences have shown, geography is not that important. Geography is what's causing some to say the Pac-4 should just merge with the MWC. Given the onerous exit fees, it sounds like it would be hard for the Pac-4 to reconstitute by picking off MWC schools one at a time. It would require the MWC voting to dissolve itself and moving whole or in part to join the Pac-4. Could happen, but seems unlikely. On the flip side, I'm not convinced the MWC has the pull for things to go the other way and absorb the Pac-4/2. Assuming the AAC institutions stick together, the other options the Pac-4 are pursuing evaporate and nothing happens with the MWC, the AAC is the next best option for the Pac-4 (or the Pac-2). The Pac-4 picking off AAC schools one a time is probably the biggest risk for the AAC. We all know who I'm talking about. Stick together, stay strong and I think the entire AAC emerges out of this mess in a better place (although it may have a different name).

I actually did not punctuate my sentence correctly... It should have been: Any talk from AAC circles of Oregon State or Washington State going to the MWC because they think "that's where they belong" is insane.

Perhaps a good model to think about this is the AA-USAir merger that was really a merger in name only. In reality, the "smaller" USAir acquired the "weaker" AmericanAirlines that was still emerging from bankruptcy. However, AA was the better brand with a long and deep history in the airline industry and it still had a lot more cachet than USAirways. So, the smart people running the deal decided to keep the AmericanAirlines name. The Pac-4 are wounded, but they also have been long-standing members of a storied college athletic conference. Publicly, they need to save face. A "merger" between the Pac-4 and the AAC can take place, but it needs to be presented as the Pac-4 being in the driver's seat and that can be done by keeping the PAC name and associated conference benefits that goes along with it. This would be a win for all institutions currently in the AAC. Any talk of Oregon State and Washington State going to the MWC where they belong is insane. Why would anyone associated with the AAC suggest a configuration that makes its biggest conference competitor stronger? If it's possible to pull off, the Pac-4 need to stay together and be seen as rebuilding the PAC even if in reality it's the AAC acquiring the Pac-4. Aresco can lead the new PAC in the same way the USAir CEO took over that role in the new AmericanAirlines. Make it happen.

If somehow, the Pac-4 and AAC "merged" and the new conference was able to maintain the PAC name and associated status (yes I know the whole P5 thing is going away, but it will remain in perception for some time), then SMU will get what its been looking for with the exception of being in the same conference as UNT and the fact that a lot of other tag-alongs just got elevated as much as they did.

Apple wants sports content. If the Pac-x crumbles they are going to be blocked if everyone is in the Big12, MWC or AAC. They will probably make a deal to keep the Pac-x together with their pick of teams from the MWC and AAC and make it financially attractive for them. This would worst case scenario IMHO for the AAC.