PAC 12 Realignment Talk Mega Thread (All 12 threads merged)

[Green Otaku]

No to Boise St. unless they change that awful field. 

[Green Mean]

3 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

Ok. I get SDSU because of the TV market, but what does Boise offer over CS and AF?

To me they offer a stellar football program with a ton of success for a long time. They also seem to be pretty good in mens basketball as well and I think they've been ranked in the T25 some years maybe? They are committed to athletics and most of all they have a name brand and recognition. It's a good size public school that is only going to grow and it's also located in an area that is booming and it's only going to get bigger in market and population. 

I actually like CS and AF but there's no way a conference would take them over Boise State and SDSU if you had to chooose IMHO.

[Cerebus]

39 minutes ago, meangreenbob said:

Sounds like they have eight of the twelve needed to approve the expansion. 
Wonder if the other four can be coerced into throwing in the towel and subsequently approve the expansion? 

No, they want out of the ACC.

1 hour ago, Cerebus said:

Looks like the 4 hold outs are the 4 schools that know they have a home in the P2 if the ACC dies.  No way they want to strengthen the ACC while it's media deal is so far behind the P2.

[greenminer]

1 hour ago, Cerebus said:

Looks like the 4 hold outs are the 4 schools that know they have a home in the P2 if the ACC dies.  No way they want to strengthen the ACC while it's media deal is so far behind the P2.

"No vote was taken"

Jim Williams: "The ACC voted last night."

Does anyone really know what's going on? Who do I trust when reading all these tweets?

[meangreenbob]

Word to the wise. It’s not over. Don’t count SMU out. Not yet. 

[Cerebus]

John Canzano is reporting the PAC4 have $420 Million in money to distribute this year.  Normally that would have gone to all members but they left and are no longer able to claim any of it. 

Any payout they need to make to comcast, or a bowl game, they can easily make.

 

Still seems to me the most viable path forward for the PAC4 is to just add some teams from the AAC and/or the MWC. 

[NorthTexasWeLove]

9 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

John Canzano is reporting the PAC4 have $420 Million in money to distribute this year.  Normally that would have gone to all members but they left and are no longer able to claim any of it. 

Any payout they need to make to comcast, or a bowl game, they can easily make.

 

Still seems to me the most viable path forward for the PAC4 is to just add some teams from the AAC and/or the MWC. 

No shot. They would have to openly  associate themselves with universities they loathe out of the MWC. I don't see that as viable at all. Not to say we're a better option (though we are financially and academically), but we're comparably the unknown option to their fans, donors, and alum. 

[Hunter Green]

58 minutes ago, ColoradoEagle said:

Winning football. CSU hasn't had more than 4 wins in a season since 2017. AFA has been better in that regard, but it's hard to justify taking one without the other.

That isn't to say they're not worth taking, but your 1st tier schools in the MWC are SDSU and Boise. 2nd tier is CSU and AFA. 3rd tier is UNLV and Fresno State. None of the others are worth going after.

Makes sense. I thought the AFA would be more attractive academically for Cal/Stanford.

[Cerebus]

4 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

No shot. They would have to openly  associate themselves with universities they loathe out of the MWC. I don't see that as viable at all. Not to say we're a better option (though we are financially and academically), but we're comparably the unknown option to their fans, donors, and alum. 

If that is your primary supposition, then don't, just invite the top four out of the AAC.

BTW Rice, Tulane, and USF are AAU members. 

[NorthTexasWeLove]

1 minute ago, Cerebus said:

If that is your primary supposition, then don't, just invite the top four out of the AAC.

BTW Rice, Tulane, and USF are AAU members. 

That is a viable option. One I hope does not happen, but could. 

[Cerebus]

4 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

That is a viable option. One I hope does not happen, but could. 

Yeah, the PAC4 sticking together at all is probably not good for us.

I was really hoping the ACC would take Stanford/Cal because at that point the most likely survival path for OSU/WSU was to invite six MWC members. 

 

[meanrob]

I’m gonna take a wild swing and say Stanford/Cal aren’t driving the bus on this. Granted, it’s a big IF but if the AAC or MW stand their ground, they actually hold the cards. I think there’s no chance Stanford rebuilds the PAC by convincing teams to come. 

[emmitt01]

1 hour ago, meangreenbob said:

Word to the wise. It’s not over. Don’t count SMU out. Not yet. 

Based on……???

[Green Otaku]

1 hour ago, greenminer said:

"No vote was taken"

Jim Williams: "The ACC voted last night."

Does anyone really know what's going on? Who do I trust when reading all these tweets?

That's the problem with leaks as they are often lacking context or leave out crucial info, and sometimes I think that's intentional to protect the source. 

How can both of those statements be true? I saw another tweet that said a vote/decision was made to not hold a vote about expansion. Meaning that's a nicer way to say "No." to Cal/Stan. They didn't reject those schools, they just decided to not hold a vote about adding them. 

[Cerebus]

17 minutes ago, emmitt01 said:

Based on……???

Pony Power?

[DentonStang]

1 hour ago, Green Otaku said:

That's the problem with leaks as they are often lacking context or leave out crucial info, and sometimes I think that's intentional to protect the source. 

How can both of those statements be true? I saw another tweet that said a vote/decision was made to not hold a vote about expansion. Meaning that's a nicer way to say "No." to Cal/Stan. They didn't reject those schools, they just decided to not hold a vote about adding them. 

There was not a vote.  As of last night there was not enough "yes" votes (1 short) had they voted. It appears to be in the negotiation stage. Whether an additional yes vote can be arranged is TBD.

[UNTLifer]

15 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

There was not a vote.  As of last night there was not enough "yes" votes (1 short) had they voted. It appears to be in the negotiation stage. Whether an additional yes vote can be arranged is TBD.

Kind of like the PAC vote?

[UNTcrazy727]

14 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

There was not a vote.  As of last night there was not enough "yes" votes (1 short) had they voted. It appears to be in the negotiation stage. Whether an additional yes vote can be arranged is TBD.

How would you know that if there wasn't a vote? 

[DentonLurker]

3 minutes ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

How would you know that if there wasn't a vote? 

Come one. These SMU fans have been right the whole journey…

[NorthTexasWeLove]

20 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

There was not a vote.  As of last night there was not enough "yes" votes (1 short) had they voted. It appears to be in the negotiation stage. Whether an additional yes vote can be arranged is TBD.

I believe it was 3 or 4 short, had they voted. I read 8 of 14 say yes, and the magic number is 12. The issue is that the one's that want out of the ACC have no interest in doing anything for the ACC or on behalf of the ACC. They've been barricaded inside a dying conference, and I don't blame them. 

[NorthTexasWeLove]

5 minutes ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

How would you know that if there wasn't a vote? 

There technical wasn't a "vote". More along the lines of a formal informal, "ok, guys, if we were to vote who's in and who's out?" 

[UNTcrazy727]

2 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

There technical wasn't a "vote". More along the lines of a formal informal, "ok, guys, if we were to vote who's in and who's out?" 

Sure. But to say there hasn't been a vote is disingenuous. An official vote won't happen until its known there are enough "Yes" votes. 

[UNTcrazy727]

5 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

I believe it was 3 or 4 short, had they voted. I read 8 of 14 say yes, and the magic number is 12. The issue is that the one's that want out of the ACC have no interest in doing anything for the ACC or on behalf of the ACC. They've been barricaded inside a dying conference, and I don't blame them. 

If the rest of the ACC agreed to change the TV payouts so FSU and Clemson get a bigger share I bet they'd be more inclined to vote "Yes" on expansion. 

[NorthTexasWeLove]

3 minutes ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

If the rest of the ACC agreed to change the TV payouts so FSU and Clemson get a bigger share I bet they'd be more inclined to vote "Yes" on expansion. 

But the issue is that TV executives are bascially telling the ACC that they're capped out. IOW, what they're really saying is that Stanford and Cal is not enough to replace the inevitable departure of FSU and Clemson to the SEC. And that's the hopeful version.. Big10 gonna be lurking around the corner when that happens to pluck. 

The value is not there. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by NorthTexasWeLove

[UNTcrazy727]

6 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

But the issue is that TV executives are bascially telling the ACC that they're capped out. IOW, what they're really saying is that Stanford and Cal is not enough to replace the inevitable departure of FSU and Clemson to the SEC. And that's the hopeful version.. Big10 gonna be lurking around the corner when that happens to pluck. 

The value is not there. 

I don't think FSU and Clemson leave if the ACC agrees to reconstruct their TV agreement to give them a bigger share. FSU's main complaint right now is schools like Wake Forest and Boston College get the same amount as money as they do. ESPN has obviously told them adding Stanford and Cal will increase their money. Otherwise, they wouldn't be voting on it.