I am starting to think this may really be happening!

meanrob · August 10, 2023

8 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

So your position is:

the PAC4 is valuable to ESPN if they join the AAC, while at the same time

The PAC4 is not valuable to ESPN if they stay in the PAC?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

The PAC4 is clearly not $25M to $35M a year valuable to ESPN, which is what they wanted. But $10M to $15M a year? Probably.

I don’t think anywhere near $15 mil. And I’m not sold that Stanford would align themselves with those schools anyway.

Not sure any of the current PAC schools trust their current conference leadership so you’d have to replace that. Then get the feelers out on what kind of tv deal is out there. And deal with the uncertainty of what Cal and Stanford want and if I’m the AAC or MW, I’m not giving them what they initially want.

I just don’t see the PAC in a strong position on this.

El Paso Eagle · August 10, 2023

15 minutes ago, meanrob said:

I don’t think anywhere near $15 mil. And I’m not sold that Stanford would align themselves with those schools anyway.

I think keeping and growing the PAC 4 is the 2nd option for Stanford and Call if the ACC does not work out. OSU and WSU would probably prefer that also rather than merging with the MWC. I could be 100% wrong, but I don't see Stanford and Cal wanting to join or merge with the full MWC membership. I believe tye would need to be at 6 schools in 2024 to maintain their conference. Are there two AAC schools that might make the move, even without a TV deal? SMU and Rice? Add a few more teams in 2025 and 2026?

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

30 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Not sure it's the last four's money. Since the conference did not have a buyout in place, the teams in the conference in the year the payouts are made would most likely have the right to their portion unless they agreed to forgo it. In our case, I believe we withheld receiving our distribution as part of the buyout.

Conference distributions happen at X date, if you aren't a member at X date, you don't get the distribution.

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

26 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

Precisely. ESPN isn't paying money to a 4 member conference.

It won't be a four team conference. There will be back room discussion on "hey if we invite X, Y, and Z, how much will you pay us ESPN?"

You think OU/UT, or any of the 8 PAC schools who left leapt blindly? No, there was discussions with the TV partners.

meanrob · August 10, 2023

4 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

It won't be a four team conference. There will be back room discussion on "hey if we invite X, Y, and Z, how much will you pay us ESPN?"

You think OU/UT, or any of the 8 PAC schools who left leapt blindly? No, there was discussions with the TV partners.

That was joining an existing tv contract.

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

26 minutes ago, meanrob said:

I don’t think anywhere near $15 mil. And I’m not sold that Stanford would align themselves with those schools anyway.

Not sure any of the current PAC schools trust their current conference leadership so you’d have to replace that. Then get the feelers out on what kind of tv deal is out there. And deal with the uncertainty of what Cal and Stanford want and if I’m the AAC or MW, I’m not giving them what they initially want.

I just don’t see the PAC in a strong position on this.

Stanford is the wildcard, they can afford to step out and be indy but they won't get any special carve out into the CFP like ND does. They would have to park BB and non revenue in the WCC or the BWC, or else not have access to the tourneys.

Even if they do go indy, you just have to invite five instead of four to get to the FBS 8 team minimum.

You think the PAC4 would rather deal with the CERTAINTY of being in a G5, non A5 conference with a smaller tv deal, than the uncertainty if they can keep the A5 bonuses in the CFP?

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

Just now, meanrob said:

That was joining an existing tv contract.

I agree with that, but that won't stop talking to ESPN (at a much lower price than B12), or Apple, or anyone.

You don't have to have a contract to negotiate on creating a new one.

meanrob · August 10, 2023

2 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

Stanford is the wildcard, they can afford to step out and be indy but they won't get any special carve out into the CFP like ND does. They would have to park BB and non revenue in the WCC or the BWC, or else not have access to the tourneys.

Even if they do go indy, you just have to invite five instead of four to get to the FBS 8 team minimum.

You think the PAC4 would rather deal with the CERTAINTY of being in a G5, non A5 conference with a smaller tv deal, than the uncertainty if they can keep the A5 bonuses in the CFP?

I think you’re assuming the PAC 4 are in the same page. And considering Stanford and Cal just tried to bail on me, if I’m the other two I’m not on the same page with them.

El Paso Eagle · August 10, 2023

3 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

Stanford is the wildcard, they can afford to step out and be indy but they won't get any special carve out into the CFP like ND does. They would have to park BB and non revenue in the WCC or the BWC, or else not have access to the tourneys.

Even if they do go indy, you just have to invite five instead of four to get to the FBS 8 team minimum.

You think the PAC4 would rather deal with the CERTAINTY of being in a G5, non A5 conference with a smaller tv deal, than the uncertainty if they can keep the A5 bonuses in the CFP?

I thought it was 6. So they would need to pull 4-5 from other conferences for 24? It does not seem like any MWC could afford it. What is the AAC's buyout with a one-year notice?

meanrob · August 10, 2023

7 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

I agree with that, but that won't stop talking to ESPN (at a much lower price than B12), or Apple, or anyone.

You don't have to have a contract to negotiate on creating a new one.

I could be wrong but I think you are WAY oversimplifying this process.

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

2 minutes ago, meanrob said:

I could be wrong but I think you are WAY oversimplifying this process.

I mean neither of us are media rights lawyers, so aren't we both doing that? We're just over simplifying for our respective arguments.

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

8 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I thought it was 6. So they would need to pull 4-5 from other conferences for 24? It does not seem like any MWC could afford it. What is the AAC's buyout with a one-year notice?

I have heard people talk about 6, but the NCAA bylaws state an FBS conference has 8 members.

If there is some sort of waiver process in the bylaws, I have not read that.

UNTcrazy727 · August 10, 2023

2 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I thought it was 6. So they would need to pull 4-5 from other conferences for 24? It does not seem like any MWC could afford it. What is the AAC's buyout with a one-year notice?

I read SMU would owe around $20 million if they left for the ACC in 2024. Not sure if that’s accurate.

I don’t think the PAC 4 have much leverage. It would be very complicated to convince multiple MWC/AAC schools to join. Especially when the AAC knows 3 of the 4 schools HAVE to find a conference. Why not just force them to join you and then bring SDSU and Boise St along? Those additions would trigger a renegotiation of the ESPN contract that would probably see every school get paid over $10 million/year.

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

11 minutes ago, meanrob said:

I think you’re assuming the PAC 4 are in the same page. And considering Stanford and Cal just tried to bail on me, if I’m the other two I’m not on the same page with them.

They tried to bail. They couldn't.

Now they have to make the best of where they are.

El Paso Eagle · August 10, 2023

2 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

I have heard people talk about 6, but the NCAA bylaws state an FBS conference has 8 members.

If there is some sort of waiver process in the bylaws, I have not read that.

I think 6 is the number for an FCS conference, if I remember from watching WAC games.

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

1 minute ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

Why not just force them to join you and then bring SDSU and Boise St along? Those additions would trigger a renegotiation of the ESPN contract that would probably see every school get paid over $10 million/year.

Why didn't the PAC simply force Alabama to join them?

If the PAC swings a better deal in front of Tulane, SMU, Memphis, North Texas the school will jump.

El Paso Eagle · August 10, 2023

1 minute ago, Cerebus said:

Why didn't the PAC simply force Alabama to join them?

If the PAC swings a better deal in front of Tulane, SMU, Memphis, North Texas the school will jump.

Agree, but they have to have something in place for 2024. How many AAC schools can afford the buyout? I would doubt the AAC would let them leave without making them pay every dollar.

Edited August 10, 2023 by El Paso Eagle

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

1 minute ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I think 6 is the number for an FCS conference, if I remember from watching WAC games.

Yes D1 FCS conferences need six members to be eligible for the FCS playoffs.

A D1 Multi Sport conference needs seven members to be elible for the NCAA tournaments.

A D1 FBS conference needs eight members.

TheColonyEagle · August 10, 2023

2 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

If the PAC swings a better deal in front of Tulane, SMU, Memphis, North Texas the school will jump.

That’s the whole thing…..

Can they or can’t they. Right now there’s NO deal.

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

2 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Agree, but they have to have something in place for 2024. How many AAC schools can afford the buyout? I would doubt the AAC would let them leave without making them pay every dollar.

With that $420M war chest the PAC could make one time distributions to cover any exit fee.

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

Just now, TheColonyEagle said:

That’s the whole thing…..

Can they or can’t they. Right now there’s NO deal.

So it's impossible for the PAC to speak with the ESPN,AAC, and/or MWC teams and come up with something?

The PAC4 will try. If they wanted to be in the AAC/MWC they would be there now.

They will have A5 status, and the extra CFP distribution until someone strips it from their cold dead hands.

TheColonyEagle · August 10, 2023

4 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

So it's impossible for the PAC to speak with the ESPN,AAC, and/or MWC teams and come up with something?

The PAC4 will try. If they wanted to be in the AAC/MWC they would be there now.

They will have A5 status, and the extra CFP distribution until someone strips it from their cold dead hands.

No, they can for sure talk. I’m assuming they will.

They “will” have A5 status…….until….?

UNTcrazy727 · August 10, 2023

2 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

Why didn't the PAC simply force Alabama to join them?

If the PAC swings a better deal in front of Tulane, SMU, Memphis, North Texas the school will jump.

...Because Alabama runs the best conference in college football? Slighty different than 4 bottom half P5 programs needing to find a home ASAP.

The AAC knows the PAC 4 won't be able to get a good TV deal by expanding with just MWC teams. Why jump ship when you can wait them out AND add whatever MWC teams you want to get a TV deal that would rival what you'd get for going through the hassle of jumping to the Pac?

Cerebus · August 10, 2023

1 minute ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

...Because Alabama runs the best conference in college football? Slighty different than 4 bottom half P5 programs needing to find a home ASAP.

Ok, what level of team can get FORCED to join a conference? You have to get people to buy in. Right now I think the PAC thinks expanding the PAC is a better option that joining any G5. And I think I can lure enough teams to do that.

6 minutes ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

The AAC knows the PAC 4 won't be able to get a good TV deal by expanding with just MWC teams.

Probably why they will go after AAC schools first.

7 minutes ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

Why jump ship when you can wait them out AND add whatever MWC teams you want to get a TV deal that would rival what you'd get for going through the hassle of jumping to the Pac?

Possibility of keeping A5 status in PAC, versus for sure losing it?