4 teams from AAC agree to leave?

[C Rod]

 

 

[ColoradoEagle]

More believable.

[meangreenbob]

3 minutes ago, ColoradoEagle said:

More believable.

Some of the AAC presidents? 
Sounds like the PAC has an opening for commissioner. 

[ColoradoEagle]

6 minutes ago, meangreenbob said:

Some of the AAC presidents? 
Sounds like the PAC has an opening for commissioner. 

It wouldn't be all of the presidents unless a formal vote was being taken.

[meangreenbob]

5 minutes ago, ColoradoEagle said:

It wouldn't be all of the presidents unless a formal vote was being taken.

Or maybe it’s the presidents of the four AAC schools wanting to join the PAC and the meeting is to outline the obstacles needed to be resolved in order to make it happen. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by meangreenbob

[ColoradoEagle]

3 minutes ago, meangreenbob said:

Or maybe it’s the presidents of the four AAC schools wanting to join the PAC and the meeting is to outline the obstacles needed to be resolved in order to make it happen. 

[MeanGreenGlory]

I think people are underestimating the leverage that Aresco has right now.

Let's say that there are indeed four AAC schools who are ready to leave the AAC and go to the PAC, and they give their notice today. The American Athletic Conference bylaws call for a $10 million payment and 27 months notice for a school to withdraw from the conference. Aresco has said he's open to negotiating, but he can just as easily decide NOT to negotiate and say, "Withdrawl notice received. You owe us $10M and cannot leave the conference for 27 months."

What does this do?

It puts the PAC schools in a situation where their 2024 scheduling is royally screwed. They would have three conference games and probably a few OOC games scheduled, but need to fill the other five to six weekends with non-conference teams. As Jared Mosley recently stated in the podcast with JD, scheduling is challenging and takes time. Can you imagine what schools have open availability to schedule games for next year? Let alone having enough schools with perfect open slots to fill out a full season for four schools?

You're looking at throwing scraps together at best. Most FBS teams are fully scheduled for next year so it'd likely be a whole lot of FCS schools, etc. If Stanford scoffs at the idea of playing the likes of Charlotte, UTSA, or ECU, do you think they're going to enjoy having a schedule full of schools like Houston Christian, Central Connecticut, or whoever else they can buy with short notice?

So now, let's say you're a media partner and you're excited about carrying a conference with the likes of Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and Washington State. Are you willing to give them the $20M+ per year those schools want to deliver a lousy schedule of Oregon State vs. Houston Christian for a full season before even having a chance to *potentially* carry a more compelling schedule?

I don't think any savvy media partner would pay premium dollars for that type of content.

There may be a media partner that say, "We'll partner with you in 2025 IF—and only if—you have X schools in your conference." But if that's best-case scenario, what does the PAC do for media revenue for 2024? Are all four schools willing to forego media revenue for a year and have a season of completely lousy scheduling? 

Not to mention, given how fast conference realignment is moving now, who's to say that Stanford and/or CAL aren't invited to the BIG10 by 2025 and the schools that make the jump are now left without their crown jewel in the conference? 

To sum it up, if Aresco just says "No" to withdrawal negotiations and holds firm on the 27-month timeline for exiting the conference, he'll likely hold the leverage needed to convince the PAC to merge with the AAC. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by MeanGreenGlory

[meangreenbob]

5 minutes ago, MeanGreenGlory said:

I think people are underestimating the leverage that Aresco has right now.

Let's say that there are indeed four AAC schools who are ready to leave the AAC and go to the PAC, and they give their notice today. The American Athletic Conference bylaws call for a $10 million payment and 27 months notice for a school to withdraw from the conference. Aresco has said he's open to negotiating, but he can just as easily decide NOT to negotiate and say, "Withdrawl notice received. You owe us $10M and cannot leave the conference for 27 months."

What does this do?

It puts the PAC schools in a situation where their 2024 scheduling is royally screwed. They would have three conference games and need to fill the other NINE with non-conference teams. As Jared Mosley recently stated in the podcast with JD, scheduling is challenging and takes time. Can you imagine what schools have open availability to schedule games for next year? Let alone having enough schools with perfect open slots to fill out a full season for four schools?

You're looking at throwing scraps together at best. Most FBS teams are fully scheduled for next year so it'd likely be a whole lot of FCS schools, etc. If Stanford scoffs at the idea of playing the likes of Charlotte, UTSA, or ECU, do you think they're going to enjoy having a schedule full of schools like Houston Christian, Central Connecticut, or whoever else they can buy with short notice?

So now, let's say you're a media partner and you're excited about carrying a conference with the likes of Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and Washington State. Are you willing to give them the $20M+ per year those schools want to deliver a lousy schedule of Oregon State vs. Houston Christian for a full season before even having a chance to *potentially* carry a more compelling schedule?

I don't think any savvy media partner would pay premium dollars for that type of content.

There may be a media partner that say, "We'll partner with you in 2025 IF—and only if—you have X schools in your conference." But if that's best-case scenario, what does the PAC do for media revenue for 2024? Are all four schools willing to forego media revenue for a year and have a season of completely lousy scheduling? 

Not to mention, given how fast conference realignment is moving now, who's to say that Stanford and/or CAL aren't invited to the BIG10 by 2025 and the schools that make the jump are now left without their crown jewel in the conference? 

To sum it up, if Aresco just says "No" to withdrawal negotiations and holds firm on the 27-month timeline for exiting the conference, he'll likely hold the leverage needed to convince the PAC to merge with the AAC. 

Excellent insight. 👍

[meanrob]

3 minutes ago, MeanGreenGlory said:

I think people are underestimating the leverage that Aresco has right now.

Let's say that there are indeed four AAC schools who are ready to leave the AAC and go to the PAC, and they give their notice today. The American Athletic Conference bylaws call for a $10 million payment and 27 months notice for a school to withdraw from the conference. Aresco has said he's open to negotiating, but he can just as easily decide NOT to negotiate and say, "Withdrawl notice received. You owe us $10M and cannot leave the conference for 27 months."

What does this do?

It puts the PAC schools in a situation where their 2024 scheduling is royally screwed. They would have three conference games and need to fill the other NINE with non-conference teams. As Jared Mosley recently stated in the podcast with JD, scheduling is challenging and takes time. Can you imagine what schools have open availability to schedule games for next year? Let alone having enough schools with perfect open slots to fill out a full season for four schools?

You're looking at throwing scraps together at best. Most FBS teams are fully scheduled for next year so it'd likely be a whole lot of FCS schools, etc. If Stanford scoffs at the idea of playing the likes of Charlotte, UTSA, or ECU, do you think they're going to enjoy having a schedule full of schools like Houston Christian, Central Connecticut, or whoever else they can buy with short notice?

So now, let's say you're a media partner and you're excited about carrying a conference with the likes of Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and Washington State. Are you willing to give them the $20M+ per year those schools want to deliver a lousy schedule of Oregon State vs. Houston Christian for a full season before even having a chance to *potentially* carry a more compelling schedule?

I don't think any savvy media partner would pay premium dollars for that type of content.

There may be a media partner that say, "We'll partner with you in 2025 IF—and only if—you have X schools in your conference." But if that's best-case scenario, what does the PAC do for media revenue for 2024? Are all four schools willing to forego media revenue for a year and have a season of completely lousy scheduling? 

Not to mention, given how fast conference realignment is moving now, who's to say that Stanford and/or CAL aren't invited to the BIG10 by 2025 and the schools that make the jump are now left without their crown jewel in the conference? 

To sum it up, if Aresco just says "No" to withdrawal negotiations and holds firm on the 27-month timeline for exiting the conference, he'll likely hold the leverage needed to convince the PAC to merge with the AAC. 

Damn, couldn't have written it better myself. 

I'm with you, I see the PAC having very little leverage. For some reason the thing that makes the  most sense to me is a merger happening but Stanford and Cal getting some sort of scheduling guarantee. 

[VideoEagle]

3 hours ago, greenminer said:

Dont sleep on AAU status.  USF might still be in the mix.

Remember SMU is NOT an AAU member. 

[greenminer]

3 minutes ago, VideoEagle said:

Remember SMU is NOT an AAU member. 

I think the appeal with them, and there isn't much else IMO, is that they have been a member of the AAC for a while.  They are associatdd with the Memphis and Tulanes of the AAC for that reason.  But how much weight does that carry? I don't know.

It doesn't seem like anyone really cares that they have money to burn.

They haven't been terrible at football.  So there's that.

Edited August 15, 2023 by greenminer

[UNTLifer]

13 minutes ago, MeanGreenGlory said:

I think people are underestimating the leverage that Aresco has right now.

Let's say that there are indeed four AAC schools who are ready to leave the AAC and go to the PAC, and they give their notice today. The American Athletic Conference bylaws call for a $10 million payment and 27 months notice for a school to withdraw from the conference. Aresco has said he's open to negotiating, but he can just as easily decide NOT to negotiate and say, "Withdrawl notice received. You owe us $10M and cannot leave the conference for 27 months."

What does this do?

It puts the PAC schools in a situation where their 2024 scheduling is royally screwed. They would have three conference games and probably a few OOC games scheduled, but need to fill the other five to six weekends with non-conference teams. As Jared Mosley recently stated in the podcast with JD, scheduling is challenging and takes time. Can you imagine what schools have open availability to schedule games for next year? Let alone having enough schools with perfect open slots to fill out a full season for four schools?

You're looking at throwing scraps together at best. Most FBS teams are fully scheduled for next year so it'd likely be a whole lot of FCS schools, etc. If Stanford scoffs at the idea of playing the likes of Charlotte, UTSA, or ECU, do you think they're going to enjoy having a schedule full of schools like Houston Christian, Central Connecticut, or whoever else they can buy with short notice?

So now, let's say you're a media partner and you're excited about carrying a conference with the likes of Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and Washington State. Are you willing to give them the $20M+ per year those schools want to deliver a lousy schedule of Oregon State vs. Houston Christian for a full season before even having a chance to *potentially* carry a more compelling schedule?

I don't think any savvy media partner would pay premium dollars for that type of content.

There may be a media partner that say, "We'll partner with you in 2025 IF—and only if—you have X schools in your conference." But if that's best-case scenario, what does the PAC do for media revenue for 2024? Are all four schools willing to forego media revenue for a year and have a season of completely lousy scheduling? 

Not to mention, given how fast conference realignment is moving now, who's to say that Stanford and/or CAL aren't invited to the BIG10 by 2025 and the schools that make the jump are now left without their crown jewel in the conference? 

To sum it up, if Aresco just says "No" to withdrawal negotiations and holds firm on the 27-month timeline for exiting the conference, he'll likely hold the leverage needed to convince the PAC to merge with the AAC. 

Good post.

Regarding the part I placed in bold, the PAC couldn't secure that when they still had Utah, AZ, AZ St., CO, etc.  What makes anyone think that they would look at Stanford, WA St., OR St, and Cal and say, "We'll do it if you add Rice, smut, ...?"  That's just silly.

[greenminer]

1 hour ago, Cerebus said:

Look folks, there are a handful of people who put out tweets that are usually on target.  Even then, remember how they get thier information.  They don't work for the NSA, they aren't sending in microphone equipped CIA cats to listen in on the SEC meetings, they get info by having connections.

And those connections always have a bias. 

A board admin/mod is posting their tweets.

[emmitt01]

51 minutes ago, meangreenbob said:

Or maybe it’s the presidents of the four AAC schools wanting to join the PAC and the meeting is to outline the obstacles needed to be resolved in order to make it happen. 

[meangreenbob]

I guess to make it somewhat more appealing for Stanford to join the AAC besides a higher payout the AAC could drop an exit fee for leaving if it’s to join the ACC. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by meangreenbob

[meangreenbob]

3 minutes ago, emmitt01 said:

Good grief Emmitt did I hurt your feelings that much. I apologize. 

[greenminer]

One more TwitterX account to throw in the hat: Trey Smith

https://x.com/imtreysmith/status/1691233641446137856?s=46&t=Y21IMG6cLRojGNHeMmTQ_w
 

 

[El Paso Eagle]

31 minutes ago, VideoEagle said:

Remember SMU is NOT an AAU member. 

And they are not a Carnegie Tier One school either 

Edited August 15, 2023 by El Paso Eagle

[MeanGreen22]

49 minutes ago, meangreenbob said:

I guess to make it somewhat more appealing for Stanford to join the AAC besides a higher payout the AAC could drop an exit fee for leaving if it’s to join the ACC. 

This is part of my pitch if I’m the American. “Hey guys I know y’all got royally screwed. Come merge/join our conference and we’ll give you a lower exit fee.”

The hope is that a) tv gets increased to a point where they don’t have to leave or b) the conference is elevated to point where they won’t want leave.

But then again, I’m not a smart man so I’m sure many others can poke holes in this. Even if they do end up leaving, you still had a couple years with Sanford, Cal, etc. Then maybe at that point you go grab SDSU and Boise?

Edited August 15, 2023 by MeanGreen22

[GMG_Dallas]

1 hour ago, MeanGreenGlory said:

I think people are underestimating the leverage that Aresco has right now.

Let's say that there are indeed four AAC schools who are ready to leave the AAC and go to the PAC, and they give their notice today. The American Athletic Conference bylaws call for a $10 million payment and 27 months notice for a school to withdraw from the conference. Aresco has said he's open to negotiating, but he can just as easily decide NOT to negotiate and say, "Withdrawl notice received. You owe us $10M and cannot leave the conference for 27 months."

What does this do?

It puts the PAC schools in a situation where their 2024 scheduling is royally screwed. They would have three conference games and probably a few OOC games scheduled, but need to fill the other five to six weekends with non-conference teams. As Jared Mosley recently stated in the podcast with JD, scheduling is challenging and takes time. Can you imagine what schools have open availability to schedule games for next year? Let alone having enough schools with perfect open slots to fill out a full season for four schools?

You're looking at throwing scraps together at best. Most FBS teams are fully scheduled for next year so it'd likely be a whole lot of FCS schools, etc. If Stanford scoffs at the idea of playing the likes of Charlotte, UTSA, or ECU, do you think they're going to enjoy having a schedule full of schools like Houston Christian, Central Connecticut, or whoever else they can buy with short notice?

So now, let's say you're a media partner and you're excited about carrying a conference with the likes of Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and Washington State. Are you willing to give them the $20M+ per year those schools want to deliver a lousy schedule of Oregon State vs. Houston Christian for a full season before even having a chance to *potentially* carry a more compelling schedule?

I don't think any savvy media partner would pay premium dollars for that type of content.

There may be a media partner that say, "We'll partner with you in 2025 IF—and only if—you have X schools in your conference." But if that's best-case scenario, what does the PAC do for media revenue for 2024? Are all four schools willing to forego media revenue for a year and have a season of completely lousy scheduling? 

Not to mention, given how fast conference realignment is moving now, who's to say that Stanford and/or CAL aren't invited to the BIG10 by 2025 and the schools that make the jump are now left without their crown jewel in the conference? 

To sum it up, if Aresco just says "No" to withdrawal negotiations and holds firm on the 27-month timeline for exiting the conference, he'll likely hold the leverage needed to convince the PAC to merge with the AAC. 

Thought you were plagiarized by a Twitter account until I saw the name.

Anyways, the media component is huge. Aresco has the ESPN and CBS connections having started with ESPN in 1984 and then holding a high level position with CBS in the 2000s. Unless he wants to destroy his reputation and be known as complete scum, he won't drop off any AAC program to join the PAC and become their commissioner especially knowing how well this all works. He does that for the PAC commissioner title and it'll all be for nothing when the current PAC4 inevitably leave for the BIG 12 or B1G. Then he'll be back filling with MWC and AAC schools who won't trust him. Plus, he's become popular by dismissing the "P5" labels as being irrelevant and started calling the AAC a P6. This alleged plan would significantly damage his image in a world dependent on strong relationships.

The AAC will merge with the PAC or a few AAC schools will pay exit fees to leave for the PAC but Aresco is not concocting some evil plan to take over the PAC and take 4 AAC schools with him.

[GrayEagle]

Well, I'll say it again...I do not believe that Mike Aresco will abandon the conference that he created.  I do believe that four AAC teams would leave however and that would put a crimp in the American for awhile but I think that we can cherry-pick from other conferences and eventually regain status.  I trust Aresco more than I trust Stanford.  I don't fault the other Pac 3 teams for staying where they are and I hope that they survive (or if they don't that they'll join the AAC.  Stanford can be an independent for all I care. 

I didn't know about the 27 month wait to exit the AAC after paying the $10M exit fee.  It will keep us together and give us time to see what we can do with the MWC leftovers, among others.  We need to stay strong because further division will make us weaker.

 

[wardly]

4 hours ago, SUMG said:

Until proven otherwise.....I trust Mr. Aresco. I think he's a great commissioner. 

And I'm no lawyer....but if Aresco was working with some AAC schools to join the PAC whatever...and that he would be Commish of that.....I would think you'd have major lawsuit possibilities. 

So I think we're all right.

I don't really have a clue about what will transpire with the PAC 4 but a few things seem obvious. First, if Cal and Stanford can't gain admittance into the ACC their choices ate to either cobble together a 8 to 12 team conference with OSU and WSU. Second, no way UNT or UTSA will be invited. Just a guess but SMU,Rice, and Tulane get first draw.Third, the new PAC 4 back fills with SDSU and maybe maybe another one or two MWC as soon as they figure how how to break their $34 million buyout. Basically the PAC 4 just needs another 4 programs now for their conference to survive and can fill in a few other  schools later. Stay tuned.

[Cerebus]

1 hour ago, greenminer said:

A board admin/mod is posting their tweets.

I can't control everyone. 

[meanJewGreen]

2 hours ago, MeanGreenGlory said:

I think people are underestimating the leverage that Aresco has right now.

Let's say that there are indeed four AAC schools who are ready to leave the AAC and go to the PAC, and they give their notice today. The American Athletic Conference bylaws call for a $10 million payment and 27 months notice for a school to withdraw from the conference. Aresco has said he's open to negotiating, but he can just as easily decide NOT to negotiate and say, "Withdrawl notice received. You owe us $10M and cannot leave the conference for 27 months."

What does this do?

It puts the PAC schools in a situation where their 2024 scheduling is royally screwed. They would have three conference games and probably a few OOC games scheduled, but need to fill the other five to six weekends with non-conference teams. As Jared Mosley recently stated in the podcast with JD, scheduling is challenging and takes time. Can you imagine what schools have open availability to schedule games for next year? Let alone having enough schools with perfect open slots to fill out a full season for four schools?

You're looking at throwing scraps together at best. Most FBS teams are fully scheduled for next year so it'd likely be a whole lot of FCS schools, etc. If Stanford scoffs at the idea of playing the likes of Charlotte, UTSA, or ECU, do you think they're going to enjoy having a schedule full of schools like Houston Christian, Central Connecticut, or whoever else they can buy with short notice?

So now, let's say you're a media partner and you're excited about carrying a conference with the likes of Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and Washington State. Are you willing to give them the $20M+ per year those schools want to deliver a lousy schedule of Oregon State vs. Houston Christian for a full season before even having a chance to *potentially* carry a more compelling schedule?

I don't think any savvy media partner would pay premium dollars for that type of content.

There may be a media partner that say, "We'll partner with you in 2025 IF—and only if—you have X schools in your conference." But if that's best-case scenario, what does the PAC do for media revenue for 2024? Are all four schools willing to forego media revenue for a year and have a season of completely lousy scheduling? 

Not to mention, given how fast conference realignment is moving now, who's to say that Stanford and/or CAL aren't invited to the BIG10 by 2025 and the schools that make the jump are now left without their crown jewel in the conference? 

To sum it up, if Aresco just says "No" to withdrawal negotiations and holds firm on the 27-month timeline for exiting the conference, he'll likely hold the leverage needed to convince the PAC to merge with the AAC. 

The COVID year showed us games can be scheduled within a couple of weeks (BYU/Coastal Carolina comes to mind) 

[Harry]

1 hour ago, greenminer said:

One more TwitterX account to throw in the hat: Trey Smith

https://x.com/imtreysmith/status/1691233641446137856?s=46&t=Y21IMG6cLRojGNHeMmTQ_w
 

 

JD and I just did a pod with him and I found him to be very credible.   No one is in the boardrooms so there is always going to be some speculation involved with this stuff.