PAC is back

[meanrob]

25 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

The potential for being left out is going to create a ton of anxiety.  PAC is making a move to create the best non P4 conference in the country that will almost assuredly get the one at-large bid to the playoff.  You better believe there is gonna be an all out war between schools in the MWC and AAC to get in.

Being the best non P4 conference gets you nothing. Doesn’t get you the playoff spot, doesn’t get you a seat at any table and doesn’t get you any closer to the big boy conferences. Especially if/when there is a separation. It’s why you gave up years of revenue to get out of the non P4. 
 

I’d listen to what the new PAC has to say but it’s basically a version of the MWC.  SDSU hosted Oregon State this past week. The game didn’t come close to selling out and nobody east of Nevada saw it. Not sure us playing Fresno St at 9:30 central on Apple is the way to go. 
 

 

[SMU2006]

4 minutes ago, meanrob said:

Being the best non P4 conference gets you nothing. Doesn’t get you the playoff spot, doesn’t get you a seat at any table and doesn’t get you any closer to the big boy conferences. Especially if/when there is a separation. It’s why you gave up years of revenue to get out of the non P4. 
 

I’d listen to what the new PAC has to say but it’s basically a version of the MWC.  SDSU hosted Oregon State this past week. The game didn’t come close to selling out and nobody east of Nevada saw it. Not sure us playing Fresno St at 9:30 central on Apple is the way to go. 
 

 

So you'd rather continue playing Tulsa, Rice, UAB, FAU, and Temple?  

Like it or not the PAC is going to be the best non P4 conference and will get their champion into the at-large G5 spot virtually every year.  That has value.

[Coffee and TV]

5 minutes ago, meanrob said:

I’d listen to what the new PAC has to say but it’s basically a version of the MWC.  SDSU hosted Oregon State this past week. The game didn’t come close to selling out and nobody east of Nevada saw it. Not sure us playing Fresno St at 9:30 central on Apple is the way to go. 

man's never heard of Pac 12 after dark...?

[Cr1028]

16 hours ago, Stix said:

Anyone else notice that all six schools' names are "... State University"? 🤔

Guess we will have to become North Texas State again to merit an invite.

[meanrob]

Just now, Coffee and TV said:

man's never heard of Pac 12 after dark...?

I live on the west coast. I watched it all the time. This ain’t USC vs Utah. 

[NT80]

45 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

It is my opinion that this isn't about who wants into the PAC but who the media networks want in the PAC. I would not be surprised if there's already an agreement laid out between the PAC and another media network or two that says what the media deals will look like with which schools. Because the PAC ended up keeping $65 million from the departed schools, they can cherry-pick who the networks want by funding the buyouts to those schools' current conferences. It allows the networks involved to cut who they believe to be dead weight from current conference structures by using the PAC money to pay buyouts and gives the PAC new life. It's a win-win for the PAC, networks, and those who make it out alive. Those who don't get buried a bit deeper.

Again, it's not about who's desperate to get in but who the networks want to be in.

Edit I realize this is all obvious. I just highly doubt any desperate efforts to get in will help any school from the G5.

Brands are important, but G5 Brands and sports quality can vary by coach and year (as we well know).  Media markets are also needed by a conference.  A balance of both is best.

The WSU Prez said earlier this year, when considering re-forming the PAC, that they wanted to stay lean.  I took that to mean 8-10 schools max, not 12-16 like the P4 is doing.

[NM Green]

I get juiced about the thought of SDSU CSU and BSU rolling into Denton for basketball tilts. 

GMG

Edited September 13 by NM Green

[NT80]

11 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

So you'd rather continue playing Tulsa, Rice, UAB, FAU, and Temple?  

Like it or not the PAC is going to be the best non P4 conference and will get their champion into the at-large G5 spot virtually every year.  That has value.

That's like $mut winning the ACC virtually every year.

[SMU2006]

7 minutes ago, NT80 said:

That's like $mut winning the ACC virtually every year.

who hurt you?

[meaniegreenie]

3 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

As opposed to westward expansion.

LOL! It's almost like that "P" in PAC stands for something.

[Green Otaku]

1 hour ago, SMU2006 said:

The potential for being left out is going to create a ton of anxiety.  PAC is making a move to create the best non P4 conference in the country that will almost assuredly get the one at-large bid to the playoff.  You better believe there is gonna be an all out war between schools in the MWC and AAC to get in.

It'll all come down to money, if it's not right there won't be any interest from the AAC schools. The legacy members make $7-8M a year from media distribution only, and with a $10M buyout and forfeiture of 2 years of distribution the money needs to be enough to make it worth it. Added travel will also need to be taken into consideration. What numbers could this new PAC pull? I'd guess the AAC teams would need something like $12-15M to make the move desirable. The MWC teams get $4-5M a year so a bump to $10M makes sense for them, a bump to $10M for the AAC schools doesn't.

[Arkstfan]

I think the fact that Air Force and UNLV weren't in the first round tells us a lot about what they have in mind.

They know they can get their special status back. If you build a league that is the frontrunner for the 5th champion spot in the CFP, you are in a good spot. 

Pac didn't grab the UNLV market, they didn't grab the national tv interest in Air Force. They are hunting schools who can win OOC games and be playoff contenders. They'll come hard after Memphis and Tulane and whomever else they think helps but they aren't looking for academic peers, geography, or markets. They want winners and they want schools willing to overspend to be good.

Will the pitch work? Who knows. If not they will grab up UNLV and Air Force and maybe Nevada and whoever is flavor of the day. 

Think they really have their mind set on 8-10 teams who look like contenders.

[LongJim]

3 minutes ago, Arkstfan said:

They are hunting schools who can win OOC games and be playoff contenders. They'll come hard after Memphis and Tulane and whomever else they think helps but they aren't looking for academic peers, geography, or markets.

They want winners and they want schools willing to overspend to be good.

 

Remember the above quote from Arkstfan when this all shakes out.

IMO, these are the reasons TCU got into the Big 12.

Like an old pastor said at the offering plate:  "If you wanna go up, you gotta pay up."

[GMG_Dallas]

1 hour ago, Green Otaku said:

It'll all come down to money, if it's not right there won't be any interest from the AAC schools. The legacy members make $7-8M a year from media distribution only, and with a $10M buyout and forfeiture of 2 years of distribution the money needs to be enough to make it worth it. Added travel will also need to be taken into consideration. What numbers could this new PAC pull? I'd guess the AAC teams would need something like $12-15M to make the move desirable. The MWC teams get $4-5M a year so a bump to $10M makes sense for them, a bump to $10M for the AAC schools doesn't.

The PAC is helping the MWC schools pay buyouts with the money retained from former members and, for UNT at least, travel to the west coast once or twice per year is no different in travel than going to the east coast once or twice per year. I think the move would make sense for the western AAC schools if they're offered a spot.

[MCMLXXX]

8 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

I think the move would make sense for the western AAC schools if they're offered a spot.

For those of us around at the time, our Big West days still make us hesitant to endorse a move into a western conference.

[El Paso Eagle]

@KingDL1 Can you please move this to the Conference Realignment board?

[NM Green]

It’s just so different today. The big west was at a point when these programs were startups in D1A. In 2024 they are solid programs with top level skins on the wall, national championship appearances and trophies, major bowl wins, awesome new facilities….

the distances and time zones are the same true, but every league has that interesting dynamic now exception SEC.

gmg

[GMG_Dallas]

32 minutes ago, MCMLXXX said:

For those of us around at the time, our Big West days still make us hesitant to endorse a move into a western conference.

Understood but the brands then and now are not the same, even if some of the programs are the same. Also, this is why I think it's important to have a group of 4 western AAC schools make the jump to form a PAC east with Colorado State. The goal, in my opinion, would be to be in the PAC while maintaining a regional division to latch on to the PAC name.

Up until last year the Big 10 East completely carried the Big 10 in terms of brand and overall football value. The Big 10 West has still greatly benefited from being under the Big 10 umbrella. I view this opportunity as the same (if we can be a part of a PAC East with other programs). Need to latch on to the best conference brand available. That's the PAC 12. I hope we don't get left out.

[RBP79]

AFA is one of the keys to this. AAC needs to get them on board.

Like I said before not totally on board with the PAC?....but you would think the DFW market would be very enticing. 

DFW IS the largest metro area of those discussed with Houston metro 2nd.

Edited September 13 by RBP79

[GMG_Dallas]

4 hours ago, meanrob said:

Not sure us playing Fresno St at 9:30 central on Apple is the way to go. 

 

 

Why not? ESPN has the SEC and ACC, Fox has the Big 10, and they both have a piece of the Big 12. Those media networks have their money spent. If we want a bigger amount of money, being Apple or Amazon Prime's primary college football product may provide a more lucrative media deal than getting the ESPN or Fox scraps.

[meanrob]

3 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

Why not? ESPN has the SEC and ACC, Fox has the Big 10, and they both have a piece of the Big 12. Those media networks have their money spent. If we want a bigger amount of money, being Apple or Amazon Prime's primary college football product may provide a more lucrative media deal than getting the ESPN or Fox scraps.

The streaming services low-balled the original PAC 12, you think they're going to throw money at this version of it? 

[Green Otaku]

1 hour ago, GMG_Dallas said:

The PAC is helping the MWC schools pay buyouts with the money retained from former members and, for UNT at least, travel to the west coast once or twice per year is no different in travel than going to the east coast once or twice per year. I think the move would make sense for the western AAC schools if they're offered a spot.

They are helping MW schools, and that's smart to get them onboard. Notice I was speaking specifically about the legacy teams in the AAC, they have a higher point of entry than the new teams. The main point was, does the PAC have enough money to pull legacy AAC members away? The bar between exit fees, media payouts, and media coverage is pretty high. If they don't, the question then becomes does it make sense for us to go to a conference that doesn't have Memphis, USF, and Tulane? Let's not forget we just got out of 2 years without conference distribution, so forfeiting another 2 years while having to payout over $10M in exit fees is something the AD has to think about. Like I said, everything depends on the money.

[GMG_Dallas]

8 minutes ago, meanrob said:

The streaming services low-balled the original PAC 12, you think they're going to throw money at this version of it? 

If they want in, yes. Will it be the $23 million base and up to $50 million they offered the previous PAC? No. Will it be better than what the AAC leftovers get when that deal is up? Absolutely. If the AAC loses Memphis and Tulane, we better hope we can latch on. Otherwise we might as well go back to the Sun Belt because the next AAC deal won't be anything close to what it is now. This isn't about next year or the year after. It's about 2030 and beyond.

[GMG_Dallas]

10 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

They are helping MW schools, and that's smart to get them onboard. Notice I was speaking specifically about the legacy teams in the AAC, they have a higher point of entry than the new teams. The main point was, does the PAC have enough money to pull legacy AAC members away? The bar between exit fees, media payouts, and media coverage is pretty high. If they don't, the question then becomes does it make sense for us to go to a conference that doesn't have Memphis, USF, and Tulane? Let's not forget we just got out of 2 years without conference distribution, so forfeiting another 2 years while having to payout over $10M in exit fees is something the AD has to think about. Like I said, everything depends on the money.

Of course that's a great point. The PAC has $65 million to spend if I'm not mistaken. Are they covering all of the MWC buyouts? I don't think so but I'm not sure. I read they were just helping so who knows what that means. I'd imagine they earmarked some for the MWC 4 and some for whoever else they want. You also have to consider what the next AAC deal will be without Houston, Cincy, UCF, and even SMU. Now imagine if Memphis and Tulane leave. It'd be CUSA 2.0 and we don't want that. The media deal would be a fraction of what it is now so we'd be at a loss in money over the course of a 10 year media deal when factoring the $10 million buyout versus better long-term media money. The only option is invest now for a better deal later. Otherwise you're always stuck in conference purgatory.

We cry about UNT never making the right investments in athletics. This is the prime opportunity. We better do everything possible to be included.

[Green Otaku]

25 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

Of course that's a great point. The PAC has $65 million to spend if I'm not mistaken. Are they covering all of the MWC buyouts? I don't think so but I'm not sure. I read they were just helping so who knows what that means. I'd imagine they earmarked some for the MWC 4 and some for whoever else they want. You also have to consider what the next AAC deal will be without Houston, Cincy, UCF, and even SMU. Now imagine if Memphis and Tulane leave. It'd be CUSA 2.0 and we don't want that. The media deal would be a fraction of what it is now so we'd be at a loss in money over the course of a 10 year media deal when factoring the $10 million buyout versus better long-term media money. The only option is invest now for a better deal later. Otherwise you're always stuck in conference purgatory.

We cry about UNT never making the right investments in athletics. This is the prime opportunity. We better do everything possible to be included.

The AAC plan is to have the newbies invest and eventually build the conference back up to what it was. If that doesn't happen then the AAC made the wrong choices on who to add, so we'll see how that plays out in the future.

The most prudent thing to me is to jump as a block, assuming we are included. You talk to Tulane/Memphis/UTSA/Rice/whomever and you get on the same page as to what it would take to get you to move. UNT and UTSA jumping without anyone else without a significant bump in $$$ would be foolish.