Jump to content

PAC is back


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, MeanGreenRoadrunner said:

The $15 mill makes a lot of sense for the quick jumps. If you're one of the new American teams, like UTSA/UNT, you may have to make the jump.  That's about triple what they get in the American right now.  

If that's the dollar figure then Memphis/Tulane are as good as gone.  I don't know that what is being cited is accurate but even if its close you have to do it.  

I still think the PAC needs four more schools.  UNLV, UNT, UTSA, and USF.  Make it happen.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MeanGreenRoadrunner said:

The $15 mill makes a lot of sense for the quick jumps. If you're one of the new American teams, like UTSA/UNT, you may have to make the jump.  That's about triple what they get in the American right now.  

If the $15 is already known, I wonder if Apple or Amazon is involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

If $15 mil is the number, I'd be all for UNT going at half with a ramp up system similar to what we're doing in the AAC. Staying in a depleted AAC will be more costly in the long run.

I would imagine $15M would be for those two elite AAC programs. I’m not so certain UNT would share that amount if invited…perhaps not yet anyways. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Puking Eagle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 3_n_out said:

I would imagine $15M would be for those two elite AAC programs. I’m not so certain UNT would share that amount if invited…perhaps not yet anyways. 

Right which is why I said I'd be for going in at half. I meant half rate, 50%, $7.5 mil, more than what we get now and more than the next AAC deal without Memphis and Tulane. It's a no brainer to me, especially if we could ramp up that number by say 10% per year like we're doing now in the AAC.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 3_n_out said:

I would imagine $15M would be for those two elite AAC programs. I’m not so certain UNT would share that amount if invited…perhaps not yet anyways. 

What exactly makes these two elite? They've each won 1 conference championship in the past ten years (same as Temple). Prior to the last couple of years, Tulane was very average in football and was 2-10 in 2021. Memphis has been the more consistent, but I'm not sure either is elite. 

Edited by El Paso Eagle
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

Right which is why I said I'd be for going in at half. I meant half rate, 50%, $7.5 mil, more than what we get now and more than the next AAC deal without Memphis and Tulane. It's a no brainer to me, especially if we could ramp up that number by say 10% per year like we're doing now in the AAC.

Don't undervalue what we bring to the table. I'd push for full membership dollars. If they already have a working agreement that makes allocations uneven, I'd push for more than 50%. 

 

  • Upvote 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

What exactly makes these two elite? They've each won 1 conference championship in the past ten years (same as Temple). Prior to the last couple of years, Tulane was very average in football and was 2-10 in 2021. Memphis has been the more consistent, but I'm not sure either is elite. 

The names have value.  Even casual football fans have heard of Tulane and Memphis.  One simply can't say the same of Temple or North Texas.

  • Upvote 1
  • Oh Boy! 1
  • Downvote 1
  • Puking Eagle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MeanGreenGlory said:

Don't undervalue what we bring to the table. I'd push for full membership dollars. If they already have a working agreement that makes allocations uneven, I'd push for more than 50%. 

 

You're right. I'm just saying I'd be in support of taking less if it ultimately became necessary to get into the new PAC. I sure would hope our leadership wouldn't sell themselves short at the start of negotiations. As far as I'm concerned, 8 is minimum for a conference so the PAC needs 2 more but they really need 10 or 12 to safeguard themselves against future membership losses. Not a matter of if but when that happens. Can't be floating with a bare minimum of 8. We have some leverage for now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.