Oregon State AD: Pac-12 will look to add new schools quickly

[3_n_out]

15 minutes ago, C Rod said:

However UNT, UTSA, RICE are only receiving 50% of the AAC TV media money until 2034. 10 years at half-share is a lot of lost revenue. The new PAC can offer new members full-share when the future media deal is established, as an incentive to leave the AAC. 

Wow I never knew those were the ramifications of our AAC deal.  I thought we would have full shares after the first two years.  So, to forego money the first two years upon entry, then essentially $3-$4M/yr for 10 years…I can see why we should always be on the lookout for expansion to the PAC. But, that’s even if we are part of their expansion plans. 

[gangrene]

1 hour ago, C Rod said:

Memphis, USF, and Tulane are full-share members of the AAC so they are hesitant to move without knowing more about the estimated TV deal and how much they can expect to make.

However UNT, UTSA, RICE are only receiving 50% of the AAC TV media money until 2034. 10 years at half-share is a lot of lost revenue. The new PAC can offer new members full-share when the future media deal is established, as an incentive to leave the AAC. 

Thank you.  I can't imagine any TV deal for the teams being mentioned would be that impressive, but getting 50% of the AAC deal doesn't seem great either. 

[C Rod]

8 hours ago, gangrene said:

Thank you.  I can't imagine any TV deal for the teams being mentioned would be that impressive, but getting 50% of the AAC deal doesn't seem great either. 

From Ross Dellenger: https://sports.yahoo.com/after-latest-realignment-moves-which-other-schools-will-the-pac-12-try-to-scoop-up-182233033.html

“The problem: We don’t really know its TV value, but those at the Pac-12 estimate it to be higher than the best Group of Five deal, which is the American, which distributes to its original members about $8-10 million annually. If the Pac-12 is at $10-12 million per school, is that worth a move across the country? What about $15 million? That latter figure seems high, but who knows.”

So let’s do some math. AAC distributes $8-10 million per school annually however UNT/UTSA/Rice only make 50% share for the next decade. That’s a total of $40-50 million over the next 10 years.

The new PAC media deal is estimated to be north of $10 million per year/per school. Could be as high as $15 million but let’s just call it $10 million for easy math. $10m over 10 years is $100 million in TV money. ($12m per year is $120 million and $15 million per year is $150 million)

At minimum we’re talking $50-60 million more reasons to leave the AAC for the PAC. 

Edited Sunday at 02:40 PM by C Rod

[C Rod]

8 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

adding in UNLV, Nevada, AFA, and Utah State would be pretty smart

PAC would then have to pay MWC an additional $110+ million in fees to bring these 4 MWC schools over. Are these schools worth that kind of money in your eyes?
 

PAC is already spending $110+ million for SDSU, Boise, Oregon St and Wash St.  I don’t see them doubling up the bill for Nevada, UNLV, AFA, and Utah State.

[GMG_Dallas]

10 hours ago, gangrene said:

2 eyerolls and 2 down votes, but no answer to my question.  Why does anyone think this would be a good move?  According to Pete Thamel on ESPN, Tulane, Memphis and South Florida have already said they aren't interested.  Why should we be? 

C Rod has covered the starter math. That's reason number 1.

Reason number 2 is once the next AAC deal is signed without Cincy, UCF, and Houston it'll be a fraction of the current deal which means our 50% of AAC money becomes even smaller.

Reason number 3 is the new PAC already has 3 programs who've been NCAA tournament regulars for a few years now. Should they continue their basketball success in the new PAC, that's more NCAA tournament credits flowing in which means more money than the AAC which is a 2-bid conference at best right now. That means the difference AAC vs PAC money becomes even greater.

Reason number 4 is the PAC name, even in the new form, holds more weight than the AAC. Adding the top MWC programs and some of the top AAC programs will separate it from the MWC and AAC and create a clear gap in prestige.

Something else to consider about Tulane, Memphis, and South Florida is they're a better geographical fit for the ACC and that looks to be imploding soon. With our location, we're not further from the ACC than we are the PAC. The PAC is the best available conference and they have openings. We need to latch on to the best opportunities we can or we'll keep finding ourselves on the outside looking in. 

[NT80]

17 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

C Rod has covered the starter math. That's reason number 1.

Reason number 2 is once the next AAC deal is signed without Cincy, UCF, and Houston it'll be a fraction of the current deal which means our 50% of AAC money becomes even smaller.

Reason number 3 is the new PAC already has 3 programs who've been NCAA tournament regulars for a few years now. Should they continue their basketball success in the new PAC, that's more NCAA tournament credits flowing in which means more money than the AAC which is a 2-bid conference at best right now. That means the difference AAC vs PAC money becomes even greater.

Reason number 4 is the PAC name, even in the new form, holds more weight than the AAC. Adding the top MWC programs and some of the top AAC programs will separate it from the MWC and AAC and create a clear gap in prestige.

Something else to consider about Tulane, Memphis, and South Florida is they're a better geographical fit for the ACC and that looks to be imploding soon. With our location, we're not further from the ACC than we are the PAC. The PAC is the best available conference and they have openings. We need to latch on to the best opportunities we can or we'll keep finding ourselves on the outside looking in. 

All good reasons.

If I am the AAC Commish I am looking how to keep Texas schools.  I would like to start by inviting Air Force and any other MWC programs that would bump up the AAC right now.  UNLV?   But the problem with that is the AAC can't help them with exit fees like the PAC2 can their teams.

It will come down to who has the better sales pitch for the Texas schools, including Texas State.

[wardly]

38 minutes ago, C Rod said:

PAC would then have to pay MWC an additional $110+ million in fees to bring these 4 MWC schools over. Are these schools worth that kind of money in your eyes?
 

PAC is already spending $110+ million for SDSU, Boise, Oregon St and Wash St.  I don’t see them doubling up the bill for Nevada, UNLV, AFA, and Utah State.

What I don't understand is all the love for Teas State. They had a decent football season last year and off to a good start this year but like UTSA do nothing in other sports. While I realize football is the driving force behind the PAC's expansion it's not like Texas State has a large following or successful history in football since moving up from 1AA.Their attendance and student body are similar to UNT and proximity to San Antonio is comparable to ours to DFW. However in looking at some of the P4 schools some of their players transferred in from I am guessing [and its only a guess] that they have more money for NIL. Also C Rod is probably correct in his post regarding the cost to the PAC after buying the 4 best MWC schools might have them looking hard at the AAC for additional programs. It also has been reported the Tulane,Memphis, and SFU have little interest on moving from one G6 program to another, especially since the PAC doesn't have a media contract. However I have demonstrated that I am clueless regarding realignment as I just can't seem to accept geography no longer matters. It's one thing for your football team to fly cross country 6 times a year. Its another for your other sports. Oh well.

[GMG_Dallas]

4 minutes ago, NT80 said:

All good reasons.

If I am the AAC Commish I am looking how to keep Texas schools.  I would like to start by inviting Air Force and any other MWC programs that would bump up the AAC right now.  UNLV?   But the problem with that is the AAC can't help them with exit fees like the PAC2 can their teams.

It will come down to who has the better sales pitch for the Texas schools, including Texas State.

Yes the AAC will need to come up with something. I wonder if they can bump the money UTSA, UNT, and Rice are getting to 80% or 90%. Even then, we know the next deal will be smaller than the current one. We also know Memphis, Tulane, and USF will be frontrunners to join the ACC when that blows up. If we're offered the PAC, I view it like being offered a life raft. If Memphis, Tulane, and USF leave what's left is CUSA schools plus Navy, Tulsa, Temple, ECU, and Army. Now who thinks that list is better than the new PAC?

[GMG_Dallas]

5 minutes ago, wardly said:

However I have demonstrated that I am clueless regarding realignment as I just can't seem to accept geography no longer matters. It's one thing for your football team to fly cross country 6 times a year. Its another for your other sports. Oh well.

The westcoast PAC schools are no further than the eastcoast AAC schools. Just need a few PAC travel partners and geography no longer becomes a concern when compared to our current setup.

[RBP79]

I would think the PAC? would want to get their expansion completed asap to start negotiating TV rights. Not sure our football program gets us there but our BB might have some influence.

Edited Sunday at 07:10 PM by RBP79

[MeanGreenGlory]

1 hour ago, GMG_Dallas said:

C Rod has covered the starter math. That's reason number 1.

Reason number 2 is once the next AAC deal is signed without Cincy, UCF, and Houston it'll be a fraction of the current deal which means our 50% of AAC money becomes even smaller.

Reason number 3 is the new PAC already has 3 programs who've been NCAA tournament regulars for a few years now. Should they continue their basketball success in the new PAC, that's more NCAA tournament credits flowing in which means more money than the AAC which is a 2-bid conference at best right now. That means the difference AAC vs PAC money becomes even greater.

Reason number 4 is the PAC name, even in the new form, holds more weight than the AAC. Adding the top MWC programs and some of the top AAC programs will separate it from the MWC and AAC and create a clear gap in prestige.

Something else to consider about Tulane, Memphis, and South Florida is they're a better geographical fit for the ACC and that looks to be imploding soon. With our location, we're not further from the ACC than we are the PAC. The PAC is the best available conference and they have openings. We need to latch on to the best opportunities we can or we'll keep finding ourselves on the outside looking in. 

Spot on, and some of the key reasons UNT leadership should push to make it happen. 
 

Being in the American is better than being in the MWC, Sun Belt, and CUSA. But it’s going to become increasingly challenging to compete against the veteran AAC institutions when we’re receiving 50% of the media money long term. 
 

Getting into the PAC with money that is on par or above what the veteran AAC schools are receiving will help us compete long term. 
 

Further, being in a better basketball conference (which the PAC will likely be) will play to our strengths more. Football can get there with the right funding and staff, but basketball is arguably ready to take advantage of a better bball conference which could improve our image overall and support an improving football program. 

[Green Otaku]

12 hours ago, C Rod said:

Memphis, USF, and Tulane are full-share members of the AAC so they are hesitant to move without knowing more about the estimated TV deal and how much they can expect to make.

However UNT, UTSA, RICE are only receiving 50% of the AAC TV media money until 2034. 10 years at half-share is a lot of lost revenue. The new PAC can offer new members full-share when the future media deal is established, as an incentive to leave the AAC. 

From what I've read the AAC payout will not be half shares for the entire time of the deal. There are no specifics as to how much, but the money is supposed to ramp up to be equal to a full share towards the end of the deal.

Quote

Conference USA schools currently receive less than $1 million annually in television revenue. The amount they will receive is still being finalized, but the television revenue will be more than $2 million at the start of the deal and rise significantly from there. Incumbent AAC members are still expected to average about $7 million annually over the course of the current ESPN television deal, which runs through 2031-32.

https://www.agent49.net/the-charlotte-49ers-are-american-athletic-conference-bound/

[NT91]

Say no to the west coast time games.

[NT91]

Will the Pac12 be a power 5 conference? If yes then NT needs to be in the Pac12. I would think it will not be a power 5.

[wardly]

6 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

The westcoast PAC schools are no further than the eastcoast AAC schools. Just need a few PAC travel partners and geography no longer becomes a concern when compared to our current setup.

Good point!

[wardly]

It seems like every football conference we are in we want out of with out having won anything except for the early years of the Sun Belt over 20 years ago. If we have an opportunity to move to PAC 6 for double our money great otherwise let's just try to be competitive in the AAC.

[3_n_out]

Money is the huge thing here.  CRod elaborated on a lot of great points. For me, my biggest questions are:

1. IF UNT gets an invite, will they get full share or partial? If partial, for how long? In the AAC, 10 years of 50% revenue kinda sucks, but better than any other G6 conference  

2. Will they help UNT pay their way out?

3. Our Olympic sports will definitely benefit from going into the PAC. Women’s volleyball/ soccer/softball, tennis and golf program - would be a wonderful opportunity. 

[GreenGuy123]

We are the 3rd largest university in Texas. The problem we have is a brand problem. Or, lack there of. If we’re not going to improve our brand by consistently winning, then we need to do everything we can to find other ways to do it. Being associated with the most known brands is the way we should go. That’s probably the PAC. And likely more money. If we haven’t knocked on their door, then I give up. 

[NT80]

College Athletics is not all about wins and losses.  It's also about who you associate with in a Conference. 

It's why $mut paid their way into the ACC.   Vanderbilt is hardy a football power (having just lost to Georgia State) but they do have an SEC logo on their field.

If leaving the AAC for the PAC makes financial sense and puts us with Boise instead of Charlotte then I'm in.

[Side.Show.Joe]

This rebuilt PAC will be the strongest and most valuable G conference, which in turns will lead to earning the 5th auto-bids most years and enhanced media exposure. North Texas would be stupid not to join if offered. Just think of what the AAC will become once they lose the programs and markets the PAC is targeting.

[VideoEagle]

First of all, based on everything I've read, NT started with a 50% of AAC media revenue. But it's on a sliding scale that increases over time reaching 100% within 10 years or earlier. 

Secondly, you have the PAC-2 saying they believe their media deal will be larger than the AAC, not actual media sources. Does anyone thinking rationally believe the G-5 PAC X is worth 75% of what Apple was offering the PAC-12 minus USC and UCLA? Does anyone believe Colorado State, Boise, San Diego State, and Freso are at least 3/4 the media value of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and ASU? I have a hard time believing ANY combination of MWC and AAC schools is 3/4 the media value of the old PAC-12 less USC and UCLA which was $20 million per school with a lot of subscriber incentives. 

Some posters are undervaluing our current media deal by $10 to $15 and they are overvaluing the Pac-2 deal by $5 to $10 A YEAR over a 10 year period! The math is against the deal even before realizing all of the new revenue side is based on number from the PAC-2 which is HIGHLY motivated to grossly exaggerate the deal. Remember the gross exaggerations of the PAC-12 after USC and UCLA departed! 

And nowhere is the $10 to $15 million annual increase in expenses being accounted for! 

Comparing SMU buying their way into the P4 ACC to us joining the G5 PAC-X is bogus as well. If just joining a conference that once had lots of national powerhouse programs was the goal then we should be joining the Southern Conference that once had Alabama, Auburn, and a half dozen other SEC schools. Of course, that makes no sense as the Southern Conference is nowhere near what it was back with those schools - much as the PAC-X is nowhere near what it was a couple of years ago. 

[southsideguy]

I not sure why any league gives new teams less money for five or ten years.   If they want their teams to be competitive they should give them full shares to help them build up their programs.  A competitive league is a fun league and leads to more success against other conferences.   Did we get any money when SMUT bought out of the league?

[meaniegreenie]

On 9/15/2024 at 9:42 AM, GMG_Dallas said:

The westcoast PAC schools are no further than the eastcoast AAC schools. Just need a few PAC travel partners and geography no longer becomes a concern when compared to our current setup.

True, although a limited travel budget can make it much more dangerous!

[Green Otaku]

2 hours ago, southsideguy said:

I not sure why any league gives new teams less money for five or ten years.   If they want their teams to be competitive they should give them full shares to help them build up their programs.  A competitive league is a fun league and leads to more success against other conferences.   Did we get any money when SMUT bought out of the league?

Because networks don't want to give more money for the same product, with media deals they also don't have to. Most realignment deals happen when media deals are already in place. The AAC lost 3 members getting paid roughly $21M a year, ESPN was unwilling to pay an extra $21M a year to have the 6 schools get equal shares. So if the AAC wanted to have all teams getting full shares they would have just added 3, but would we have made the cut?

[Green Otaku]

2 hours ago, VideoEagle said:

First of all, based on everything I've read, NT started with a 50% of AAC media revenue. But it's on a sliding scale that increases over time reaching 100% within 10 years or earlier. 

Secondly, you have the PAC-2 saying they believe their media deal will be larger than the AAC, not actual media sources. Does anyone thinking rationally believe the G-5 PAC X is worth 75% of what Apple was offering the PAC-12 minus USC and UCLA? Does anyone believe Colorado State, Boise, San Diego State, and Freso are at least 3/4 the media value of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and ASU? I have a hard time believing ANY combination of MWC and AAC schools is 3/4 the media value of the old PAC-12 less USC and UCLA which was $20 million per school with a lot of subscriber incentives. 

Some posters are undervaluing our current media deal by $10 to $15 and they are overvaluing the Pac-2 deal by $5 to $10 A YEAR over a 10 year period! The math is against the deal even before realizing all of the new revenue side is based on number from the PAC-2 which is HIGHLY motivated to grossly exaggerate the deal. Remember the gross exaggerations of the PAC-12 after USC and UCLA departed! 

And nowhere is the $10 to $15 million annual increase in expenses being accounted for! 

Comparing SMU buying their way into the P4 ACC to us joining the G5 PAC-X is bogus as well. If just joining a conference that once had lots of national powerhouse programs was the goal then we should be joining the Southern Conference that once had Alabama, Auburn, and a half dozen other SEC schools. Of course, that makes no sense as the Southern Conference is nowhere near what it was back with those schools - much as the PAC-X is nowhere near what it was a couple of years ago. 

 

Agree. The PAC will be listened to by the teams that they are interested in, but it is in no way a slam dunk.