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

[VideoEagle]

18 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

 

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

YES! I'm not saying "No way" but rather listen to the pitch and then check the real numbers. 

[C Rod]

San Antonio Express News editorial board has strong feelings about the new PAC 12 "roaring back to life." The article is behind a paywall but the screenshot says it all. 

https://www.expressnews.com/opinion/editorial/article/utsa-pac-12-expansion-19762573.php

[rcade]

20 hours ago, NT91 said:

Will the Pac12 be a power 5 conference?

I don't see any chance of the new PAC-12 being treated like a Power conference. The big college football powers, along with ESPN and Fox, see a lot of money in a Power 2 that looks like the NFL. ESPN talking heads like Kirk Herbstreit spend a lot of time delegitimizing the ACC, hoping to nudge it towards a PAC-like collapse when the big schools chew their foot off to escape the bear trap.

If we moved from the American to the new PAC, it would be joining another G5 with a slightly better TV deal.

[SMU2006]

42 minutes ago, rcade said:

I don't see any chance of the new PAC-12 being treated like a Power conference. The big college football powers, along with ESPN and Fox, see a lot of money in a Power 2 that looks like the NFL. ESPN talking heads like Kirk Herbstreit spend a lot of time delegitimizing the ACC, hoping to nudge it towards a PAC-like collapse when the big schools chew their foot off to escape the bear trap.

If we moved from the American to the new PAC, it would be joining another G5 with a slightly better TV deal.

The new PAC won't be treated like a power conference but it will unquestionably be the dominant G5 conference in both football and basketball.  We'll see what kind of pitch they're able to make to Memphis/Tulane but if they are able to lure them out of the AAC it will be an absolute war between any of the remaining viable options for PAC expansion.

[C Rod]

On 9/15/2024 at 11:34 AM, Green Otaku said:

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.

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

Thanks @Green Otaku, I stand corrected on UNT receiving half-shares for the entire time of the deal. I've searched but haven't been able to find published specifics on the ramp up schedule. Unfortunately this still doesn't solve the dilemma we're about to find ourselves in.

What dilemma you ask? Exhibit A: House vs NCAA 

Quote

The NCAA, its power conferences and attorneys representing all Division I athletes agreed in May to settle three major antitrust lawsuits that threaten to upend the business model of college sports. The defendants agreed to pay roughly $2.7 billion in damages to current and former athletes. The parties also agreed to a forward-looking system that will allow schools to directly pay athletes via name, image and likeness deals up to a limit, which is expected to be $20 million to $23 million per school next year and would rise on an annual basis. In exchange, the NCAA would have far more leeway to enforce rules it says are designed to protect a competitive balance among schools and preserve what makes college sports unique. - https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/41141275/house-v-ncaa-settlement-hold-judge-urges-revisions

Whether we like it or not, schools directly paying athletes via NIL is coming in the very near future and could happen as early as next fall. As the above linked ESPN article states, this antitrust settlement is currently on hold as the the judge in the case waits for both the plaintiffs and the NCAA to address her concerns. The lawyer for the plaintiffs has already signaled they are fine making the requested changes, so now we wait for the NCAA to agree. The NCAA has very little leverage so I expect them to begrudgingly agree. 

So what does this mean for us?

Once this antitrust settlement takes hold, schools will have the green light to pay their athletes directly through NIL dollars. Those NIL dollars will come from revenue generated from ticket sales and you guessed it... TV media deals. For G5 teams, the vast majority of the NIL money will come from their TV media deals. 

Now let's consider the fact that UNT, UTSA, Rice, Charlotte, FAU, UAB, and Army are currently receiving half-shares in the AAC while the other seven AAC schools (Memphis, Tulane, USF, Temple, Tulsa, ECU, & Navy) are receiving full-share revenue deals. We're essentially playing in a two-tiered G5 conference for the foreseeable future, and unfortunately UNT is in the bottom tier when it comes to revenue share and being able to pay our athletes.

Talk about a huge competitive disadvantage within our own conference! 

To further my point, read this article titled: TEMPLE AD FACES CRITICAL DECISIONS AS REVENUE SHARING APPROACHES

 

[SMU2006]

13 minutes ago, C Rod said:

Thanks @Green Otaku, I stand corrected on UNT receiving half-shares for the entire time of the deal. I've searched but haven't been able to find published specifics on the ramp up schedule. Unfortunately this still doesn't solve the dilemma we're about to find ourselves in.

What dilemma you ask? Exhibit A: House vs NCAA 

Whether we like it or not, schools directly paying athletes via NIL is coming in the very near future and could happen as early as next fall. As the above linked ESPN article states, this antitrust settlement is currently on hold as the the judge in the case waits for both the plaintiffs and the NCAA to address her concerns. The lawyer for the plaintiffs has already signaled they are fine making the requested changes, so now we wait for the NCAA to agree. The NCAA has very little leverage so I expect them to begrudgingly agree. 

So what does this mean for us?

Once this antitrust settlement takes hold, schools will have the green light to pay their athletes directly through NIL dollars. Those NIL dollars will come from revenue generated from ticket sales and you guessed it... TV media deals. For G5 teams, the vast majority of the NIL money will come from their TV media deals. 

Now let's consider the fact that UNT, UTSA, Rice, Charlotte, FAU, UAB, and Army are currently receiving half-shares in the AAC while the other seven AAC schools (Memphis, Tulane, USF, Temple, Tulsa, ECU, & Navy) are receiving full-share revenue deals. We're essentially playing in a two-tiered G5 conference for the foreseeable future, and unfortunately UNT is in the bottom tier when it comes to revenue share and being able to pay our athletes.

Talk about a huge competitive disadvantage within our own conference! 

To further my point, read this article titled: TEMPLE AD FACES CRITICAL DECISIONS AS REVENUE SHARING APPROACHES

 

Several G5's are going to have to make some difficult choices on football in the coming years.  UNT will be okay but schools like Tulsa, UTEP, Ark State, etc. could be forced to shut it down.

[Green Otaku]

50 minutes ago, C Rod said:

Thanks @Green Otaku, I stand corrected on UNT receiving half-shares for the entire time of the deal. I've searched but haven't been able to find published specifics on the ramp up schedule. Unfortunately this still doesn't solve the dilemma we're about to find ourselves in.

What dilemma you ask? Exhibit A: House vs NCAA 

Whether we like it or not, schools directly paying athletes via NIL is coming in the very near future and could happen as early as next fall. As the above linked ESPN article states, this antitrust settlement is currently on hold as the the judge in the case waits for both the plaintiffs and the NCAA to address her concerns. The lawyer for the plaintiffs has already signaled they are fine making the requested changes, so now we wait for the NCAA to agree. The NCAA has very little leverage so I expect them to begrudgingly agree. 

So what does this mean for us?

Once this antitrust settlement takes hold, schools will have the green light to pay their athletes directly through NIL dollars. Those NIL dollars will come from revenue generated from ticket sales and you guessed it... TV media deals. For G5 teams, the vast majority of the NIL money will come from their TV media deals. 

Now let's consider the fact that UNT, UTSA, Rice, Charlotte, FAU, UAB, and Army are currently receiving half-shares in the AAC while the other seven AAC schools (Memphis, Tulane, USF, Temple, Tulsa, ECU, & Navy) are receiving full-share revenue deals. We're essentially playing in a two-tiered G5 conference for the foreseeable future, and unfortunately UNT is in the bottom tier when it comes to revenue share and being able to pay our athletes.

Talk about a huge competitive disadvantage within our own conference! 

To further my point, read this article titled: TEMPLE AD FACES CRITICAL DECISIONS AS REVENUE SHARING APPROACHES

 

Everyone is going to have to deal with that when the decision comes. We might see some big shifts and maybe even some teams not wanting to continue/a split to a new division 1 for those teams who can. Those issues will come up despite whatever conference we are in.

If the PAC brings a few AAC teams and offers a good chunk of money we should go if invited. If the brands of Memphis, Tulane, USF stay in the AAC, we should really consider staying as those schools not taking an offer means the move will be a lateral one with more travel.

[rcade]

2 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

The new PAC won't be treated like a power conference but it will unquestionably be the dominant G5 conference in both football and basketball.

I don't think any G5 conference has unquestionable dominance in era of NIL and transfer portal chaos. Everyone in the G5 gets a big chunk of their talent poached after the season.

The new PAC is a lot of Mountain West, whose top ranked team was unranked in 2023, No. 24 in 2022 (Fresno State), No. 24 in 2021 (Utah State), No. 24 in 2020 (San Jose State) and No. 22 in 2019 (Air Force). Doesn't look like dominance to me. I'd just call it one of the better G5s.

[VideoEagle]

28 minutes ago, rcade said:

The new PAC is a lot of Mountain West, whose top ranked team was unranked in 2023, No. 24 in 2022 (Fresno State), No. 24 in 2021 (Utah State), No. 24 in 2020 (San Jose State) and No. 22 in 2019 (Air Force). Doesn't look like dominance to me. I'd just call it one of the better G5s.

I'm not sure why adding Wazzu and OSU to this group will make it certain to have a significantly larger media deal than the MWC already has. Contracts are more about actual eyeballs (and subscribers) than markets these days. Yes, they will have more but enough more for an increase beyond what they have now - I'm not sure. Maybe yes, maybe no. In either case it won't be a lot. If I'm Memphis, Tulane, USF or any other AAC school, I want to see actual dollars being quoted by actual media sources and not Pac-x estimates! 

[C Rod]

1 hour ago, Green Otaku said:

Everyone is going to have to deal with that when the decision comes. We might see some big shifts and maybe even some teams not wanting to continue/a split to a new division 1 for those teams who can. Those issues will come up despite whatever conference we are in.

If the PAC brings a few AAC teams and offers a good chunk of money we should go if invited. If the brands of Memphis, Tulane, USF stay in the AAC, we should really consider staying as those schools not taking an offer means the move will be a lateral one with more travel.

Sure, everyone is going to have to deal with it. However we’re in a stronger position to recruit against our conference peers in both football and basketball as full-share members. 
 

Let’s say the PAC TV deal comes in at exactly the same amount as the current AAC deal, $8-10 million per year. We would be stupid to stay in the AAC receiving half-share if the new PAC offered us full-share from day 1. 
 

It may be a lateral move for Memphis, Tulane, and USF because they’re already in the top-tier of the AAC. But that doesn’t make it a lateral move for us if the PAC comes calling offering full-share media rights. Plus, let’s not forget those three schools are looking for the first opportunity to jump ship from the AAC to the ACC when the time comes. 

Edited Monday at 09:54 PM by C Rod

[MeanGreen22]

5 hours ago, VideoEagle said:

YES! I'm not saying "No way" but rather listen to the pitch and then check the real numbers. 

Seems like that’s Memphis and Tulanes approach as well. 

[ADLER]

3 minutes ago, MeanGreen22 said:

Seems like that’s Memphis and Tulanes approach as well. 

It may be a totally different story for those two. They, along with USF, are the projected top targets of the ACC when it loses it's power schools.

[MeanGreen22]

2 minutes ago, ADLER said:

It may be a totally different story for those two. They, along with USF, are the projected top targets of the ACC when it loses it's power schools.

Pros and cons list are different but we both got one. 

[Green Otaku]

1 hour ago, C Rod said:

Sure, everyone is going to have to deal with it. However we’re in a stronger position to recruit against our conference peers in both football and basketball as full-share members. 
 

Let’s say the PAC TV deal comes in at exactly the same amount as the current AAC deal, $8-10 million per year. We would be stupid to stay in the AAC receiving half-share if the new PAC offered us full-share from day 1. 
 

It may be a lateral move for Memphis, Tulane, and USF because they’re already in the top-tier of the AAC. But that doesn’t make it a lateral move for us if the PAC comes calling offering full-share media rights. Plus, let’s not forget those three schools are looking for the first opportunity to jump ship from the AAC to the ACC when the time comes. 

And I expect the AD to take the pros and cons and weigh what's best.

What I am predicting here is if the PAC can't lure Memphis/Tulane the contract is not going to be near the numbers being thrown around. Maybe $6-$8m, if I had to guess. We have to remember that the west is very sparsely populated and the big city centers are all in the B1G, ACC and Big12 (LA, Seattle, SLC, Phoenix, Denver, SF) without the central time zone teams what kind of deal can they get? Can the media partner offer the same level of coverage and exposure of ESPN? What will the travel expenses be?  I'm not saying don't take a look at what's offered, but you have to run the numbers and see what makes sense, and that's going to be up to the AD to decide. Personally I find it a high hurdle to clear if they can't lure the top of the AAC as a block.

 

[wardly]

The main reasons conferences add teams in today's market are if they must have them, such as the PAC 6 and perhaps the MWC, and if they bring value to their media contract at least equal to what share they would receive. The AFA  might do that for the AAC, although the renewal of the AAC media agreement will probably take a hit with the loss of Houston, UCF,and Cincinnati.

[DentonLurker]

Looks like Memphis to the PAC is getting even more real.

[MeanGreen22]

Vito got got

[3_n_out]

Let’s say Memphis and Tulane jump to the PAC, but we weren’t extended an invite. I wonder if our media shares in the AAC change from 50% to something much higher sooner along with those from C-USA? 
If the PAC is targeting 4 teams in the AAC, Memphis, Tulane, USF and UTSA seem to be the choices. 

[GMG_Dallas]

3 hours ago, Green Otaku said:

And I expect the AD to take the pros and cons and weigh what's best.

What I am predicting here is if the PAC can't lure Memphis/Tulane the contract is not going to be near the numbers being thrown around. Maybe $6-$8m, if I had to guess. We have to remember that the west is very sparsely populated and the big city centers are all in the B1G, ACC and Big12 (LA, Seattle, SLC, Phoenix, Denver, SF) without the central time zone teams what kind of deal can they get? Can the media partner offer the same level of coverage and exposure of ESPN? What will the travel expenses be?  I'm not saying don't take a look at what's offered, but you have to run the numbers and see what makes sense, and that's going to be up to the AD to decide. Personally I find it a high hurdle to clear if they can't lure the top of the AAC as a block.

 

Do you, or anybody else throwing around numbers of $6 million, realize the PAC2 has a media deal with CW for this season with an estimated value of $5-$9 million for each? Just two schools getting what you and others seem to think the PAC would get as a whole conference. It's not crazy to think the new PAC would get upwards of $10-$15 million per. Also, as it's been mentioned USF, Memphis, and Tulane are not in the same boat as us. They're favorites to join the ACC. They're also much further east than we are. The logistics are nowhere near the same and, as it's been said, they're getting full AAC shares. We are not. 

[Green Otaku]

2 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

Do you, or anybody else throwing around numbers of $6 million, realize the PAC2 has a media deal with CW for this season with an estimated value of $5-$9 million for each? Just two schools getting what you and others seem to think the PAC would get as a whole conference. It's not crazy to think the new PAC would get upwards of $10-$15 million per. Also, as it's been mentioned USF, Memphis, and Tulane are not in the same boat as us. They're favorites to join the ACC. They're also much further east than we are. The logistics are nowhere near the same and, as it's been said, they're getting full AAC shares. We are not. 

$10-15M possible? Yes. Likely? I have doubts, mostly because will a network be willing to pay $80-$150M a year depending on the number of teams? ESPN and FOX seem to have their late night slots covered, would they bid for it? Does a network like the CW have that kind of money?

Also maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it feels like multiple people think I'm saying turn any kind of interest for the PAC down immediately. I said in multiple posts that if we get interest from the PAC we should definitely take a look, run the numbers and weigh the options. If the deal is good go, if not stay in the AAC. My personal opinion/speculation is skeptical that the numbers are there, but I'm not saying we should be closed off to the idea.

Edited Tuesday at 06:01 AM by Green Otaku

[GMG_Dallas]

5 hours ago, Green Otaku said:

$10-15M possible? Yes. Likely? I have doubts, mostly because will a network be willing to pay $80-$150M a year depending on the number of teams? ESPN and FOX seem to have their late night slots covered, would they bid for it? Does a network like the CW have that kind of money?

Also maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it feels like multiple people think I'm saying turn any kind of interest for the PAC down immediately. I said in multiple posts that if we get interest from the PAC we should definitely take a look, run the numbers and weigh the options. If the deal is good go, if not stay in the AAC. My personal opinion/speculation is skeptical that the numbers are there, but I'm not saying we should be closed off to the idea.

CW is owned by Paramount. I don't know exact details of Paramount but it's a relatively new company that stems from a Viacom and CBS merger. CW has a streaming app and is looking for sports content. So is Amazon and so is Apple TV. There will be bids as the other major conferences are set for the next 5+ years. Also worth noting the current MWC deal is with CBS and Fox which has been at about $5 mil per school and expires when the new PAC is starts. This means they'll also be looking to fill some content and could buy a few games.

And understood on your stance on the PAC. Obviously it has to all make sense financially. My concern is the top AAC schools will leave to the ACC when that collapses. I doubt we'll be included with SMU already being there. Then we're in CUSA 2.0. This is an opportunity to get out before that happens. We'll see how this plays out. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:44 AM by GMG_Dallas

[SMU2006]

Memphis is 100% not a candidate for the ACC.

Tulane is a fringe candidate and doesn't have the deep pockets to broker their way into the league.

USF has a real chance but we're talking 8-10 years down the road.

 

If you are any of these schools and the PAC is a sure thing you'd be foolish not to take it.  It is going to be clearly the top G5 league and could garner a decent media rights package.  You are also 99% assured of getting your league champion into the playoff.

 

You can wait around for an ACC offer that is a ten year off prayer or you can take the sure thing now.  If they are thinking strategically the PAC will extend offers to Memphis, Tulane, USF, UNT, and UTSA/Texas State.  Crush the AAC and the MWC and turn their attentions to securing the media deal.

Edited Tuesday at 01:29 PM by SMU2006

[MeanGreenGlory]

17 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Memphis is 100% not a candidate for the ACC.

Tulane is a fringe candidate and doesn't have the deep pockets to broker their way into the league.

USF has a real chance but we're talking 8-10 years down the road.

 

If you are any of these schools and the PAC is a sure thing you'd be foolish not to take it.  It is going to be clearly the top G5 league and could garner a decent media rights package.  You are also 99% assured of getting your league champion into the playoff.

 

You can wait around for an ACC offer that is a ten year off prayer or you can take the sure thing now.  If they are thinking strategically the PAC will extend offers to Memphis, Tulane, USF, UNT, and UTSA/Texas State.  Crush the AAC and the MWC and turn their attentions to securing the media deal.

[Old Denton]

Don't get the UTSA angle, they're one-trick pony.  And that one trick is highly dependent on being able to keep their Magic Coach.  Tx State offers a lot more than UTSA.  The correct Central Time Zone play for the PAC is Memphis-Tulane-NT-TxSt

[El Paso Eagle]

6 minutes ago, Old Denton said:

Don't get the UTSA angle, they're one-trick pony.  And that one trick is highly dependent on being able to keep their Magic Coach.  Tx State offers a lot more than UTSA.  The correct Central Time Zone play for the PAC is Memphis-Tulane-NT-TxSt

Location and a large market with no local competition.