Memphis, Tulane, USF Turn Down 2PAC....Staying in AAC

[NT80]

Memphis, Tulane, USF, UTSA commit to AAC amid Pac-12 interest

"Some of the highest profile targets of the Pac-12's expansion have rebuffed their interest, as Memphis, Tulane, USF and UTSA all publicly committed to stay in the American Athletic Conference on Monday afternoon.

The schools announced their intentions on social media, which solidifies the AAC in the short term and leaves the six-team Pac-12 in flux as it searches for at least two more members to complete it's rebuild."

"...But the reality is that a significant financial risk loomed if any of them decided to join the Pac-12. AAC Commissioner Tim Pernetti has been aggressive in attempting to leverage private equity money to help boost cash flow in the league."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/41403363/memphis-tulane-usf-utsa-commit-aac-amid-pac-12-interest

[Green Otaku]

4 minutes ago, MeanGreenRoadrunner said:

Any word from the UNT side about getting higher revenue share to solidify the conference against the PAC?  Over on the UTSA side, that's being asked.  As new members we all took smaller shares vs legacy schools already there. 

Nothing on our side has been reported. I'd guess that Pernetti talked to each schools, as well as ESPN to see what incentives could be done to keep the interested schools. If more money comes down the pipeline I could almost guarantee it was ESPN not wanting to lose those properties. I could see some kind of incentive bonus depending on where teams finish, and Pernetti talked about private equity.

[GMG_Dallas]

4 minutes ago, MeanGreenRoadrunner said:

Any word from the UNT side about getting higher revenue share to solidify the conference against the PAC?  Over on the UTSA side, that's being asked.  As new members we all took smaller shares vs legacy schools already there. 

See this is a big deal. I'm glad the AAC is staying together in the current format. That said, we clearly weren't included in the talks to move as indicated in the AAC's release with the Memphis, Tulane, USF, and UTSA logos displayed. What are those 4 schools getting to stay in the AAC and are we getting anything as well?

If we are getting nothing extra but the 4 listed are, is this is as much of a victory as it is for the other 4?

[MeanGreen22]

9 minutes ago, MeanGreenRoadrunner said:

Any word from the UNT side about getting higher revenue share to solidify the conference against the PAC?  Over on the UTSA side, that's being asked.  As new members we all took smaller shares vs legacy schools already there. 

After seeing the "offer" from the Pac, don't see why AAC would have put together a counter to the 4 schools other than a "good luck with that". 

[GMG_Dallas]

And let's be clear. This is only a victory because otherwise we'd be left behind. This buys us time until the next round of realignment because we're clearly not currently a priority for conferences trying to grow their brand. Hopefully our leadership recognizes that and acts with a sense of urgency moving forward.

[Jonnyeagle]

1 minute ago, GMG_Dallas said:

And let's be clear. This is only a victory because otherwise we'd be left behind. This buys us time until the next round of realignment because we're clearly not currently a priority for conferences trying to grow their brand. Hopefully our leadership recognizes that and acts with a sense of urgency moving forward.

[techdawg88]

6 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

See this is a big deal. I'm glad the AAC is staying together in the current format. That said, we clearly weren't included in the talks to move as indicated in the AAC's release with the Memphis, Tulane, USF, and UTSA logos displayed. What are those 4 schools getting to stay in the AAC and are we getting anything as well?

If we are getting nothing extra but the 4 listed are, is this is as much of a victory as it is for the other 4?

I don't perceive any additional benefits for them; financially, it just wasn't advantageous to leave for PAC-X.

[GMG_Dallas]

5 minutes ago, Jonnyeagle said:

UTSA was desired, we were not. If you can't see that's a problem, I can't help you.

[Green Otaku]

The thing that starts to get interesting here is what does the PAC 6 do? Reports are that AFA and others might stay in the MWC and sign a GOR to keep themselves locked in? You would think they would offer Utah St. and UNLV, but what do they do if they don't go? NMSU? UTEP? Tx.St? Could the MWC force a reverse merger?

[GMG_Dallas]

7 minutes ago, techdawg88 said:

I don't perceive any additional benefits for them; financially, it just wasn't advantageous to leave for PAC-X.

Sounds like they just couldn't afford to leave due to the exit fees.

 

 

[keith]

Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?  If the conference is going to send something out declaring solidarity among its members, it should include all members, not just these four.  Almost like they are setting these four apart as a sort of upper echelon of the conference.  Flub by the AAC IMHO.  

It has an "All members are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others" vibe to it.  

[MeanGreenRoadrunner]

Dude, that $2.5 mill assistance on exit fees was a slap in the face compared to how much they helped out the First Four.  I bet if the exit fee assistance was $10 mill, I might've been having an entirely different Monday.  

[MeanGreenGlory]

2 minutes ago, keith said:

Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?  If the conference is going to send something out declaring solidarity among its members, it should include all members, not just these four.  Almost like they are setting these four apart as a sort of upper echelon of the conference.  Flub by the AAC IMHO.  

It has an "All members are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others" vibe to it.  

I noticed and thought this as well. 

[GMG_Dallas]

2 minutes ago, keith said:

Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?  If the conference is going to send something out declaring solidarity among its members, it should include all members, not just these four.  Almost like they are setting these four apart as a sort of upper echelon of the conference.  Flub by the AAC IMHO.  

It has an "All members are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others" vibe to it.  

Well the rest of us weren't worthy of PAC consideration. We've been passed over by UTSA but apparently it's a victory that UTSA is gracing us with their presence.

[MeanGreenRoadrunner]

4 minutes ago, keith said:

Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?  If the conference is going to send something out declaring solidarity among its members, it should include all members, not just these four.  Almost like they are setting these four apart as a sort of upper echelon of the conference.  Flub by the AAC IMHO.  

It has an "All members are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others" vibe to it.  

Major flub!  I was thinking the same thing.  If I were Pernetti, I would've gone the 15 team logo route showing full commitment across the league!  it definitely put those 4 on a pedestal.  

This is why I asked earlier if UNT got any bump in revenue or some sort of promise to increase share.  I'm sure UTSA used this as leverage to do so (but no word yet if they got anything).

[MeanGreenMat]

2 hours ago, MeanGreenRoadrunner said:

The only thing I can take from this is that the media deal wasn't there.  Along with the right revenue share.

I guess that means that G5 will be characterized by regionality. P4 is relying on historical traditions to carry themselves on the national scale. Have we lost the dot on what made college football so special?
 

Then again, UNT is playing their long time rivals- the Temple Owls. On Thanksgiving! 

[Mean Green 93-98]

16 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

UTSA was desired, we were not. 

You sure about that?  

[techdawg88]

13 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

Sounds like they just couldn't afford to leave due to the exit fees.

 

 

they're also waiting around for when FSU and Clemson can finally leave ACC

[GMG_Dallas]

1 minute ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

You sure about that?  

Their logo is in the AAC release about sticking together. One of 4 logos. Ours is not. So yes, I'm sure about that.

[Mean Green 93-98]

9 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

Their logo is in the AAC release about sticking together. One of 4 logos. Ours is not. So yes, I'm sure about that.

What if you learned that we had already said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the PAC when they were merely gauging interest before talks started progressing?

[billyboy85]

Love every part of this ✊🥹

[GMG_Dallas]

2 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

What if you learned that we had already said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the PAC when they were merely gauging interest before talks started progressing?

So you think our leadership is idiotic enough to decline an offer without actually hearing what the offer is? You can't be that naive. Several reports list UTSA as a top target. Every report listing UNT is as a backup plan to get into Texas.

[VideoEagle]

32 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

Could the MWC force a reverse merger?

A merger under the PAC name is what seemed most likely after the PAC 2 won the battle to keep the exit fees. I don’t know why they resisted that. It was always the best deal for everyone.

[UNTcrazy727]

1 minute ago, GMG_Dallas said:

So you think our leadership is idiotic enough to decline an offer without actually hearing what the offer is? You can't be that naive. Several reports list UTSA as a top target. Every report listing UNT is as a backup plan to get into Texas.

IMO the reports the last couple days made it clear UTSA was not a top target. At least not on the same level as USF, Memphis, and Tulane. I think the AAC put them on the graphic because their name had been mentioned so much. 

[Mean Green 93-98]

2 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

So you think our leadership is idiotic enough to decline an offer without actually hearing what the offer is? You can't be that naive. 

The leadership of these 4 other schools did just that.  The PAC isn't in a position to make anyone a firm offer yet.