Memphis, USF, UTSA, and Tulane all reject PAC-6, will remain in the AAC

[Cooke County Kid]

Sounds like the American is not such a bad conference after all and that it should get better.  We just need to raise more money and WIN GAMES!  I don’t suspect many of us will be suiting up so raising money is our contribution, pun intended!

[C Rod]

Looks like the MWC is trying to money-whip the remaining seven schools to sign a membership agreement. 

[wardly]

53 minutes ago, TIgreen01 said:

I haven't read every piece of news, but my perception was that UTSA was mentioned only after Traylor started publicly making claims that they were in talks with the PAC.  From everything that has been reported, the PAC never actually invited UTSA.  They may have had the same "talks" that we had...a polite answering the call and turning them down.  Those who know for sure aren't saying.  What I do know is that the more credible sources only reported that the 3 (Memphis, Tulane and USF) schools turned down the PAC.  I think the AAC was forced to put UTSA on their "Committed" graphic only b/c Traylor had been spouting off publicly, and not b/c they had turned down an invite.  Read the UTSA AD's statement carefully.

Traylor is increasingly turning into a side show for UTSA....especially with them looking to have a very down year this year.  A few years ago, right on the heels of him winning CUSA and signing a 10 year contract, the students voted down a measure to increase athletics fees.  Next he loses all of his NFL receivers to graduation and NIL/transfer thievery and proceeds to lose it publicly.  I think he's finding that the money in UTSA isn't enough to sustain the early success he had and he's going off and doing things on his own.  It could work out great....but it could end badly (DD's exit here comes to mind) if he can't get the team back to their previous winning ways.

I am a retired old man with way too much time on his hands so I have read far too many podcasts from guys who claim to have the skinny. I would say that 90% of them had UTSA as one of the chosen ones from the get go while very few had USF because of geography , which even a realignment dumbo like me knew was b.s. as distance and travel expenses don't seem to be much of a consideration these days. However despite this, I was surprised that USF was in fact invited which is why I no longer voice an opinion on realignment but just report pod casters who at the end of the day are just guessing like the rest of us.

[TIgreen01]

39 minutes ago, wardly said:

I am a retired old man with way too much time on his hands so I have read far too many podcasts from guys who claim to have the skinny. I would say that 90% of them had UTSA as one of the chosen ones from the get go while very few had USF because of geography , which even a realignment dumbo like me knew was b.s. as distance and travel expenses don't seem to be much of a consideration these days. However despite this, I was surprised that USF was in fact invited which is why I no longer voice an opinion on realignment but just report pod casters who at the end of the day are just guessing like the rest of us.

Sound advice.  Judging from the one 'pissed' vote my post got, I guess the utsa lurkers didn't like my opinion.  Oh well...either way, you're absolutely right.  All we can really do from the outside is guess at what's really happening.  I don't put much stock into pod casters, though.  I think too many of them are 1) biased fans/alums, 2) obviously being played as tools or 3) just looking for clicks.

Edited 51 minutes ago by TIgreen01