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 yesterday at 06:32 PM by TIgreen01

[meaniegreenie]

2 hours 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.

UTSA kinda' resembles A&M's start in the SEC.  Their timing was perfect, in that they had Johnny Manziel for their first two seasons.  He helped them have initial success, but once he was gone, they were back to a middle of the pack team.

[keith]

On 9/25/2024 at 12:46 PM, 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.

You know this, I know this and probably everyone the frequents gomeangreen.com knows this.  The problem is, no one else does.  UTSA was somehow able to get itself included in the conversation.  It doesn't matter how or even if they were ever in the conversation in the first place, they did it and we did not.  Stories get picked up by rando journalists and it gets amplified.  I've read many sports news articles in various newspapers and they all seemed to include UTSA as a target.  Now, even after the three others said no and the dust has started to settle, the "American4" as they are now sometimes referred have be described as the next 4 in line for the call up.  KMN.  Smoke and mirrors on UTSA's part?  Perhaps, but they are now firmly embedded in the psyche of sports journalists who covered this story and who will likely continue to tout them as a viable candidate in future realignment discussions.

Kudos to UTSA for pulling this off.  Masterful.  Who knows maybe they just stumbled their way into it, but here we are. 

Edited 3 hours ago by keith

[3_n_out]

13 minutes ago, keith said:

You know this, I know this and probably everyone the frequents gomeangreen.com knows this.  The problem is, no one else does.  UTSA was somehow able to get itself included in the conversation.  It doesn't matter how or even if they were ever in the conversation in the first place, they did it and we did not.  Stories get picked up by rando journalists and it gets amplified.  I've read many sports news articles in various newspapers and they all seemed to include UTSA as a target.  Now, even after the three others said no and the dust has started to settle, the "American4" as they are now sometimes referred have be described as the next 4 in line for the call up.  KMN.  Smoke and mirrors on UTSA's part?  Perhaps, but they are now firmly embedded in the psyche of sports journalists who covered this story and who will likely continue to tout them as a viable candidate in future realignment discussions.

Kudos to USTA for pulling this off.  Masterful.  Who knows maybe they just stumbled their way into it, but here we are. 

Sounds like our new president has some work to do. Time to take UNT into the new era instead of this treadmill of mediocrity. This is the last year before we are added to the AAC media rights payroll (albeit @ 50%). However, that’s 4x more than we were earning w/ C-USA. Let’s see what he can do with that. 

[NM Green]

In my opinion UTSA deserved to be in the 4. I don’t like them or that fact but this is football recency bias. San Antonio built a successful football program worthy of moving up. 

Now the PAC would have also gotten their not very good basketball program and the other sports. But it didn’t matter. These moves were being made on football alone. 

Yet the powers that be have to look at the whole package and our whole package is very strong to the deciders. We know the factors. The only way to leverage our way back to a level perception with them is by beating them. Beating them silly like TSU did would be delicious but just beating them is our next step. 

As for Traylor. I think he realized that this is UTSA’s best shot for elevation. I do believe they step back this year. I do believe his team will get poached every year. I do believe his nightmare of the longhorns long run of sustained success and the eyeballs of San Antonio is here. Texas State is loud and here. They are going to get paid back by the league in 24. It’s everyone’s best shot in a long while. UTSA couldn’t make it happen out west. I predict he is on the move perhaps to Waco in a few short months. 

11.15.24

GMG

[C Rod]

On 9/24/2024 at 1:34 PM, keith said:

Whether UTSA was invited or not the one thing for certain is they won the PR battle hands down and has been able to elevate the perception (warranted or not) of its football program, its athletic department and school across the sporting world.  They are running circles around UNT leadership who seem to just be sitting on their thumbs.  SMH.

To be fair, this is not a PR issue. This is an issue of winning football games. Winning is what elevates programs into the national consciousness. PR teams just spreads the good news. UNT hasn't done a good enough job winning and providing the PR team with good news to share. 

The attached image shows the most wins by G5 schools in the past 5 years. It was made this past offseason so I updated the list, 4 weeks into the 2024 season:

1. Liberty - 51 wins

2. App State - 49 wins

3. Ragin Cajuns - 48 wins

4. Costal Carolina - 47 wins

5. Memphis - 46 wins

6. UTSA - 45 wins (2 Conference championships and 1 bowl win)

7. Air Force - 44 wins

7. Boise St - 44 wins

9. WKU - 43 wins

10. Tulane - 40 wins

11. Troy - 39 wins

UNT - 29 wins (0 Conference championships and 0 bowl wins)

Edited 23 hours ago by C Rod

[NT80]

Sources: UNLV, Air Force to remain in MWC with financial incentives

"UNLV chose to remain in the Mountain West despite overtures from the Pac-12, and Air Force received heavy interest from the American Athletic Conference. With both pledges, the Mountain West stands at seven football-playing members and will need to add two more full members to meet the NCAA minimum criteria (Hawaii is only a partial member)."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/41448219/sources-unlv-air-force-remain-mwc-financial-incentives

 

[C Rod]

 

[NT80]

 

 

[C Rod]

2 minutes ago, NT80 said:

 

 

Wow, MWC money-whipped the shit out of UNLV and AF. UNLV Athletics is $20.6M in debt so this just solved that problem.

[VideoEagle]

2 minutes ago, C Rod said:

Wow, MWC money-whipped the shit out of UNLV and AF. UNLV Athletics is $20.6M in debt so this just solved that problem.

It also means UNLV doesn't have to go into a meeting where questions about their coaches offering $100k NIL deals could be asked and their answers potentially subject to subpoena! 

[NT80]

42 minutes ago, C Rod said:

Wow, MWC money-whipped the shit out of UNLV and AF. UNLV Athletics is $20.6M in debt so this just solved that problem.

Well, it’s an “IOU in PAC $”.

Who knows when or if they actually see it. 
 

Edited 6 hours ago by NT80

[C Rod]

6 minutes ago, NT80 said:

Well, it’s an “IOU in PAC $”.

Who knows when or if they actually see it. 

Fair point. Personally I think they'll settle out of court before they put this case in front of a judge. Seems like a shrewd tactic by the PAC to reduce the poaching penalty. Would not be surprised to see the $10M penalty get negotiated down to $5-6M per team. 

[El Paso Eagle]

1 hour ago, C Rod said:

Fair point. Personally I think they'll settle out of court before they put this case in front of a judge. Seems like a shrewd tactic by the PAC to reduce the poaching penalty. Would not be surprised to see the $10M penalty get negotiated down to $5-6M per team. 

It seems like a case of both conferences positioning themselves up front, knowing that this was going to happen. The Mountain West had these big penalties because they knew even though they were helping out the pack in the short term, the pack would turn around and try to screw them over. The pac, from the beginning, knew what they had planned and agreed to anything already planned in advance to claim duress if and when the time came. I hope the PAC is forced to pay everything they committed to. This is not a contract that was signed years ago. This was signed very recently, and now the pac wants walk away from its commitment.

Edited 5 hours ago by El Paso Eagle

[DentonLurker]

1 hour ago, C Rod said:

 

Just my humble opinion, and I know it’s not necessarily the popular one here, but I think the AAC should go ahead and invite Texas State. Get them before the MWC does.

[Jason Howeth]

8 minutes ago, DentonLurker said:

Just my humble opinion, and I know it’s not necessarily the popular one here, but I think the AAC should go ahead and invite Texas State. Get them before the MWC does.

Do I like that Texas State would suddenly be on our "level" of play? Absolutely not. Would probably hate it, in fact. But would I, as an Austin resident, love being able to go to a UNT game within a short driving distance about every 2 years? Hell yes.

Miss me with UTSA games. It's an hour and a half drive one way and I've got two kids under 4 with naps and early bedtimes.

Also LOL @ UTEP.

[NT80]

11 minutes ago, DentonLurker said:

Just my humble opinion, and I know it’s not necessarily the popular one here, but I think the AAC should go ahead and invite Texas State. Get them before the MWC does.

Are there still conference entry fees into the AAC?

Texas State may be expecting multiple offers from MWC and PAC? 

[C Rod]

40 minutes ago, DentonLurker said:

Just my humble opinion, and I know it’s not necessarily the popular one here, but I think the AAC should go ahead and invite Texas State. Get them before the MWC does.

I agree. Geographically, TX State in the AAC makes the most sense. The American should play defense here and ensure that the PAC stays out of central Texas. 

Also, I can't imagine UTSA will be too happy if their rival TX State goes to the PAC and *potentially* makes more money than UTSA in TV money distribution. 

[southsideguy]

The PAC new TV deal cant be great with the teams they lost and the ones they gained.  Hard to replace a USC, UCLA, Washington, Stanford, Oregon.  The big boys have picked off the "highly" know names.  The school piking players through the NIL should have to repay the schools they come from for the cost of their education at the last school.

[C Rod]

Anyone else feel like he's signaling to the PAC to make a better offer?