|
|
Post by lemkotir on Aug 10, 2023 20:35:05 GMT -8
I would be down for this league as well. 8 team conference opens up the ooc schedule for all schools. Rather only play 14 conf bball games and 7 football conference games. As opposed to our bloated conference schedule we have now. The ACC is going to break apart at the seems soon. I can see staying at 8 for the next few years to see if they can pick up some ACC cast offs (Boston College, Pitt, Louisville, and VA Tech). I could also see Olympic sports (minus basketball) joining the big west to save on travel. Not True. ACC and its member schools are not going anywhere anytime soon. FSU is making a lot of noise, in my opinion, to get unequal revenue sharing (basically what USC was clamoring for 10 years ago), from the bottom feeders like Syracuse and Boston College. To get out of the ACC, FSU would each need to pay $120m exit fee (of course, can be negotiated). But the hammer is the Grant of Rights, which means, if FSU leaves the ACC, the rights to FSU school's media still belongs to the ACC conference. That is a lot of money in media rights, until 2036? FSU signed that away... until 2036... you think they want to challenge that? ACC will FIGHT it until the end. I believe 8/15 is the deadline for any ACC schools to announce they intend to leave. sports.yahoo.com/hurricanes-staying-put-now-florida-193500825.html |
|
|
|
Post by 94sdsu on Aug 10, 2023 20:42:22 GMT -8
Cal and Stanford led by Kliavkoff, yeah that’s the ticket I’d rather have a league lead by Colonel Klink than Kliavkoff They both “know nothing!!! “ |
|
|
|
Post by richpjr on Aug 10, 2023 20:47:37 GMT -8
As the article said, you have the invite the "right" members to ensure optics and perception of P5 label remains. Having said that, if this new PAC raises from the ash, then I can only see 8 member league. USNews Rankings in brackets: - Stanford [3]
- California [20]
- Oregon State [151]
- Washington State [212]
- SMU (2024) [72]
- Rice (2024) [15]
- Tulane (2024) [44]
- SDSU (2025) [151]
I would consider the following schools to get up to 9 or 10:
- Memphis (2025) [263]
- Colorado State (2025) [151]
THIS^ At this point, this would be the best possible outcome for a sh*tty situation. Sign me up if they could get a short term TV deal somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by 94sdsu on Aug 10, 2023 20:50:21 GMT -8
Why would we want a short term deal? Make it end when the B1G’s or B13’s does so hopwfully we can move on / up if it’s not working out
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Aug 10, 2023 21:51:27 GMT -8
At this point, this would be the best possible outcome for a sh*tty situation. Sign me up if they could get a short term TV deal somewhere. There are other ways to build the new PAC that don't involve a bunch of MW schools: Stanford CAL Oregon State Washington State SDSU Rice SMU UC Davis I think that it's logical to not go further west then Texas. I would also say that (if say you don't like the idea of adding a strong academic school like Davis - the only other UC that has a football team besides CAL and UCLA), it would make sense to look at UC Irvine (conditional on adding football), or UCSB (conditional on adding football). I get that Fresno is better then these schools but I'm not sure that Stanford or CAL will approve that because of the academics. |
|
|
|
Post by AZTEC4LIFE1992 on Aug 10, 2023 22:01:18 GMT -8
Why would we want a short term deal? Make it end when the B1G’s or B13’s does so hopwfully we can move on / up if it’s not working out You want to go to market early at or before the MWC. Plus, the Apple deal will not be worth much money for this league, so you do a shorter deal, impress and then negotiate a longer term deal when you have proven yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Aug 10, 2023 22:32:05 GMT -8
Speculation
Hypothesis
Postulation
Conjecture
Supposition
Guesses
Guesses
Guesses
Who is driving future decisions, Conference Leadership, University Presidents, Athletic Directors, Twitter/Trolls, High Power/Priced Alumni, or the Broadcast Networks & Streaming Companies?
|
|
|
|
Post by soccer94 on Aug 10, 2023 22:40:18 GMT -8
I think you can go with a similar tv deal that they were about to agree to before with apple, maybe it starts lower, but I don’t see why it can’t have the same escalators and values if certain subscription targets are reached. Subscriptions are subscriptions. There is no reason why this can’t become a $20 million, $25 million or $30 million per school per year deal if the teams can perform and there is some saturation in the markets. They were saying the previous deal could have reached $50 million per year per school if certain goals were hit. Plus add in CFP and NCAA money and it could be competitive. Get close to the Big 12 and the conference would be in good shape.
|
|
|
|
Post by lemkotir on Aug 11, 2023 5:44:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 11, 2023 5:45:08 GMT -8
At this point, this would be the best possible outcome for a sh*tty situation. Sign me up if they could get a short term TV deal somewhere. There are other ways to build the new PAC that don't involve a bunch of MW schools: Stanford CAL Oregon State Washington State SDSU Rice SMU UC Davis I think that it's logical to not go further west then Texas. I would also say that (if say you don't like the idea of adding a strong academic school like Davis - the only other UC that has a football team besides CAL and UCLA), it would make sense to look at UC Irvine (conditional on adding football), or UCSB (conditional on adding football). I get that Fresno is better then these schools but I'm not sure that Stanford or CAL will approve that because of the academics. If you don't have football now, you would be stupid to add it. Davis is an interesting idea, but the Bay area is already covered. |
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Aug 11, 2023 6:19:31 GMT -8
As the article said, you have the invite the "right" members to ensure optics and perception of P5 label remains. Having said that, if this new PAC raises from the ash, then I can only see 8 member league. USNews Rankings in brackets: - Stanford [3]
- California [20]
- Oregon State [151]
- Washington State [212]
- SMU (2024) [72]
- Rice (2024) [15]
- Tulane (2024) [44]
- SDSU (2025) [151]
I would consider the following schools to get up to 9 or 10:
- Memphis (2025) [263]
- Colorado State (2025) [151]
If this long shot ends up happening I think there is something to be said for weakening the MWC on our way out. Take Colorado State [151] and UNLV [285] with us, both of which are R1 universities and have good markets. We already know half of the new Pac-12 members will be looking to upgrade during the next realignment cycle. The last thing we want is for CAL/STAN/OSU/WSU to find new homes and SDSU having to apply for membership back to the MWC. I don't think that scenario is particularly likely but neither was the 108 year old Pac-12 dying. |
|
|
|
Post by lemkotir on Aug 11, 2023 6:21:29 GMT -8
There are other ways to build the new PAC that don't involve a bunch of MW schools: Stanford CAL Oregon State Washington State SDSU Rice SMU UC Davis I think that it's logical to not go further west then Texas. I would also say that (if say you don't like the idea of adding a strong academic school like Davis - the only other UC that has a football team besides CAL and UCLA), it would make sense to look at UC Irvine (conditional on adding football), or UCSB (conditional on adding football). I get that Fresno is better then these schools but I'm not sure that Stanford or CAL will approve that because of the academics. If you don't have football now, you would be stupid to add it. Davis is an interesting idea, but the Bay area is already covered. This conference, should it come into existence, does not appear to be a stable one, due weak foundation in: - Cal and Stanford will be looking to leave for the B10, by 2030
- SDSU is maybe a B12 expansion target for westward contents (maybe)
- Rice, SMU and Tulane may and would break away into their own regional conferences, if there are better options, in the future; if ACC falls apart in 2030s, I would argue Rice, Tulane and SMU are better fits for that future state ACC 2.0, and they would prefer to hitched to east coast schools
- MWC can be a strong competitor in the west region, if top schools like Boise and Fresno are not added to PAC-X; aka kneecap the MWC is a priority
- If schools in the PAC-X are not as competitive or winning games vs. MWC schools, going to the 12-team CFP, then this conference will look wonky/unstable
- MWC has that exit fee clause (3x prior year's conference distribution if >12 months, ~6x < 12 months of notification to leave)
|
|
|
|
Post by lemkotir on Aug 11, 2023 6:37:28 GMT -8
As the article said, you have the invite the "right" members to ensure optics and perception of P5 label remains. Having said that, if this new PAC raises from the ash, then I can only see 8 member league. USNews Rankings in brackets: - Stanford [3]
- California [20]
- Oregon State [151]
- Washington State [212]
- SMU (2024) [72]
- Rice (2024) [15]
- Tulane (2024) [44]
- SDSU (2025) [151]
I would consider the following schools to get up to 9 or 10:
- Memphis (2025) [263]
- Colorado State (2025) [151]
If this long shot ends up happening I think there is something to be said for weakening the MWC on our way out. Take Colorado State [151] and UNLV [285] with us, both of which are R1 universities and have good markets. We already know half of the new Pac-12 members will be looking to upgrade during the next realignment cycle. The last thing we want is for CAL/STAN/OSU/WSU to find new homes and SDSU having to apply for membership back to the MWC. I don't think that scenario is particularly likely but neither was the 108 year old Pac-12 dying. On one hand, SDSU may need to take risks to position itself as one of the best G5 school for expansion for the next wave of realignment. On another hand, creating a conference with a bunch of schools with wondering eyes (SDSU included), and castoff schools 2 time zones away, may not be stable one. Mitigation strategy, as others said, is bring a few of the best branded, big schools and/or successful program with you into this new conference, and hopefully shed the bottom feeders and dead weight schools. If so, then you must 3 of the 5 schools below: - Boise State
- Colorado State
- Fresno State
- UNLV
- Fresno State
PAC-X does not have to add them in one run, they can add in incremental years (1 each year from 2025-27).However, the most important things are: - PAC-X has to OBATAIN a better deal vs. MWC (money and/or exposure) --- money, easy; exposure, TBD
- PAC-X schools have to win and perform better on the field, vs. MWC schools --- in theory, above 8 schools should perform better
- What is PAC-X left over resources from the departing members... how much is left? $50m? $150m? --- PAC is working to find out its assets and liabilities right now
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecalum on Aug 11, 2023 7:01:25 GMT -8
Before SDSU consider moving to a new conference they need to ensure each team signs a 5 year GOR. This would ensure SDSU has 5 years to continue to raise profile and be positioned for an upgrade should realignment happen again in 2030.
|
|
|
|
Post by lemkotir on Aug 11, 2023 7:06:56 GMT -8
Before SDSU consider moving to a new conference they need to ensure each team signs a 5 year GOR. This would ensure SDSU has 5 years to continue to raise profile and be positioned for an upgrade should realignment happen again in 2030. This would be non-negotiable in the sense of "must have" for SDSU and any incoming members into the PAC-X. GoR must be signed for X years to bind all the schools' media rights to the conference, with near ironclad legal language that makes it painful for defectors. Perhaps the exit fee would be part of the conference too, but not sure how that would go with each member's interest in the short vs. long term |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Aug 11, 2023 9:44:44 GMT -8
If you don't have football now, you would be stupid to add it. Davis is an interesting idea, but the Bay area is already covered. This conference, should it come into existence, does not appear to be a stable one, due weak foundation in: - Cal and Stanford will be looking to leave for the B10, by 2030
- SDSU is maybe a B12 expansion target for westward contents (maybe)
- Rice, SMU and Tulane may and would break away into their own regional conferences, if there are better options, in the future; if ACC falls apart in 2030s, I would argue Rice, Tulane and SMU are better fits for that future state ACC 2.0, and they would prefer to hitched to east coast schools
- MWC can be a strong competitor in the west region, if top schools like Boise and Fresno are not added to PAC-X; aka kneecap the MWC is a priority
- If schools in the PAC-X are not as competitive or winning games vs. MWC schools, going to the 12-team CFP, then this conference will look wonky/unstable
- MWC has that exit fee clause (3x prior year's conference distribution if >12 months, ~6x < 12 months of notification to leave)
You're looking at it from the perspective of making the new PAC the best possible conference while hurting the MW (thus elevating the PAC in comparison to the MW). What I'm arguing is that Stanford and Cal might care more about not including certain schools (Boise/Fresno), then they do about putting the best possible conference together - especially if they plan on leaving soon anyways. Not to mention, SMU and Rice have nice endowments and are Texas travel partners - so the best structure might be something like this: PAC8Stanford CAL Oregon State Washington State Rice SMU SDSU Fresno If you want more schools: Colorado State not great travel Boise bad travel UC Davis... isn't a part of the Bay Area, but it is close to it. Good cultural fit with the conference. Easy travel UC Irvine or UCSB gives you more of the coveted SoCal market - although yeah it's unlikely those schools would restart football. Easy travel |
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on Aug 11, 2023 10:11:20 GMT -8
Before SDSU consider moving to a new conference they need to ensure each team signs a 5 year GOR. This would ensure SDSU has 5 years to continue to raise profile and be positioned for an upgrade should realignment happen again in 2030. 5 years would be a really good number for SDSU to get established, meaning (hopefully) continued progression with all teams and then seeing more and more build-out of SDSU West showing even more of the Universities growth protentional. |
|
|
|
Post by namssa on Aug 11, 2023 10:13:53 GMT -8
I just don't see Stanford and Cal accepting Fresno State. This is the 8 I think they would be ok with:
Stanford
Cal
Oregon State
Washington State
SDSU
SMU
Tulane
Rice
There is your 8. Colorado State would be a good #9 and then it gets tough to find a 10th (Memphis, UNLV, Air Force?)
But if you stay at 8 and later down the road Standford and Cal leave, you could immediately add Boise State and Fresno State (and thne a few more if needed) and still have the best of the rest conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecalum on Aug 11, 2023 10:21:33 GMT -8
All 3 options beneficial to SDSU, granted rebuilt Pac12 paid SDSU exit fees?
|
|
|
|
Post by lemkotir on Aug 11, 2023 10:24:52 GMT -8
I just don't see Stanford and Cal accepting Fresno State. This is the 8 I think they would be ok with: Stanford Cal Oregon State Washington State SDSU SMU Tulane Rice There is your 8. Colorado State would be a good #9 and then it gets tough to find a 10th (Memphis, UNLV, Air Force?) But if you stay at 8 and later down the road Standford and Cal leave, you could immediately add Boise State and Fresno State (and thne a few more if needed) and still have the best of the rest conference. This also does NOT dilute the PAC-X too much Stanford, Cal, OSU and WSU - P5 schools SMU, Tulane, Rice - prior P5 schools many moons again SDSU - aspiring and upcoming school! Boise definitely fits the brand is on field success; academics hold them back Fresno is very successful in football in recent years; see Boise for academics and proximity to Calford Either you have to bring existing P5 status and budgets, or bring G5 on field success, market value, willingness to invest in sports, or you're thing "hot start-up" that can be a difference maker. Anyone else, do not need to apply for membership. |
|
