|
|
Post by standiego on Jun 26, 2024 10:04:51 GMT -8
So is someone suggesting that other schools should tell the new PAC to forget WSU ?
asked a fiends in the Denver areas if they watch CSU football - and they laughed - they and most of the others are more likely to watch U of Colorado - so not sure CSU has that many TV Viewers who watch their games
The new PAC might want to select the teams it wants to start with and see what it can get for a TV deal - and maybe they just take the amount of schools it needs to get started
By the way if there is going to be a new MWC without the 6 schools - will TV network pay it even less to cover its games
|
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on Jun 26, 2024 10:35:11 GMT -8
Would be nice to see the PAC be proactive and join up with the Big12 and the ACC and build a Tier2 level (non-Big Boy) conference now and build 4 (10 team) conferences.
PAC10
OSU ASU
WSU UofA
Boise SDSU
BYU UNLV
Utah Fresno
*No CALFORD, do not need the headaches unless UCLA wants back in.
BIG Central
BIG South
ACC
*Just offseason ramblings
|
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Jun 26, 2024 17:27:45 GMT -8
I was enthralled with the layout of the deck-chairs on the Titanic...the chairs were brand-new and groupings were perfect...even came with blankets to keep warm on those chilly arctic nights...
I'm certain that's what people are still talking about when discussing the Titanic to this day...
|
|
|
|
Post by junior on Jun 26, 2024 18:05:02 GMT -8
UCLA has no reason to return to a West Coast conference. Cal doesn't either, as long as UCLA is paying for them to play in ACC. The Furd is independently wealthy, even if they aren't a powerhouse sports university. If ACC goes belly up, then there will be another round of musical chairs, so that might be something to hope for.
|
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jun 26, 2024 18:41:28 GMT -8
UCLA has no reason to return to a West Coast conference. Cal doesn't either, as long as UCLA is paying for them to play in ACC. The Furd is independently wealthy, even if they aren't a powerhouse sports university. If ACC goes belly up, then there will be another round of musical chairs, so that might be something to hope for. The travel is a killer. And they will all be bottom feeders in their new conferences. |
|
|
|
Post by AZTEC4LIFE1992 on Jun 27, 2024 7:42:03 GMT -8
UCLA has no reason to return to a West Coast conference. Cal doesn't either, as long as UCLA is paying for them to play in ACC. The Furd is independently wealthy, even if they aren't a powerhouse sports university. If ACC goes belly up, then there will be another round of musical chairs, so that might be something to hope for. The travel is a killer. And they will all be bottom feeders in their new conferences. Both UCLA and Stanford have a lot of Olympic sports. The travel costs are going to be tremendous |
|
|
|
Post by azteclou on Jun 27, 2024 8:35:39 GMT -8
Timeline has moved up. While the two remaining PAC schools have two years to rebuild, the WSU President who will retire a year from now says timeline is early next year. Here is what he told Canzano:
What does the timeline for the Pac-12 look like in your mind?
I feel that in my conversations with (President) Jayathi Murthy at Oregon State, I think early in 2025, we’ve got to make a decision about where we’re going to be for the next four or five years. I don’t think we can continue having a foot in multiple conferences and hoping that something’s going to come our way. So I think we’re going to spend the fall planning, looking at our best options. And I think January-February, we’ve got to pick what we think is the best and aggressively move forward.
So that’s where we are in the timeline.
I know that supposedly we have more time than that with the NCAA and those things, but if we’re not careful, we’re going to keep kicking the can down the road. It’ll hurt recruiting, hurt coach retention, hurt our student-athletes. They want to know who they’re going to be competing against. And so that’s the timeline, at least I feel, is important for us to hold to.
|
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Jun 27, 2024 10:58:31 GMT -8
Timeline has moved up. While the two remaining PAC schools have two years to rebuild, the WSU President who will retire a year from now says timeline is early next year. Here is what he told Canzano: What does the timeline for the Pac-12 look like in your mind? I feel that in my conversations with (President) Jayathi Murthy at Oregon State, I think early in 2025, we’ve got to make a decision about where we’re going to be for the next four or five years. I don’t think we can continue having a foot in multiple conferences and hoping that something’s going to come our way. So I think we’re going to spend the fall planning, looking at our best options. And I think January-February, we’ve got to pick what we think is the best and aggressively move forward. So that’s where we are in the timeline. I know that supposedly we have more time than that with the NCAA and those things, but if we’re not careful, we’re going to keep kicking the can down the road. It’ll hurt recruiting, hurt coach retention, hurt our student-athletes. They want to know who they’re going to be competing against. And so that’s the timeline, at least I feel, is important for us to hold to. They're in a bit of a Catch-22 if they stick with the MWC: 1) do a full merge and take on the dregs of the conference or 2) blow most of their wad helping with exit fees to take on only the more attractive schools and stay at 8 or so members. Best option, but least realistic, is 3) 9 schools vote to disband the MWC and move to the PAC-XX with no exit fees involved. This still may not be attractive enough media dollars-wise to make that move. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jun 27, 2024 11:03:07 GMT -8
Timeline has moved up. While the two remaining PAC schools have two years to rebuild, the WSU President who will retire a year from now says timeline is early next year. Here is what he told Canzano: What does the timeline for the Pac-12 look like in your mind? I feel that in my conversations with (President) Jayathi Murthy at Oregon State, I think early in 2025, we’ve got to make a decision about where we’re going to be for the next four or five years. I don’t think we can continue having a foot in multiple conferences and hoping that something’s going to come our way. So I think we’re going to spend the fall planning, looking at our best options. And I think January-February, we’ve got to pick what we think is the best and aggressively move forward. So that’s where we are in the timeline. I know that supposedly we have more time than that with the NCAA and those things, but if we’re not careful, we’re going to keep kicking the can down the road. It’ll hurt recruiting, hurt coach retention, hurt our student-athletes. They want to know who they’re going to be competing against. And so that’s the timeline, at least I feel, is important for us to hold to. They're in a bit of a Catch-22 if they stick with the MWC: 1) do a full merge and take on the dregs of the conference or 2) blow most of their wad helping with exit fees to take on only the more attractive schools and stay at 8 or so members. Best option, but least realistic, is 3) 9 schools vote to disband the MWC and move to the PAC-XX with no exit fees involved. This still may not be attractive enough media dollars-wise to make that move. The “wad” Will be less than half of the reported fees to exit the MWC and the schools will be on the hook for a portion of it… |
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Jun 27, 2024 16:26:32 GMT -8
They're in a bit of a Catch-22 if they stick with the MWC: 1) do a full merge and take on the dregs of the conference or 2) blow most of their wad helping with exit fees to take on only the more attractive schools and stay at 8 or so members. Best option, but least realistic, is 3) 9 schools vote to disband the MWC and move to the PAC-XX with no exit fees involved. This still may not be attractive enough media dollars-wise to make that move. The “wad” Will be less than half of the reported fees to exit the MWC and the schools will be on the hook for a portion of it… Yeah, I'm assuming so too. And yep, that's why I said "helping with" exit fees. It'll still be a sizable chunk of their treasure chest. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 27, 2024 16:39:38 GMT -8
I think the 2PAC will just suck up all the money they can and then reverse merger with the MW. They will also try to negotiate that they keep the PAC tourney credits post merger.
I read the WSU President interview and the conclusion I draw is that they are more interested in maintaining a funding level than building a new conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jun 27, 2024 19:26:25 GMT -8
I think the 2PAC will just suck up all the money they can and then reverse merger with the MW. They will also try to negotiate that they keep the PAC tourney credits post merger. I read the WSU President interview and the conclusion I draw is that they are more interested in maintaining a funding level than building a new conference. Nah. They will not want to feed mouths that bring nothing to the table. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jun 30, 2024 15:24:28 GMT -8
UCLA has no reason to return to a West Coast conference. Cal doesn't either, as long as UCLA is paying for them to play in ACC. The Furd is independently wealthy, even if they aren't a powerhouse sports university. If ACC goes belly up, then there will be another round of musical chairs, so that might be something to hope for. Cal has significant budget issues. They have large AD deficits and don't even start to pay the principal on their stadium remodel until 2032 or so. They are not loaded with money and the $10M they get from UCLA won't even pay what they will see in increased travel costs which will be even worse than UCLA's. They will be shedding sports. Stanford has more money available to them, but I do see them rethinking their decision once they play a season in the ACC. Neither school is going to thrive in the ACC because of the travel. If the ACC were to add 3-5 schools west of the Rockies then that might help, but I don't see them doing so. To be honest, the ACC would need to add Utah, and the Zona schools to make me even want to add SDSU to the conference. By 2028 we are going to see a big reset as these schools start to realize that geography means something. Hell, the pros have divisions based on geography. Why do colleges think they don't need that as well? |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jun 30, 2024 15:30:31 GMT -8
The travel is a killer. And they will all be bottom feeders in their new conferences. Both UCLA and Stanford have a lot of Olympic sports. The travel costs are going to be tremendous The only schools that got what they wanted are USC and Colorado. And USC didn't want Oregon and Washington to follow them to the B1G. USC is used to being able to dictate terms to the PAC. Not so in the B1G. Washington didn't like the streaming component with the PAC deal and they decided to leave or the B1G. Oregon followed, though I've read that they were happy with the Apple deal. Washington's first year FB schedule has numerous games on Peacock. Oopsie. Oh, both them and Oregon joined at have the price of USCLA. Oregon has Phil Knight money while Washington has a rather significant AD budget deficit. For all the brains behind these PAC schools they just don't realize what a clusterf*** they created out of panic. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jun 30, 2024 15:34:57 GMT -8
I think the 2PAC will just suck up all the money they can and then reverse merger with the MW. They will also try to negotiate that they keep the PAC tourney credits post merger. I read the WSU President interview and the conclusion I draw is that they are more interested in maintaining a funding level than building a new conference. They cannot. They were allowed all the revenues from the conference based on the fact that they said they needed that to rebuild the conference. If they don't do that, the other schools will sue to have them repay those fees and the court that issued the decision has said they retain jurisdiction to ensure all schools are treated "fairly." The PAC2 has plenty of money to add 6 MWC schools (or 4 MWC and 2 AAC schools) even if they don't ask those schools to pay a portion of their exit fees. Personally, with what SDSU would leave behind in terms of tournament credits, SDSU shouldn't be forced to pay a single dime. They likely will, however. |
|
|
|
Post by 91aztec on Jun 30, 2024 16:52:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jun 30, 2024 23:06:08 GMT -8
I think the 2PAC will just suck up all the money they can and then reverse merger with the MW. They will also try to negotiate that they keep the PAC tourney credits post merger. I read the WSU President interview and the conclusion I draw is that they are more interested in maintaining a funding level than building a new conference. They cannot. They were allowed all the revenues from the conference based on the fact that they said they needed that to rebuild the conference. If they don't do that, the other schools will sue to have them repay those fees and the court that issued the decision has said they retain jurisdiction to ensure all schools are treated "fairly." The PAC2 has plenty of money to add 6 MWC schools (or 4 MWC and 2 AAC schools) even if they don't ask those schools to pay a portion of their exit fees. Personally, with what SDSU would leave behind in terms of tournament credits, SDSU shouldn't be forced to pay a single dime. They likely will, however. Isn't it true that the Pac2 has to expand by 2026 or they'll no longer be an official conference? They can't wait to see how the ACC shakes out since the clock is ticking. |
|
|
|
Post by 94sdsu on Jul 1, 2024 7:40:30 GMT -8
I still just shake my head at how close we were to joining the Pac 12, which would’ve been a much stronger conference than the existing ACC or big 12. If it would’ve lasted just one more year, with how well the football teams did last year, the TV contracts would’ve been very good and the conference would’ve had some eyeballs on it. |
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Jul 1, 2024 7:54:07 GMT -8
They cannot. They were allowed all the revenues from the conference based on the fact that they said they needed that to rebuild the conference. If they don't do that, the other schools will sue to have them repay those fees and the court that issued the decision has said they retain jurisdiction to ensure all schools are treated "fairly." The PAC2 has plenty of money to add 6 MWC schools (or 4 MWC and 2 AAC schools) even if they don't ask those schools to pay a portion of their exit fees. Personally, with what SDSU would leave behind in terms of tournament credits, SDSU shouldn't be forced to pay a single dime. They likely will, however. Isn't it true that the Pac2 has to expand by 2026 or they'll no longer be an official conference? They can't wait to see how the ACC shakes out since the clock is ticking. I have seen a couple articles suggesting they may ask for an extension on the two-year grace period, but I think the remarks by WSU's outgoing president make that an unlikelihood. Not sure that would be granted anyway. And they would probably only do that to extend their pipe dream of a Big12 or ACC invite. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jul 1, 2024 8:28:30 GMT -8
They're in a bit of a Catch-22 if they stick with the MWC: 1) do a full merge and take on the dregs of the conference or 2) blow most of their wad helping with exit fees to take on only the more attractive schools and stay at 8 or so members. Best option, but least realistic, is 3) 9 schools vote to disband the MWC and move to the PAC-XX with no exit fees involved. This still may not be attractive enough media dollars-wise to make that move. The “wad” Will be less than half of the reported fees to exit the MWC and the schools will be on the hook for a portion of it… Though the PAC2 agreed in writing that for the initial school, it would be $10M and each additional school would add $500K so the payment schedule would be: 1. 10 2. 10.5 3. 11 4. 11.5 5. 12 6. 12.5 Total: $67.5M However, SDSU would be leaving behind $14M or so in tournament credits so they may be be able to bargain with that a bit. Let's say the total is $60M for simplicity. If the PAC pays 50% of the fees then the average per school would be 30/6 for $5M each paid over 3 years so $1.67M/year. SDSU, being the biggest prize and leaving behind the most money could pay significantly less. But, even at $67.5M and given the same terms that would be $5.625M or $1.88M/year. |
|
