|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 10, 2024 12:16:12 GMT -8
Sounds like half share for the length of the current media rights deal which would put us well behind the other conference members financially. Yet Oregon and Washington elected for the same half share financial disadvantage with the Big10. And before people start saying, yeah but it's the B10 vs the B12, the situation is relative. Wouldn't the B12 at a half share still be better than the MWC? Wouldn't it be funny if the B1G never gets another media contract, they and the SEC both decide to create a P2 super conference, and both Oregon and Washington did this for nothing? Even Washington's former president, perhaps it was their former AD, said that they would be making less on media rights in the B1G than they would have in the PAC until the next media contract. In the PAC they would have had an easier path to the CFP and a national championship. |
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on Sept 10, 2024 12:22:58 GMT -8
And at that point, the closest schools were in Texas. 4 corners were still just a dream for the big 12. Travel was a major deterrent to the initial discussion for big 12/SDSU if I remember right. My best guess is we were just a backup contingency if the PAC stayed intact. Instead a 100 year old conference blows up and we’re still in the MW. We could have gone earlier but at a half share for the next 6 years. The B12 hoped that getting us would attract Utah, ASU and Zona. My personal opinion is that you don't join a conference where you financially will not be able to compete with the other members. Utah didn't get terms like that when the joined the PAC. " My personal opinion is that you don't join a conference where you financially will not be able to compete with the other members" ---You Sir are correct! |
|
|
|
Post by MontezumasRevenge on Sept 10, 2024 13:12:42 GMT -8
We could have gone earlier but at a half share for the next 6 years. The B12 hoped that getting us would attract Utah, ASU and Zona. My personal opinion is that you don't join a conference where you financially will not be able to compete with the other members. Utah didn't get terms like that when the joined the PAC. " My personal opinion is that you don't join a conference where you financially will not be able to compete with the other members" ---You Sir are correct! So it's better to be in a perceived/actual minor league conference just because every school (besides Boise) is making the same 6M? |
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Sept 10, 2024 13:53:52 GMT -8
Nothing new, but here is a recap from HERO Sports dated 9/9/24. herosports.com/fbs-pac-12-rebuild-cfb-conference-realignment-mountain-west-football-cpcp1. Pac-12 & Mountain West Scheduling Arrangement passed for 2024 ($14MM payout), failed to extend for 2025 as the PAC wanted to reduced fees to the MWC. 2. OSU & WSU, can individually look to Mountain West schools for one-off football games in 2025. 3. In Pac-12 2024 conference realignment news and Per The Mercury News, "Oregon State and Washington State have reportedly been in discussions with multiple FBS conferences, both Power Four and Group of Five, about plans beyond this season. It appears a move to a few conferences is possible." 4. Which Mountain West/G5 Teams Could Join The Pac-12? -San Diego State -UNLV -Boise State -Colorado State -Air Force -Fresno State -Memphis -UTSA 5. Which Teams Could Be Expansion Targets For The Mountain West? -UTE -North Texas -Texas State -Montana -Montana State -North Dakota State -South Dakota State -Idaho -Sacramento State -UC Davis 6. Washington State & Oregon State could be Future Mountain West Conference schools, if any merger takes place. 7. Pac-12/Mountain West Poaching Penalties are still in play and last a lifetime. $65MM for 6 schools put aside by the PAC2. 8. Mountain West Buyouts for leaving the MW Conference are still set at $17MM a year out, and doubled if less than a year. 9A. Old Pac-12 Teams Now In The Big 12 -Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah went to the Big 12 for this season and beyond. 9B. Old Pac-12 Teams Now In The Big Ten -USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington are in the Big Ten beginning this year. 9C. Old Pac-12 Teams Now In The ACC -After those aforementioned eight teams went to other power conferences, Cal and Stanford decided to go to the ACC and are competing in that league this academic year 10. PAC Media RIghts, "Those teams in a league like that are reportedly believed to have a shot of making between $7 million and $10 million per team every year in a media rights deal, per a story by John Canzano, which would be more than the roughly $4 million per year the Mountain West is currently getting." |
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Sept 10, 2024 14:08:41 GMT -8
SDSU was a lock for the Pac 12 until Washington and Oregon blew it up. No way JD takes a half price offer from the Big 12 with the Pac 12 offer almost a guaranteed.
It is interesting though that SDSU did have a Big 12 offer even if it was at half price.
|
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on Sept 10, 2024 14:20:35 GMT -8
" My personal opinion is that you don't join a conference where you financially will not be able to compete with the other members" ---You Sir are correct! So it's better to be in a perceived/actual minor league conference just because every school (besides Boise) is making the same 6M? If they came in with limited funding compared to others, how do you think that would help change things? So you think it a good idea to pay a program half as much as every other team for an extended amount of time, while others have a huge advantage with better funding? Either you want a program or not, why bring in a program that will get beat on for a few years and instantly bring down the image of the entire program and the conference? |
|
|
|
Post by panammaniac on Sept 10, 2024 14:38:50 GMT -8
#5 is kind of ridiculous if you think about it. North Texas and Texas State are both in the AAC which currently pays about double what the MWC media contract pays. A rebuilt MWC with any combination of those schools won't pay nearly that well. Montana and Montana State have repeatedly said it isn't financially feasible for them to jump to FBS. The same is likely true for the Dakotas. Idaho has been there, done that, and has stability with peer schools in the Big Sky. Sac State and UC Davis do nothing to move the needle. The most likely candidates for the MWC to invite are NMSU and UTEP. They're both FBS schools right there in their geographic footprint and already have built-in rivalries with some of the MWC schools that would be left behind. The bigger question would be whether UTEP and NMSU would leave the stability of CUSA for a rebuilt MWC that's on a little bit of shaky ground. The CUSA TV contract only pays about $800k per year. It's not difficult to imagine a rebuilt MWC topping that. Another thing you need to look at is each school's athletics budgets. Even the bottom half MWC schools outspend NMSU and UTEP by about $10 million a year. I'm sure they outspend the Montanas, the Dakotas, and the NorCal FCS schools by much, much more than that. One of the attractive parts of CUSA is it's made up of schools that all spend similarly. It's about a level of a playing field as you can find in college sports today. I'm sure if the MWC gets cut in half, the 6 remaining schools will have to reduce their spending a bit, and perhaps NMSU and UTEP could increase theirs to meet somewhere in the middle, but it all boils down to media money and what makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Sept 10, 2024 14:45:02 GMT -8
#5 is kind of ridiculous if you think about it. North Texas and Texas State are both in the AAC which currently pays about double what the MWC media contract pays. A rebuilt MWC with any combination of those schools won't pay nearly that well. Montana and Montana State have repeatedly said it isn't financially feasible for them to jump to FBS. The same is likely true for the Dakotas. Idaho has been there, done that, and has stability with peer schools in the Big Sky. Sac State and UC Davis do nothing to move the needle. The most likely candidates for the MWC to invite are NMSU and UTEP. They're both FBS schools right there in their geographic footprint and already have built-in rivalries with some of the MWC schools that would be left behind. The bigger question would be whether UTEP and NMSU would leave the stability of CUSA for a rebuilt MWC that's on a little bit of shaky ground. The CUSA TV contract only pays about $800k per year. It's not difficult to imagine a rebuilt MWC topping that. Another thing you need to look at is each school's athletics budgets. Even the bottom half MWC schools outspend NMSU and UTEP by about $10 million a year. I'm sure they outspend the Montanas, the Dakotas, and the NorCal FCS schools by much, much more than that. One of the attractive parts of CUSA is it's made up of schools that all spend similarly. It's about a level of a playing field as you can find in college sports today. I'm sure if the MWC gets cut in half, the 6 remaining schools will have to reduce their spending a bit, and perhaps NMSU and UTEP could increase theirs to meet somewhere in the middle, but it all boils down to media money and what makes sense. I was just recapping the article, I never said, I agreed or disagreed. I do understand the points you're bringing up, and know that there's much more to it then meets the eye. And sense you brought it up, do you have the link to NCAA Athletic department spending by conference? Even Canzano & Wilner brought up the idea the relegation model for a PAC/MWC Merger by setting up a minimum spend by school and AD, but doubt that's on the table. |
|
|
|
Post by MontezumasRevenge on Sept 10, 2024 14:52:29 GMT -8
So it's better to be in a perceived/actual minor league conference just because every school (besides Boise) is making the same 6M? If they came in with limited funding compared to others, how do you think that would help change things? So you think it a good idea to pay a program half as much as every other team for an extended amount of time, while others have a huge advantage with better funding? Either you want a program or not, why bring in a program that will get beat on for a few years and instantly bring down the image of the entire program and the conference? I doubt anyone thinks it's a good idea - but as a G5 program you only get so many bites at the apple. If Yormark could have secured a full share for us, then I'm guessing he would have preferred that as well, but that's up to his television partners. Why did Oregon and Washington take a half share to get into the Big 10? Why did Cal and Stanford take partial shares (and in the case of SMU, even no shares) to get into the ACC? Why would OSU and WSU take a half share to join the B12 if offered today? |
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Sept 10, 2024 15:23:10 GMT -8
If they came in with limited funding compared to others, how do you think that would help change things? So you think it a good idea to pay a program half as much as every other team for an extended amount of time, while others have a huge advantage with better funding? Either you want a program or not, why bring in a program that will get beat on for a few years and instantly bring down the image of the entire program and the conference? I doubt anyone thinks it's a good idea - but as a G5 program you only get so many bites at the apple. If Yormark could have secured a full share for us, then I'm guessing he would have preferred that as well, but that's up to his television partners. Why did Oregon and Washington take a half share to get into the Big 10? Why did Cal and Stanford take partial shares (and in the case of SMU, even no shares) to get into the ACC? Why would OSU and WSU take a half share to join the B12 if offered today? Again, I would love to see an AD spending chart by Conference, does anyone have a link handy? As far as shares, for the PAC schools it wasn't a deal breaker. However, being relegated and left-out would have been a major perception penalty, Cal is being supplemented by UCLA, Stanford has billions in endowments (tech bros) Oregon has Nike dollars, and Washington has big money doners as well, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Paul Allen and Microsoft. They all wanted to compete in the top league (B1G). AZ, ASU, COL & Utah parked themselves where they could compete as well (Big XII), I dont think that the half share was a deal breaker to any school, as long as they stayed in a Power Conference. Are ADs happy with less money and increased travel on Olympic sports, no way. At least they can continue to be a P4 performer. I don't think SDSU has the same level of donors, NIL collectives, the same reputation, following or TV viewership levels as the schools who took half shares. Not yet, perhaps the momentum will continue to build. |
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Sept 10, 2024 16:23:41 GMT -8
SDSU was a lock for the Pac 12 until Washington and Oregon blew it up. No way JD takes a half price offer from the Big 12 with the Pac 12 offer almost a guaranteed. It is interesting though that SDSU did have a Big 12 offer even if it was at half price. I would have taken the money in a second. Should have been clear to jd as the situation was dragging on it was glojv to end in disaster. Its his job to read the tea leaves and see how conference realignment is playing out. He phucked up. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Sept 10, 2024 16:27:10 GMT -8
Questions I have:
Would SDSU have been given the option to join the Big 12 and place Olympic Sports in the Big West or another small western conference? (It would reduce travel costs, even if it was a short term solution until SDSU was able to get access to the full share payout).
Would SDSU have vastly improved national viability with the Big 12 vs being hidden on CBS Sports.
Given the MW teams we play move the needle backwards every year, how much would Big 12 opponents (even the diluted Big 12) ticket sales, attendance, and overall local perception of the program.
How much would Snapdragon revenue with the Wave, MLS and year round events able to offset only getting 1/2 share of Big 12 money?
|
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 10, 2024 16:52:47 GMT -8
If they came in with limited funding compared to others, how do you think that would help change things? So you think it a good idea to pay a program half as much as every other team for an extended amount of time, while others have a huge advantage with better funding? Either you want a program or not, why bring in a program that will get beat on for a few years and instantly bring down the image of the entire program and the conference? I doubt anyone thinks it's a good idea - but as a G5 program you only get so many bites at the apple. If Yormark could have secured a full share for us, then I'm guessing he would have preferred that as well, but that's up to his television partners. Why did Oregon and Washington take a half share to get into the Big 10? Why did Cal and Stanford take partial shares (and in the case of SMU, even no shares) to get into the ACC? Why would OSU and WSU take a half share to join the B12 if offered today?Panic, though I think Washington was quietly sabotaging the PAC media deal when Apple came into play. |
|
|
|
Post by panammaniac on Sept 10, 2024 16:58:33 GMT -8
#5 is kind of ridiculous if you think about it. North Texas and Texas State are both in the AAC which currently pays about double what the MWC media contract pays. A rebuilt MWC with any combination of those schools won't pay nearly that well. Montana and Montana State have repeatedly said it isn't financially feasible for them to jump to FBS. The same is likely true for the Dakotas. Idaho has been there, done that, and has stability with peer schools in the Big Sky. Sac State and UC Davis do nothing to move the needle. The most likely candidates for the MWC to invite are NMSU and UTEP. They're both FBS schools right there in their geographic footprint and already have built-in rivalries with some of the MWC schools that would be left behind. The bigger question would be whether UTEP and NMSU would leave the stability of CUSA for a rebuilt MWC that's on a little bit of shaky ground. The CUSA TV contract only pays about $800k per year. It's not difficult to imagine a rebuilt MWC topping that. Another thing you need to look at is each school's athletics budgets. Even the bottom half MWC schools outspend NMSU and UTEP by about $10 million a year. I'm sure they outspend the Montanas, the Dakotas, and the NorCal FCS schools by much, much more than that. One of the attractive parts of CUSA is it's made up of schools that all spend similarly. It's about a level of a playing field as you can find in college sports today. I'm sure if the MWC gets cut in half, the 6 remaining schools will have to reduce their spending a bit, and perhaps NMSU and UTEP could increase theirs to meet somewhere in the middle, but it all boils down to media money and what makes sense. I was just recapping the article, I never said, I agreed or disagreed. I do understand the points you're bringing up, and know that there's much more to it then meets the eye. And sense you brought it up, do you have the link to NCAA Athletic department spending by conference? Even Canzano & Wilner brought up the idea the relegation model for a PAC/MWC Merger by setting up a minimum spend by school and AD, but doubt that's on the table. Oh I know, I wasn’t attacking you by any means. Whoever posted this article is very short sighted though. Some of the schools mentioned as expansion targets would never make that move, and the rest would add nothing to the conference’s bottom line other than adding schools for the sake of survival. I don’t have a link of spending by conference. I do know that when NMSU joined CUSA our AD presented a PowerPoint to our BOR when he was getting approval for the conference move, and that presentation contained the athletics budgets of every school in the conference, among other things. NMSU spends about $24 million on athletics which is mid to top of that conference. Everyone else besides Liberty spends in the $20 - $25 million range. I do know that the bulk of the MWC schools spend a little north of $30 million. CUSA is a nice conference fit because everyone is peers in terms of athletics budgets and everyone can realistically be competitive. What sucks about it for us is most of the conference is southeast leaning. We spend a lot of time traveling in the Deep South. Most of those schools don’t excite our fan base much. Our basketball tourney is in Huntsville, Alabama, which is out of travel reach for our fans. In the WAC days we drew large fans to Vegas. So there’s pros and cons, but if the MWC came calling we’d at least have to take that call. It may or may not be better than CUSA. A lot depends on a lot. So many of these articles are by people not considering the financial side of the picture. They’re more like “the MWC will want to expand into Texas so they’ll go after Texas State and UNT,” but the reality is the MWC has zero chance of getting either of them. All you have to do is look at the financial picture. NMSU would likely take a MWC invite if UTEP went. It makes too much sense. |
|
|
|
Post by gocoaztec on Sept 10, 2024 17:00:43 GMT -8
And at that point, the closest schools were in Texas. 4 corners were still just a dream for the big 12. Travel was a major deterrent to the initial discussion for big 12/SDSU if I remember right. My best guess is we were just a backup contingency if the PAC stayed intact. Instead a 100 year old conference blows up and we’re still in the MW. We could have gone earlier but at a half share for the next 6 years. The B12 hoped that getting us would attract Utah, ASU and Zona. My personal opinion is that you don't join a conference where you financially will not be able to compete with the other members. Utah didn't get terms like that when the joined the PAC. Taking a reduced share is the norm - all the latest B10 adds have taken a reduced share. SMU took a ZERO share to get into the ACC. And anyone with half a brain and their eyes open knew the PAC was a bigger risk than the B12. But that bar is a bit too high for Our award winning AD. |
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Sept 10, 2024 17:09:41 GMT -8
We could have gone earlier but at a half share for the next 6 years. The B12 hoped that getting us would attract Utah, ASU and Zona. My personal opinion is that you don't join a conference where you financially will not be able to compete with the other members. Utah didn't get terms like that when the joined the PAC. Taking a reduced share is the norm - all the latest B10 adds have taken a reduced share. SMU took a ZERO share to get into the ACC. And anyone with half a brain and their eyes open knew the PAC was a bigger risk than the B12. But that bar is a bit too high for Our award winning AD. I wouldn't put 100% of the blame on Wicker, the school admin deserve credit too. Remember, the school President was doing victory laps telling everyone SDSU was out the door at the MW annual presidents meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by AZTEC4LIFE1992 on Sept 10, 2024 17:42:07 GMT -8
Half share at their old TV deal rate? When at the time there was still a PAC 10 that included Washington and Oregon? I don’t think he should’ve taken that deal either. That would’ve sold us short for years, granted in hindsight since the PAC folded it is better than where we are now but come on… the league fell apart at the eleventh hour, press releases were already made. Just sucks ESPN and Fox pulled the rug under State. They were making $30M before. So we could be making $15M ion TV plus NCAA money instead of $4M from the MW. That would have been selling us short? Good luck paying the $20m profit share out of that |
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on Sept 10, 2024 18:00:59 GMT -8
If they came in with limited funding compared to others, how do you think that would help change things? So you think it a good idea to pay a program half as much as every other team for an extended amount of time, while others have a huge advantage with better funding? Either you want a program or not, why bring in a program that will get beat on for a few years and instantly bring down the image of the entire program and the conference? I doubt anyone thinks it's a good idea - but as a G5 program you only get so many bites at the apple. If Yormark could have secured a full share for us, then I'm guessing he would have preferred that as well, but that's up to his television partners. Why did Oregon and Washington take a half share to get into the Big 10? Why did Cal and Stanford take partial shares (and in the case of SMU, even no shares) to get into the ACC? Why would OSU and WSU take a half share to join the B12 if offered today? They all already have much bigger bankrolls, boosters and a known name in the power conferences, that carry more name recognition helping with negotiating better contracts and such when it comes time for advertisers and promotors along with OOC games. I hate to say SDSU budget right now is maxed out and they just do not have the bankroll to draw from or fall back on, they may never have that kind of money to float a couple years at the P4 level. Please do mistake things here, I would love to see OUR Aztecs get the hell out of the MGC ASAP but I do not want to see them as a P4 whipping boy for all the teams to tee-off on week after week. |
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Sept 10, 2024 18:18:40 GMT -8
I doubt anyone thinks it's a good idea - but as a G5 program you only get so many bites at the apple. If Yormark could have secured a full share for us, then I'm guessing he would have preferred that as well, but that's up to his television partners. Why did Oregon and Washington take a half share to get into the Big 10? Why did Cal and Stanford take partial shares (and in the case of SMU, even no shares) to get into the ACC? Why would OSU and WSU take a half share to join the B12 if offered today? They all already have much bigger bankrolls, boosters and a known name in the power conferences, that carry more name recognition helping with negotiating better contracts and such when it comes time for advertisers and promotors along with OOC games. I hate to say SDSU budget right now is maxed out and they just do not have the bankroll to draw from or fall back on, they may never have that kind of money to float a couple years at the P4 level. Please do mistake things here, I would love to see OUR Aztecs get the hell out of the MGC ASAP but I do not want to see them as a P4 whipping boy for all the teams to tee-off on week after week. You really think SDSU couldn't compete with BYU, Kansas and Iowa St after a couple of recruiting cycles? Being a whoopin boy and being competitive has more to do with player tallet, depth and coaching. SDSU already has a pretty good off field program, and recruiting would take huge jump just like it did when SDSU was able to sell recruits on the idea they would play in the PAC 12. same goes for corporate sponsors and donor base. SDSU would need to catchup on the facilities that P5s are able to build and maintain. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 10, 2024 20:12:31 GMT -8
We could have gone earlier but at a half share for the next 6 years. The B12 hoped that getting us would attract Utah, ASU and Zona. My personal opinion is that you don't join a conference where you financially will not be able to compete with the other members. Utah didn't get terms like that when the joined the PAC. Taking a reduced share is the norm - all the latest B10 adds have taken a reduced share. SMU took a ZERO share to get into the ACC. And anyone with half a brain and their eyes open knew the PAC was a bigger risk than the B12. But that bar is a bit too high for Our award winning AD. Yes, for a period of time, not for the entire length of a new deal. Should be over three years, increasing towards full membership each year. |
|
