In terms of media fat, They left SJSU, UNM, Reno. Wyoming probably isn't great in terms of media, Hawaii is so so. Utah State is probably middle of the pack in terms of media in thencireent MW. Maybe bottom third. So yes if Utah State is their worst, we have 4-5 teams lower than their worst. They may add a team worst than our worst, but even if they do they are doing better. Especially given that they took 4 of our best 6. Utah is third tier in that state, but they have done decent well in the past in terms of attendance of that is any indication. Certainly better than Reno, SJSU, and UNM in football.
I think that teams keep half of the tournament credits and bowl revenue in the new PAC. That helps the bottom line. Gonzaga can still contribute to the conference considering their pedigree. Maybe not earn the rest of their share but definitely.
Not sure why you think CSU is at the bottom. They have done well in media and attendance.
Of the first 6, I ranked CSU lowest, but maybe it’s Fresno State? No real point was being made there other than saying that the overall balance was fairly equal with Boise being on top and CSU or Fresno being at the bottom of that group.
If you look at attendance numbers over the last couple years… SDSU, USU, SJSU, UNM, and UNR have all averaged 16,000-18,300 per home game. Hawaii is the bottom outlier at about 13,000.
Of that group I’d toss out SDSU as being a “bottom feeder” because their market IS better and their “brand” is “ok”.
The others all feel about the same to me and any single one of them COULD have a good season and boost those numbers. So if you’re gonna call UNM, SJSU, and UNR “fat”, you gotta include USU as “fat” as well.
I’m not including Hawaii on that list because they were only a partial member and were being paid as such.
So USU is “fat” even though they could have a good season, just like the others, and you have to add another team in ALL sports, who is gonna be PURE FAT.
That makes 25% of your teams “fat”, that you were, oh by the way, trying to shed. I think Gonzaga at a full share is actually a drag on overall revenue, but that’s harder to quantify, so illyleave them out of the equation.
Saying they took our four best markets/teams (of which UNLV would actually be one) is irrelevant to my point. I’m not arguing the PAC isn’t better, I’m arguing they’re worse off than what they would be had a merger taken place.
In a new MW/PAC with 14 teams you’d have those same 4 as “fat”, which is about 28%. I think WYO is kind of neutral and Hawaii is also kind of neutral because their market is decent and they’re only getting a partial share. But if you include those two and say the new conference has 6 “fat” teams you’re up to 42% vs 25% fat.
Admittedly 17% is a pretty decent difference… it’s the difference between $5 mil per year and $5.85 mil per year.
But now look at the cost…
The final cost remains to be seen, but it’s going to be a decent amount, even after things likely get negotiated down. Even if it gets negotiated down to a third it takes 7 years to overcome the difference. And that doesn’t include any poaching fees that are ultimately paid by the PAC 2.
Now look at a comparison of what the new PAC would look like versus a new PAC/MW conference. That conference would be far and away the best G5 conference and I would think more valuable on a per team basis.
Add to that the fact that you could have structured the payouts of that new conference as such to reward the better teams, which would easily overcome any difference in who is “fat” and who is not.
Again, it’s neither here nor there at this point, and there’s a lot still to play out. But it definitely feels like a “cut off your nose to spite your face” situation to me.
