You say you think we were left out because basically we had sucked previously, but then say “why snuff out a team that will increase your bottom line when all of expansion has been 99% about that?”
So which is it? Did we suck and not meet their metrics or were we a team that would have increased their bottom line?
I was not trying to sound contradictory there, actually it is the same point. My argument was that our numbers were not good enough, because IF they were, why snuff us out? Does that make sense? I don't think any sort of perceived jealousy would trump earning potential for everyone.
Personally, I think there were absolute feelings of superiority or fear of UNLV/Las Vegas that caused them to decide to not include UNLV in the first round of expansion. Trying to hide behind “metrics” was a stupid cover.
I’m positive their egos told them that this “bold” move was going to destroy the MW and they’d get UNLV and AFA anyway. Then they would be in the cool kids club as some sort of founding members and everyone else would be second class, including UNLV.
They’re also afraid of Las Vegas, because it would be the dominating city within the conference. Vegas makes too much sense as the hub for everything the conference does and it would eventually swallow up all your operations.
Is there some sort of jealously and fear of UNLV/Las Vegas? Maybe. But I think it was 90% based off of their original media partners and their "metrics" that we all laugh about. Look at the numbers that we can see, and UNLV is not in the top. Simple as that. We don't see all of the Ratings data either. We can use attendance as a guide, but their aren't the same thing. Us UNLV fans tend to over rate our school. We do it with our players, our coaches, our teams, and our media worth. Sometimes we have to read between the lines. We have been in talks with the Big 12 ever since the Fertitta Complex was under construction. We have had meeting with their brass a few times trying to sell UNLV. We haven't been in their top 8 before when it came to expansion. We were not in the top group for the PAC. Why? Because though there is potential here, UNLV's market penetration has not been good. The results are what they are.
Which brings me to Utah State? Yes they are third fiddle to BYU and Utah, but perhaps they have decent TV numbers anyway. AFA was left out because I think military academies have a bit of a ceiling. They potentially have a national fan base, but I think AFA is a distant 3rd to Army and Navy based off of people who serve.
The only way I think some conferences are "afraid" of Vegas is that having a home team there makes conference championships muddy. I think is hurts us as much as it helps us.
Total side note… in many posts, when talking about poaching penalties and exit fees, you make the argument that they’ll get settled for far less or thrown out completely. You’re a smart person, I’m sure there are smart people in the new PAC as well…
If they thought litigation was going to save them, then why not go for the whole kit and kaboodle right out of the gate? If it’s not going to cost anywhere near what it’s supposed to cost then why put yourself in the spot you’re now in?
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here. I think the PAC 2 know better than anyone how you can't count on exit fees. They just went through that process and settled for 65% of a very reasonable exit fee. I'm sure that plays a role in terms of all of this. As for the poaching fees? I don't know what happens there. I do think dragging things out helps them if that answers the question. By slowly adding on lawsuits from the poaching and the exit fees I think they are just trying to overwhelm the MW to force some settlements.
The new PAC no doubt has the better teams and brands right now. The MW will never pass them in that regard. But they are too small and too regional. They’ll have too few opportunities on a weekly basis to convince the rest of the country to care. You think anyone outside the Pacific time zone is gonna care about SDSU vs CSU that much more than SJSU vs AFA, assuming none of them are ranked?
A merged MW/PAC would, as a brand, be far superior and would no doubt help the profiles of its best teams. It would be clear and away the best G5 in my opinion and would force the rest of the country to pay attention. I mean you’d basically own the west.
I generally agree. A merged PACWEST would have a better overall brand. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to maximize the bottom line. So these moves were made for that reason almost alone. I think they signed the poaching fee agreement with full intention of merging, but once they saw the projected numbers on media value, they retracted. The PAC 2 was working of their value from previous media negotiations and it was too hard to swallow.
So cherry pick the best markets and most of the best brands. Sure they are regional, but again not sure how much that matters. I don't think that a ton of people care about SDSU vs CSU vs SJSU and AFA around the country. But I think the SDSU vs CSU game gets significantly more eyeballs because those programs have stronger fan bases.
Obviously things have not gone to plan with the PAC, but I don't think things are as dire as everyone else things
