2023 FB TV Viewership, etc.

[Loyal Coug1]

Interesting data - albeit this is only one year's worth. Didn't I read where Liberty would have been the G5 CFP representative had the 12-team setup been in place in 2023? With an average TV viewership of 21,000? 4th worst in the country and well below any of the MW.

Aside from surprising CSU (thanks to their rivalry game with Colorado), the MW's numbers are pedestrian, but not THAT horrible. Well OK Nevada and Utah State were horrible. But 5 MW teams, including UNLV, drew more than ACC-bound SMU. And CSU drew (way) more than 4 of the Pac-12 traitors and by my count 16 other P4 teams. OSU was a surprising 1.74M and WSU was 1.08M.

Looking at 2014 schedules: uw, Stanford, Oregon, Cal (and WSU and OSU) all play Big Sky teams. You guys play Utah Tech from the all over hell FCS conference. The Pac-12 traitors out West also play multiple MW teams as usual. Oregon-BSU, Cal-SDSU, UCLA-Hawaii and Fresno, Stanford-SJSU, FUSC-Utah State.

So who the hell cares and what's the point? Well, in my seemingly fleeting desire for the reverse merger, and after we wash the bitterness out of our mouths, it would make sense for all involved if the traitors replaced their Big Sky games with more PacWest (we'll call it that for this discussion) games. More fan interest and SOS for the traitors, better paydays for the PacWest teams and better SOS. Everybody wins.

There's more but I'll stop here for now.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

View embedded media

Interesting data - albeit this is only one year's worth. Didn't I read where Liberty would have been the G5 CFP representative had the 12-team setup been in place in 2023? With an average TV viewership of 21,000? 4th worst in the country and well below any of the MW.

Aside from surprising CSU (thanks to their rivalry game with Colorado), the MW's numbers are pedestrian, but not THAT horrible. Well OK Nevada and Utah State were horrible. But 5 MW teams, including UNLV, drew more than ACC-bound SMU. And CSU drew (way) more than 4 of the Pac-12 traitors and by my count 16 other P4 teams. OSU was a surprising 1.74M and WSU was 1.08M.

Looking at 2014 schedules: uw, Stanford, Oregon, Cal (and WSU and OSU) all play Big Sky teams. You guys play Utah Tech from the all over hell FCS conference. The Pac-12 traitors out West also play multiple MW teams as usual. Oregon-BSU, Cal-SDSU, UCLA-Hawaii and Fresno, Stanford-SJSU, FUSC-Utah State.

So who the hell cares and what's the point? Well, in my seemingly fleeting desire for the reverse merger, and after we wash the bitterness out of our mouths, it would make sense for all involved if the traitors replaced their Big Sky games with more PacWest (we'll call it that for this discussion) games. More fan interest and SOS for the traitors, better paydays for the PacWest teams and better SOS. Everybody wins.

There's more but I'll stop here for now.

OK, part 2. My delusional Coug brethren think we will maybe/possibly/wet dream get into the nonsensical future ACC West pod. For now, to ACC traitors ACC road games are the envy of all:

Stanford? At Syracuse (on a Friday, haha), NC State and Clemson.

Cal? At Fl State, Pitt, Wake Forest (Friday, haha), and SMU.

Funny thing about the ACC. 17 teams and they are sticking with a non-divisional, 8 game league schedule. The "top 2" teams play for the championship. And how's that going to work when you only play half of your league? And for their imminent implosion? Hell if they lose FSU and Clemson, they will still have 15 teams. They don't need to do anything unless a bunch of others bail. To where? 8 of their existing teams have fewer TV eyeballs than CSU.

The Big-12 traitors? I didn't check very far, as they are fairly close to most teams. Utah and Arizona do get to go to UCF. None of them have to fly to Morgantown for WV.

Anyway, I know I'm a broken record. And yes, be patient. NOT! Do the reverse merger for 2025, letting the MW decide who, if anyone to dump, setting fairly low financial bars for bailing (protects WSU, OSU and a couple of your possibly desirable teams). Go heavy on scheduling Power 5 teams, which some of you already are doing. Get after Nevada and New Mexico to ramp it up - maybe set minimum standards for FB attendance end TV eyeballs. Hawaii? I'm not sure how they pay for all their various teams travel now. I guess they must have a lot of money. Fine. If they stay and fully join, they have to pay extra to cover some of the travel for minor sports. Or whatever. And thus get WSU and OSU into eligibility for that possible CFP playoff slot and get us sharing in future NCAA BB allocations, neither of which we have for this upcoming season.

This gets us all out of the F-ed up mess the Power 4 have become and position the PacWest as the best of the rest. Pretty simple.

Edit 5/20 1PM - c'mon guys, 210 views and counting and no replies? I worked hard putting these posts together!

Maybe a couple of jokes will help. I tailored them a little to fit the MW
Q: What time is it in Montana, Colorado and Wyoming when you see a sheep caught in the barbed wire?
A: Mountin' Time

Q: What does a BSU girl say to her boyfriend after sex?
A: Hey Dad get off me, yer crushing my smokes

 

[dcut03]

OK, part 2. My delusional Coug brethren think we will maybe/possibly/wet dream get into the nonsensical future ACC West pod. For now, to ACC traitors ACC road games are the envy of all:

Stanford? At Syracuse (on a Friday, haha), NC State and Clemson.

Cal? At Fl State, Pitt, Wake Forest (Friday, haha), and SMU.

Funny thing about the ACC. 17 teams and they are sticking with a non-divisional, 8 game league schedule. The "top 2" teams play for the championship. And how's that going to work when you only play half of your league? And for their imminent implosion? Hell if they lose FSU and Clemson, they will still have 15 teams. They don't need to do anything unless a bunch of others bail. To where? 8 of their existing teams have fewer TV eyeballs than CSU.

The Big-12 traitors? I didn't check very far, as they are fairly close to most teams. Utah and Arizona do get to go to UCF. None of them have to fly to Morgantown for WV.

Anyway, I know I'm a broken record. And yes, be patient. NOT! Do the reverse merger for 2025, letting the MW decide who, if anyone to dump, setting fairly low financial bars for bailing (protects WSU, OSU and a couple of your possibly desirable teams). Go heavy on scheduling Power 5 teams, which some of you already are doing. Get after Nevada and New Mexico to ramp it up - maybe set minimum standards for FB attendance end TV eyeballs. Hawaii? I'm not sure how they pay for all their various teams travel now. I guess they must have a lot of money. Fine. If they stay and fully join, they have to pay extra to cover some of the travel for minor sports. Or whatever. And thus get WSU and OSU into eligibility for that possible CFP playoff slot and get us sharing in future NCAA BB allocations, neither of which we have for this upcoming season.

This gets us all out of the F-ed up mess the Power 4 have become and position the PacWest as the best of the rest. Pretty simple.

Edit 5/20 1PM - c'mon guys, 210 views and counting and no replies? I worked hard putting these posts together!

Maybe a couple of jokes will help. I tailored them a little to fit the MW
Q: What time is it in Montana, Colorado and Wyoming when you see a sheep caught in the barbed wire?
A: Mountin' Time

Q: What does a BSU girl say to her boyfriend after sex?
A: Hey Dad get off me, yer crushing my smokes

If the ACC went bicoastal (meaning adding more west coast teams), they would have to divisions. I can't see any other way.
I forgot how many teams they have already. It already seems like a nightmare. Adding more seems to be a stretch. The more mouths to feed tend to drive DOWN the payouts per school.

As for the MW dropping schools? It is just not happening. The PAC would have to drive the bus with that. Which is why a new PAC makes more sense than the reverse merger. That and Boise getting a higher cut. That can easily get squashed with a new PAC vs augmenting the MW.

Conferences kicking teams out seems to be unprecedented. I can't think of an example of that happening. Teams move on, but they don't get straight up kicked out.

 

[LVRebel2000]

If the ACC went bicoastal (meaning adding more west coast teams), they would have to divisions. I can't see any other way.
I forgot how many teams they have already. It already seems like a nightmare. Adding more seems to be a stretch. The more mouths to feed tend to drive DOWN the payouts per school.

As for the MW dropping schools? It is just not happening. The PAC would have to drive the bus with that. Which is why a new PAC makes more sense than the reverse merger. That and Boise getting a higher cut. That can easily get squashed with a new PAC vs augmenting the MW.

Conferences kicking teams out seems to be unprecedented. I can't think of an example of that happening. Teams move on, but they don't get straight up kicked out.

Except when all the teams leave to go to other conferences, aka, the PAC. The MWC could do the same, but the payoff would need to be worth the risk for the departing schools.

 

[dcut03]

Except when all the teams leave to go to other conferences, aka, the PAC. The MWC could do the same, but the payoff would need to be worth the risk for the departing schools.

For sure, teams leave on their own all the time, often screwing the leftovers. But it is never the other way around.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

If the ACC went bicoastal (meaning adding more west coast teams), they would have to divisions. I can't see any other way.
I forgot how many teams they have already. It already seems like a nightmare. Adding more seems to be a stretch. The more mouths to feed tend to drive DOWN the payouts per school.

As for the MW dropping schools? It is just not happening. The PAC would have to drive the bus with that. Which is why a new PAC makes more sense than the reverse merger. That and Boise getting a higher cut. That can easily get squashed with a new PAC vs augmenting the MW.

Conferences kicking teams out seems to be unprecedented. I can't think of an example of that happening. Teams move on, but they don't get straight up kicked out.

Not following you here. A new PAC IS the reverse merger. With no higher cut for BSU. How you all let that happen in the first place is beyond me. Here's my scenario (again): The Pac-2 agrees to take the entire Mtn West into the new Pac-12/14. If the Mtn West wants to leave somebody(s) behind, they can call it, and we don't offer them. Hawaii for example. They might not even want to come. But they come with all "major" sports or not at all. Aside from the sports not offered in the Pac. Ex: Stanford has a bunch of low profile sports that the Pac-12 doesn't sponsor. They compete wherever. See link below.

Pac-12 Sports & Championships

pac-12.com

 

[Loyal Coug1]

For sure, teams leave on their own all the time, often screwing the leftovers. But it is never the other way around.

Well the Southwest conference disbanding to form the Big-12 is sort of that.

 

[bcvegaspt]

With no higher cut for BSU. How you all let that happen in the first place is beyond me.

Would you prefer to be in the Pac2 with your P5 status now gone or would you accept staying in a Pac12 with P5 status and higher money than what you will earn moving forward if USC and UCLA earned more than the other conference mates?

Big12 is surviving without Texas and Oklahoma but I know that Texas earned way more than the other schools (not sure about Oklahoma). Would you have not accepted Texas into your conference given the revenue they generate for all involved?

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Would you prefer to be in the Pac2 with your P5 status now gone or would you accept staying in a Pac12 with P5 status and higher money than what you will earn moving forward if USC and UCLA earned more than the other conference mates?

Big12 is surviving without Texas and Oklahoma but I know that Texas earned way more than the other schools (not sure about Oklahoma). Would you have not accepted Texas into your conference given the revenue they generate for all involved?

Sort of a moot question at this point but Monday morning quarterbacking says probably the latter (give FUSC and FUCLA more sheckles). But then Whoregon and uw would have wanted more.

A few years back under Bill Moos as AD he (we) fought hard and won to get even distributions of Pac-12 revenues. Way back when (circa late 70's) FUSC and uw refused to come to Pullman for FB games. Somehow we managed to fix that, to WSU's great benefit. Who can forget the 1982 Apple Cup win or the 1986 throttling of USC and Rodney Peete? I was at both games. Good times.

Now, Power 5 status is gone. Not coming back. The sooner the Pac-2 accepts that and moves forward to the next best thing the better.

 

[Rebel1986]

Sort of a moot question at this point but Monday morning quarterbacking says probably the latter (give FUSC and FUCLA more sheckles). But then Whoregon and uw would have wanted more.

A few years back under Bill Moos as AD he (we) fought hard and won to get even distributions of Pac-12 revenues. Way back when (circa late 70's) FUSC and uw refused to come to Pullman for FB games. Somehow we managed to fix that, to WSU's great benefit. Who can forget the 1982 Apple Cup win or the 1986 throttling of USC and Rodney Peete? I was at both games. Good times.

Now, Power 5 status is gone. Not coming back. The sooner the Pac-2 accepts that and moves forward to the next best thing the better.

When BSU first came into the MWC, they were trying to hold on after TCU, BYU and Utah all left. Then it looked like SDSU and BSU also would move on, and the only way they could keep BSU was to offer them more money. At the time BSU was still at their peak and the MWC was still trying to keep the conference relevant, so they made an agreement with BSU to be paid an extra $1.8 million a year for as long as they stay in the MWC. SDSU got nothing.

Bone of contention: Boise State still gets $1.8 million more than everyone else in Mountain West

Buried in pages upon pages of bylaws and convoluted legalese is a 2016 codicil entitled: “Amendment to Boise State Membership in Mountain West Conference Term Sheet.”No single item in t…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

 

[Loyal Coug1]

When BSU first came into the MWC, they were trying to hold on after TCU, BYU and Utah all left. Then it looked like SDSU and BSU also would move on, and the only way they could keep BSU was to offer them more money. At the time BSU was still at their peak and the MWC was still trying to keep the conference relevant, so they made an agreement with BSU to be paid an extra $1.8 million a year for as long as they stay in the MWC. SDSU got nothing.

Bone of contention: Boise State still gets $1.8 million more than everyone else in Mountain West

Buried in pages upon pages of bylaws and convoluted legalese is a 2016 codicil entitled: “Amendment to Boise State Membership in Mountain West Conference Term Sheet.”No single item in t…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Very interesting article, thanks. Gloria's idea of equal revenue sharing but a bonus for teams that go farther (NCAA BB in this case) has some merit. Also, as stated if we do the reverse merger BSU's premium goes right out the window.

 

[dcut03]

Not following you here. A new PAC IS the reverse merger. With no higher cut for BSU. How you all let that happen in the first place is beyond me. Here's my scenario (again): The Pac-2 agrees to take the entire Mtn West into the new Pac-12/14. If the Mtn West wants to leave somebody(s) behind, they can call it, and we don't offer them. Hawaii for example. They might not even want to come. But they come with all "major" sports or not at all. Aside from the sports not offered in the Pac. Ex: Stanford has a bunch of low profile sports that the Pac-12 doesn't sponsor. They compete wherever. See link below.

Pac-12 Sports & Championships

pac-12.com

Merger insinuates that 2 existing conferences are joining. Leaving teams out gets dicey.

Like I said Conferences don't kick teams out. My guess is that there are legal issues there, or maybe it is just poor taste.

You are right that a reverse merger that essentially disbands the MW (like the SWC like you mentioned) could remove the Boise bonus. And it could allow for teams to be kicked out. But it wouldn't be the MW kicking teams out, it would be the PAC. That will at least be the perception. If teams are left out, it will be looked at as a new PAC, if all teams are retained it will be a considered a reverse merger.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Merger insinuates that 2 existing conferences are joining. Leaving teams out gets dicey.

Like I said Conferences don't kick teams out. My guess is that there are legal issues there, or maybe it is just poor taste.

You are right that a reverse merger that essentially disbands the MW (like the SWC like you mentioned) could remove the Boise bonus. And it could allow for teams to be kicked out. But it wouldn't be the MW kicking teams out, it would be the PAC. That will at least be the perception. If teams are left out, it will be looked at as a new PAC, if all teams are retained it will be a considered a reverse merger.

You are sort of splitting hairs here. In a merger one entity ceases to exist. In this case the MW. It doesn't "essentially" disband the MW. It disbands it. And no way in hell would any new Conference agreement include anything extra for BSU. Nor should it for the Pac-2. Share and share alike.

9 teams can disband the MW. Yes on paper it would be that the Pac declined to offer a couple of MW schools. But my pristine scenario, assumes open and honest communication among all parties (imagine that!). They (9 MW schools and the Pac-2) tell let's say Reno and NM that look guys we don't need your votes and you aren't going to get a Pac invite. Best of luck to you. And Hawaii - we don't need your vote either, but if you agree to this and that you will get one. And you could also put in standards of performance. Hey you are invited but if you don't achieve this and that (attendance, TV viewership, whatever), we can boot you later.

Does this seem incredibly open and honest thus illogical and idiotic in today's world? Well, reluctantly, yeah. But remind us again of the secret meeting that resulted in the formation of the MW. Open and honest among the 8 teams? I would assume so. A helluva lot more open and honest than some of the Pac traitors sneaking around behind our backs while saying they were all in.

Maybe having 2 women Commissioners increases the likelihood of openness and honesty.

 

[bcvegaspt]

When BSU first came into the MWC, they were trying to hold on after TCU, BYU and Utah all left. Then it looked like SDSU and BSU also would move on, and the only way they could keep BSU was to offer them more money. At the time BSU was still at their peak and the MWC was still trying to keep the conference relevant, so they made an agreement with BSU to be paid an extra $1.8 million a year for as long as they stay in the MWC. SDSU got nothing.

Bone of contention: Boise State still gets $1.8 million more than everyone else in Mountain West

Buried in pages upon pages of bylaws and convoluted legalese is a 2016 codicil entitled: “Amendment to Boise State Membership in Mountain West Conference Term Sheet.”No single item in t…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

You made the point that went over heads.

 

[dcut03]

You are sort of splitting hairs here. In a merger one entity ceases to exist. In this case the MW. It doesn't "essentially" disband the MW. It disbands it. And no way in hell would any new Conference agreement include anything extra for BSU. Nor should it for the Pac-2. Share and share alike.

9 teams can disband the MW. Yes on paper it would be that the Pac declined to offer a couple of MW schools. But my pristine scenario, assumes open and honest communication among all parties (imagine that!). They (9 MW schools and the Pac-2) tell let's say Reno and NM that look guys we don't need your votes and you aren't going to get a Pac invite. Best of luck to you. And Hawaii - we don't need your vote either, but if you agree to this and that you will get one. And you could also put in standards of performance. Hey you are invited but if you don't achieve this and that (attendance, TV viewership, whatever), we can boot you later.

Does this seem incredibly open and honest thus illogical and idiotic in today's world? Well, reluctantly, yeah. But remind us again of the secret meeting that resulted in the formation of the MW. Open and honest among the 8 teams? I would assume so. A helluva lot more open and honest than some of the Pac traitors sneaking around behind our backs while saying they were all in.

Maybe having 2 women Commissioners increases the likelihood of openness and honesty.

There are some semantics here.

But least outward facing, the MW is united and strong. It could be, and likely is BS, but that isn't how they are trying to be portrayed. We know that most members are looking for an upgrade. But Gloria's language has been strong on protecting each school in the conference.

When SDSU tried to leave, schools all agreed for some ridiculous exit fees. It seems to be those susceptible schools have enough power and Gloria's ear. They are scared sh*tless that they may be left behind and it seems that Gloria is at least seemingly trying to have their back.

Your right it only takes 9 votes to disband, but again that would be the MW ceasing to exist, and the PAC inviting new members. What I have been calling "a new PAC". If they MW disbands, then it is no more. Nothing to merge or reverse merge.

The susceptible teams are going to do whatever they can not to be left behind. The idea of an amicable break up seems far-fetched. They will try whatever legal means they have to fight this as they probably should. It may come down to a similar situation to what happened to the PAC. The remaining teams doing whatever it can to keep the MW and create a "new MW" which is very possible and not great for this to happen (I can see them trying to group up with the remaining WAC schools for instance, or maybe C-USA. They could still try to lay claim to exit fees, which makes this much, much more difficult.

When I think of Reverse merger, I think that we are combining the existing teams into 1 conference. With the agreement to use the PAC name and using that to legally get everyone with the same TV payouts.

 

[dcut03]

There are some semantics here.

But least outward facing, the MW is united and strong. It could be, and likely is BS, but that isn't how they are trying to be portrayed. We know that most members are looking for an upgrade. But Gloria's language has been strong on protecting each school in the conference.

When SDSU tried to leave, schools all agreed for some ridiculous exit fees. It seems to be those susceptible schools have enough power and Gloria's ear. They are scared sh*tless that they may be left behind and it seems that Gloria is at least seemingly trying to have their back.

Your right it only takes 9 votes to disband, but again that would be the MW ceasing to exist, and the PAC inviting new members. What I have been calling "a new PAC". If they MW disbands, then it is no more. Nothing to merge or reverse merge.

The susceptible teams are going to do whatever they can not to be left behind. The idea of an amicable break up seems far-fetched. They will try whatever legal means they have to fight this as they probably should. It may come down to a similar situation to what happened to the PAC. The remaining teams doing whatever it can to keep the MW and create a "new MW" which is very possible and not great for this to happen (I can see them trying to group up with the remaining WAC schools for instance, or maybe C-USA. They could still try to lay claim to exit fees, which makes this much, much more difficult.

When I think of Reverse merger, I think that we are combining the existing teams into 1 conference. With the agreement to use the PAC name and using that to legally get everyone with the same TV payouts.

So for me in summary the best case scenario for you as a WAZZU fan and us as UNLV fans would to somehow create a new PAC but cutting out some dead weight. Because there is for sure some dead weight as you have seen with TV viewership. From your perspective, you will already be losing a ton of TV revenue, so trying to maximize what you can get from a new TV contract will be huge.

A basic merger would be the cleanest and easiest move for sure, and it very well may happen that way. But money would be left on the table.

A couple of options. First as you said, would be voting to disband the MW as it currently stands. The problem with that is you would be married to taking 9 MW teams which already has some dead weight even in that scenario. But it would be better than taking everyone. Getting the MW to actually disband also seems tricky due to the reasons that I posted above. But if it is in the bylaws and those 9 teams all agree that breaking up the MW and joining a new PAC is worth it, then it is doable.

The other scenario is a bit more covert. The buyouts are based off the value of the remaining TV contract, which will eventually expire. The MW is trying to get a new one, at least at face value. Those susceptible schools are likely pushing for this.
But if the PAC can work out a deal with TV partners that would be enticing enough for a good chunk of MW teams to leave, they could potentially poach MW schools while minimizing buyouts. Those targets for the PAC could try to stall/tank MW TV negotiations, knowing that they can get a better deal with a new PAC. This way you can bring in only the teams that you want, even bring in outside teams potentially. This way you can truly maximize payouts.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

So for me in summary the best case scenario for you as a WAZZU fan and us as UNLV fans would to somehow create a new PAC but cutting out some dead weight. Because there is for sure some dead weight as you have seen with TV viewership. From your perspective, you will already be losing a ton of TV revenue, so trying to maximize what you can get from a new TV contract will be huge.

A basic merger would be the cleanest and easiest move for sure, and it very well may happen that way. But money would be left on the table.

A couple of options. First as you said, would be voting to disband the MW as it currently stands. The problem with that is you would be married to taking 9 MW teams which already has some dead weight even in that scenario. But it would be better than taking everyone. Getting the MW to actually disband also seems tricky due to the reasons that I posted above. But if it is in the bylaws and those 9 teams all agree that breaking up the MW and joining a new PAC is worth it, then it is doable.

The other scenario is a bit more covert. The buyouts are based off the value of the remaining TV contract, which will eventually expire. The MW is trying to get a new one, at least at face value. Those susceptible schools are likely pushing for this.
But if the PAC can work out a deal with TV partners that would be enticing enough for a good chunk of MW teams to leave, they could potentially poach MW schools while minimizing buyouts. Those targets for the PAC could try to stall/tank MW TV negotiations, knowing that they can get a better deal with a new PAC. This way you can bring in only the teams that you want, even bring in outside teams potentially. This way you can truly maximize payouts.

Agree with almost all of your points. As I have said before, I am fine with a full reverse merger, taking everybody. My Coug brethren seem to forget that WSU (and OSU) were kicked to the curb as being dead weight by the traitors, so we are a bit uppity to turn around and scoff at the MW's dead weight. The dream scenarios that "we" hope for suck even if they were to come true. Fly all over the country? F that. We need to keep the Pac name to receive our BB allocations. The MW would raise it's profile by becoming the new Pac-12/14. A better TV deal. Will it approach the P4 money? No, but we will never keep up anyway. We don't have millions and millions of NIL money, or a packed 80,000 seat stadium. Stay out West, get the best deal possible, form new rivalries with like schools, and be done with it. You all are doing just fine now, and we will be fine too while keeping our war chest to ease the transition for at least a couple of years.

 

[Meister_Rebel]

So for me in summary the best case scenario for you as a WAZZU fan and us as UNLV fans would to somehow create a new PAC but cutting out some dead weight. Because there is for sure some dead weight as you have seen with TV viewership. From your perspective, you will already be losing a ton of TV revenue, so trying to maximize what you can get from a new TV contract will be huge.

A basic merger would be the cleanest and easiest move for sure, and it very well may happen that way. But money would be left on the table.

A couple of options. First as you said, would be voting to disband the MW as it currently stands. The problem with that is you would be married to taking 9 MW teams which already has some dead weight even in that scenario. But it would be better than taking everyone. Getting the MW to actually disband also seems tricky due to the reasons that I posted above. But if it is in the bylaws and those 9 teams all agree that breaking up the MW and joining a new PAC is worth it, then it is doable.

The other scenario is a bit more covert. The buyouts are based off the value of the remaining TV contract, which will eventually expire. The MW is trying to get a new one, at least at face value. Those susceptible schools are likely pushing for this.
But if the PAC can work out a deal with TV partners that would be enticing enough for a good chunk of MW teams to leave, they could potentially poach MW schools while minimizing buyouts. Those targets for the PAC could try to stall/tank MW TV negotiations, knowing that they can get a better deal with a new PAC. This way you can bring in only the teams that you want, even bring in outside teams potentially. This way you can truly maximize payouts.

The scenario needs to also consider the Scheduling Agreement. That agreement has withdrawal fees payable by the Pac-12. Poaching MW schools is a ridiculous amount of money that the Pac-2 would be out of their minds to pay. There is no TV contract enticing enough for our G5 schools that would possibly come close to reimbursing those fees. This is not going to happen.

Different story if 9 MWC schools vote to disband the MW. I think that the Pac-12 can slide some under the desk envelopes to those nine school Presidents that have checks in the 7 figure range might work. Maybe, a tough call to make on that. They could just call it a donation.

 

[dcut03]

The scenario needs to also consider the Scheduling Agreement. That agreement has withdrawal fees payable by the Pac-12. Poaching MW schools is a ridiculous amount of money that the Pac-2 would be out of their minds to pay. There is no TV contract enticing enough for our G5 schools that would possibly come close to reimbursing those fees. This is not going to happen.

Different story if 9 MWC schools vote to disband the MW. I think that the Pac-12 can slide some under the desk envelopes to those nine school Presidents that have checks in the 7 figure range might work. Maybe, a tough call to make on that. They could just call it a donation.

It's all about timing.

They can make an agreement but kick the can down the road. If they wait to create the new conference at the end of the current agreement, then the PAC will not be on the hook to pay back the MW schools for breaking that contract. It is not a coincidence in my eyes that that agreement coincides with the end of the current MW contract.

You can break this thing up with potentially no fees as all. Not sure if the MW can "charge" the school money in for loss of TV revenue when that hasn't been decided yet. I would imagine there would be some fees involved, but nowhere near the 19 mil it currently is.

 

[RebelScrub]

Maybe you guys are a little older but tv revenue is a joke.

If you’re a smart dude, you have cut all your cable and have gone full internet by now.

The only caveat I see of moving into this new reformed PAC 12 conference is if we get their referees.

Having said that, I’m hoping UNLV sends out feelers secretly to the Big 12. Play your championship in our brand new stadium.

They are probably gonna do it anyways, with or without UNLV.

Outside looking in..