"They are floating reducing scholarships from 85 to 79 for football."
That's the opposite direction for FBS. The NCAA is allowing 20 additional scholarships - 105 - by the end of the '26 season.
CSU/USU suing MW over exit fees
- Thread starter rebeltob
- Start date
That's the opposite direction for FBS. The NCAA is allowing 20 additional scholarships - 105 - by the end of the '26 season.
Any new deal they get is going to be higher than what they were getting in the MW, but I’d argue that’s mostly due to inflation.
I just don’t think their value is really that high. Is CSU v USU going to have more viewers than SJSU v AFA? Not on any measurable scale that truly matters, IMHO.
Sports betting has changed the game and leveled the field in that regard considerably.
As of now they’ve only got 7 football teams, so any valuation is only based on that. Gonzaga was a good add for them, but not likely at the price they paid to get them. I’d argue that’s mostly due the value they get from adding Gonzaga is only going to be worth about half of what they’re paying, which means the other half is coming from the football media value.
Aside from Boise they really don’t have any “brands” to move the needle from a media rights standpoint. And even that is tentative… Boise has to stay relevant… what happens when someone poaches their coach next week and guys hit the portal? Doesn’t take much to take a step back and they’ve been awfully fortunate over the last decade or so.
Are they going to get more than the MW? Yes. Likely not going to be that much more than they would’ve gotten had they stayed and essentially forced the PAC 2 to merge.
We shall see though.
Danielson isn't getting poached. I think schools know he's not the real coach, lol. That's why his name didn't appear anywhere. Their OC runs the show in Boise and Danielson has ridden Jeanty and him to get to this point.
How can you say it is only due to inflation?
You may question their reasoning, but they did at least initially pick 4 of the top 6 markets from the MW and more importantly excluded all of the detractors. I think USU is a middle of the road MW market.
It is simple math. They will have a significantly better TV deal than us. What they ultimately get is hard to say. They will likely add one detractor to get to 8. If you have a wad of cash in one pocket and you take out all be 1 of the larger bills and put it in the other pocket, you won't have the same amount of money in each pocket.
We will luck out to get the same deal we are used to, and that is simply due to inflation. None of our additions move the needle in the right direction. I can see us getting less than our last contract with the recent moves.
Their brands may not be great, but they have more interest in those programs than we have had.
Apple TV offered the remaining PAC schools after USC/UCLA left 23 million per school.
That's Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, ASU, UofA, Colorado, Utah, Washington State and Oregon State.
You're replacing those first 8 schools with Boise, SDSU, Fresno, USU, CSU and Gonzaga.
Not sure if that helps with speculation/forming an opinion on future PAC media deal or not.
Exactly! The gap between some of those schools are gigantic, and that's not using recency bias.
Actually they turned down a 30 mil deal from ESPN after the LA schools left.
So how low were OSU and WAZZU's value to drop the overall value of that deal.
Well the big 10 and big 12 thought those schools were worth about 30 mil a piece. Neither conference thought that the remaining 2 schools were but there is no way they are worth less than 10 each on average. The math doesn't make sense if they were.
Now those schools are obviously worth less now tham with the others but I think many are really undervaluing their media worth.
Follow the money. The Pac 2 said no to merger for a reason and it wasn't just pride. They broke off because they knew they would make more even with potentially high up front costs.
Obviously things did not go as planned, but there is no way they are worth anything near what the new MW will be. We have some really poor markets and I think that will hurt us down the road.
I think the base deal, before the playoff sharing money at least double. Probably more.
But we will see.
Obviously who the last add will make a difference. Even if they add a team worth zero it will be notably better than the base MW deal.
Its more of ESPN offered $31m, and then Pac opened negotiations with a $50m counteroffer. Espn then completely withdrew their bid and walked away.
So many posts to reply to. Most of them mean 
. Sure wish a bunch of you, besides Meister, could figure out how to post on my board. I could use some backup as I fight off all the idiots.
To attempt to summarize, WSU's AD, and Admin in general, are incompetent idiots. Lower scholarships for FB? And a corresponding drop in women's schollies (Title IX) right after the NCAA opened the floodgates for additional scholarships for basically all women's sports?
And of course, the Pac-2 Commissioner is woeful. We don't even have a league yet. And maybe won't at this rate.
"Hey prospective Coach X from G5 or the FCS? Come to WSU at a mediocre pay increase, with fewer schollies than any other FBS team, and join a league that may not even exist with an unknown media deal that looks worse with every passing day". Yep, the phone is ringing off the hook.
Some are drooling over Montana State's coach, and the Dakota coaches as well. You know, the ones that just played each other on ABC. Potential modest salary increase aside, who the hell would sign on for this? But Cougs are frothing at the mouth to hurry up and hire somebody.
. Sure wish a bunch of you, besides Meister, could figure out how to post on my board. I could use some backup as I fight off all the idiots.To attempt to summarize, WSU's AD, and Admin in general, are incompetent idiots. Lower scholarships for FB? And a corresponding drop in women's schollies (Title IX) right after the NCAA opened the floodgates for additional scholarships for basically all women's sports?
And of course, the Pac-2 Commissioner is woeful. We don't even have a league yet. And maybe won't at this rate.
"Hey prospective Coach X from G5 or the FCS? Come to WSU at a mediocre pay increase, with fewer schollies than any other FBS team, and join a league that may not even exist with an unknown media deal that looks worse with every passing day". Yep, the phone is ringing off the hook.
Some are drooling over Montana State's coach, and the Dakota coaches as well. You know, the ones that just played each other on ABC. Potential modest salary increase aside, who the hell would sign on for this? But Cougs are frothing at the mouth to hurry up and hire somebody.
so riddle me this...So many posts to reply to. Most of them mean
To attempt to summarize, WSU's AD, and Admin in general, are incompetent idiots. Lower scholarships for FB? And a corresponding drop in women's schollies (Title IX) right after the NCAA opened the floodgates for additional scholarships for basically all women's sports?
And of course, the Pac-2 Commissioner is woeful. We don't even have a league yet. And maybe won't at this rate.
"Hey prospective Coach X from G5 or the FCS? Come to WSU at a mediocre pay increase, with fewer schollies than any other FBS team, and join a league that may not even exist with an unknown media deal that looks worse with every passing day". Yep, the phone is ringing off the hook.
Some are drooling over Montana State's coach, and the Dakota coaches as well. You know, the ones that just played each other on ABC. Potential modest salary increase aside, who the hell would sign on for this? But Cougs are frothing at the mouth to hurry up and hire somebody.
If you are a TV executive, you just saw one of the programs that supposed to be a premier jewel in that conference drop a significant amount of investment from its football program are you still eager to pay $$$$ for them? Heck if Im the media executives, Im telling them to settle their legal stuff with the MWC and ask to join because your media cut as a very high G5 combined will be significantly larger than anything either conference can put together alone.
I’ve tried, it won’t let me. Maybe because when I registered for rivals years ago, I used my old UW email.So many posts to reply to. Most of them mean
To attempt to summarize, WSU's AD, and Admin in general, are incompetent idiots. Lower scholarships for FB? And a corresponding drop in women's schollies (Title IX) right after the NCAA opened the floodgates for additional scholarships for basically all women's sports?
And of course, the Pac-2 Commissioner is woeful. We don't even have a league yet. And maybe won't at this rate.
"Hey prospective Coach X from G5 or the FCS? Come to WSU at a mediocre pay increase, with fewer schollies than any other FBS team, and join a league that may not even exist with an unknown media deal that looks worse with every passing day". Yep, the phone is ringing off the hook.
Some are drooling over Montana State's coach, and the Dakota coaches as well. You know, the ones that just played each other on ABC. Potential modest salary increase aside, who the hell would sign on for this? But Cougs are frothing at the mouth to hurry up and hire somebody.
Masked - Please call Teresa Gould at the Pac-2 offices. 1-800-ima-twit.
Rebel - This sounds like a prudish girlfriend or perhaps one with a medical issue. Or perhaps the insane asylum is full.
Nevada doesn't have an insane asylum. We just put them on the strip.
I only went there for a year or so. Worked wanted me in sector Seattle. Immediately moved back at first opportunity. Using the UW email was strictly laziness on my part. At the time it was faster to type uw.edu than gmail.com
There is no way that is true.
The PAC deal will be much better per school than what the merger would do.
It will be an upgrade for the defectors easy.
The PAC 2 are the ones that may be screwed with all of the up front costs.
How much of a difference matters. Over time, it will eventually pay off. Will it take 10 years? 20 years? That is to be seen.
If the poaching fees get thrown out then it may not take that long at all
If the poaching fees get thrown out, it doesn't matter for anyone. We won't be staying in the MWC at that point because there's no money to keep us or Air Force in the conference. They won't even need Tulane or Memphis.
Say who, Masked? If the MWC cannot break that fragile alliance of traitors and the PAC 2...she should be fired. Gloria doesn't strike me as someone who like to belittle.
And you would rather joined force with them rather break them? These are the schools that did not think UNLV is good enough
I don't think we bolt for the PAC of the poaching fees get thrown out. They already offered us 6 mil in exit fee help. Even if they offered to pay more I think we stay just for the free pass.
It may be tougher to leave now after the MOR as well.
The PAC leadership is the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. Remember, it wasn’t too long ago they were part of the leadership that rejected Texas and Oklahoma when they wanted to merge with PAC. Clearly, the G5-PAC had a overinflated sense of value. They are still not a conference! Without Boise they have nothing.
That is like Blockbuster shunning Netflix back in the day. Blunder of epic proportion.
This is the missed opportunity and the failure to see the BIG picture. UNLV and Boise will end up ranked in the top 25 in the final AP rankings. Some years it could be 3 teams in a merged G5-PAC and MWC. Great start on the way to negotiations and jockeying for an automatic playoff bid for the only west coast based football conference. With the automatic playoff spot comes more interest and more TV value. The playoffs will expand to 16 at some point. The G5-PAC blew it. Neither the G5-PAC or MWC has a shot for a seat at the table. But merged they could have.
We can starts by beating UCLA soundly. Then win the conference championship. Kevin Kruger need to be axed unless he make a deep run at the March Madness.
We will know once everything settles in. Most PAC fans are super happy with the move so far. Actually a lot of people thought it was a good move.
It will be a better deal for them financially. They will cut out a lot of fat financially and with competition.
Will it be marginal? Maybe. But it will be a better league.
It will be a better deal for them financially. They will cut out a lot of fat financially and with competition.
Will it be marginal? Maybe. But it will be a better league.
There is a balance between too much dead weight and having a sane schedule. But it is difficult to keep competitive if you have to schedule too many ooc.
OSU and WSU found that out the hard way it isn’t easy. They pulled great numbers together this year against each other; but they play twice together next year. If the first game is a complete blow out, the sequel might not get a lot of attention.
Each of them also had to slot in mulitple fcs/ cusa/ sunbelt games that won’t help their ratings.
PAC deal will be better than MWC deal. There's no doubt there. The pertinent questions in my mind are:
First being, how much better?
Second being, at what number would it make sense for UNLV to ditch the MWC (assuming there's still an invite to be had) ? I have to imagine nything North of 10 million per year would be pretty damn enticing.
Third being if the PAC number comes in at 10 mil or more and UNLV again turns it down what would we make of that?
The Big12 is really in play and UNLV wants it's free pass from MWC?
Because I can't see any reason to stay in the MWC if an opportunity to double your media revenue is on the table.
You’re right… a lot to be settled. I’m sure the “PAC” fans are happy… they feel like they’re somehow in the “cool kids” club, which just isn’t the case. They finally got invited to the party, paid the cover charge, and found out that there’s no chics there, and now their rationalizing.
As far as cutting out fat goes… they started out a solid 6 teams with good markets (compared to the MW)… then they added Utah State (who doesn’t move the needle media market wise) and have to add another still to even be a conference. Then they give Gonzaga a full share and I think I read something where teams get to keep their NCAA tourney credits as well.
So from a standpoint of cutting fat, I’m not so sure they have.
You had your original 6 and let’s just say they were all going to be pulling relatively equal weight… obviously you have Boise at the top and CSU at the bottom, but on balance you feel that everyone is equal.
Then you add Utah State… are they really more of a draw than Wyoming, UNM, or UNR? I’d say not by any measurable amount during any five year stretch. So I’d say you just diluted your conference by about 15%.
Then you add Gonzaga… good move, but at what price? When football accounts for 80% of media valuation, does Gonzaga’s value in basketball make up for not playing football? And if it is true that they’d get to keep their NCAA credits or at least the lion share, then hasn’t that diluted your per team distributions even more? It’s kind of a wild card but I’d suspect it ends up costing them all on a per team distribution level.
Now add your 8th team… there’s nobody left and whoever it is will be a much larger drag than any lower tier MW team has been.
So now 25% of your teams in football
I agree. They should have done the reverse merger with conditions that pay certain schools less, then took the available funds to pursue Gonzaga, UC Davis, GCU, St. Marys, Tulane, Memphis, UTSA, USF and possibly Wichita State, UConn (with basketball) or Liberty. Instead they are in litigation while the MWC locked down UNLV, Air Force, GCU, UC Davis, etc. and the AAC schools rejected them. At this point, why would a nonPac whatever school trust the current Pac leadership.
IMO other than the money we will HOPEFULLY get there is nothing positive about being in the even crapier MWC. It will be used against us in recruiting. Viewership will go down. TV revenue will go down and that sucks even more because u can use that to pay the players. Not one positive long term will come out of this. Does not look good dominating a crappy conference.
The argument you will hear is they took the best teams and therfore weakened your brand, which arguably they did. But that logic doesn't account for what you just spelled out and the fact that you're banking on the bottom half- CSU, OSU, USU, SDSU and possibly Fresno improve beyond mediocre to the point that they're able to challenge Boise. WSU just entered a death spiral that'll likely lead to mediocrity over challenging Boise. That's the perception you're fighting, especially if you enter into the new conference (2026 season) and 4 of the teams you're taking all finish sub .500 again next year, along with WSU taking a nose dive...
You lost me after the bolded part. So we should have ended up with the PacMtn 24? Best go see if there is any spiked eggnog left in the bowl, and drink up.
You guys need to go hire Jay Norvell away from CSU.
I'm a huge fan of chaos and that would be amazing to watch unfold.
WSU is already in a world of chaos. Possible money issues to cap it off. Norvell may already be making the top end of what they may be willing to pay.
For sure.
I just want to see it for my own gratification.
WSU has some serious debt. Serious money issues. Part of the reason Dickert left. They just slashed millions from athletic budget.
Would you not gave pursued Tulane, UTSA, USF, and Memphis, to undercut the AAC and maximize the chance of the MWC winner getting the autobid each year? Would you not have pursued Gonzaga and St Marys to undercut the WCC in basketball, if they were available at reasonable percentages, not the condition the pac gave them? Maybe, UC Davis and GCU would be a stretch.
