If it gets into some desperate times maybe. But holy crap that is a lot of the proverbial egg on face after their commisioner came out saying their additions would be 'eye opening'.
Sure not how they expected though.
MWC Commish Nevarez statement on Realignment speculation
- Thread starter LocoRebel
- Start date
If it gets into some desperate times maybe. But holy crap that is a lot of the proverbial egg on face after their commisioner came out saying their additions would be 'eye opening'.
Sure not how they expected though.
I don't think Texas State has THAT much l;everage. There are other teams that the PAC could take that would be more than willing to take a lesser share.
The truth is, Texas States does not have much media value right now, and they know it. And they are getting peanuts. If the PAC offers them a lesser share but temporary, or some sort of stipulation that they would carry their weight enough down the line for the potential for a full share they should take it.
Because what makes Texas State appealing is the potential, not what they are now. Being elevated to a better conference with a better name, and yes the new PAC would be exactly that, I think both the PAC and Tx State HOPE that will spark more interest with their fans.
But everyone knows that they aren't worth a full share right now.
The APC could god after Sam Houston, or NMSU, or some other school that would be happy to take a half share and have that locked in. Because guaranteed money is garuanteed money, not to mention the higher potential for bonuses from the CFP and NCAA credits that are slim to none in the CUSA and the SBC.
Also, part of me think then the PAC is still waiting. Maybe to see what happens with the poaching fee lawsuit. Because if that gets thrown out, UNLV going to the PAC becomes nearly a no brainer.
The truth is, Texas States does not have much media value right now, and they know it. And they are getting peanuts. If the PAC offers them a lesser share but temporary, or some sort of stipulation that they would carry their weight enough down the line for the potential for a full share they should take it.
Because what makes Texas State appealing is the potential, not what they are now. Being elevated to a better conference with a better name, and yes the new PAC would be exactly that, I think both the PAC and Tx State HOPE that will spark more interest with their fans.
But everyone knows that they aren't worth a full share right now.
The APC could god after Sam Houston, or NMSU, or some other school that would be happy to take a half share and have that locked in. Because guaranteed money is garuanteed money, not to mention the higher potential for bonuses from the CFP and NCAA credits that are slim to none in the CUSA and the SBC.
Also, part of me think then the PAC is still waiting. Maybe to see what happens with the poaching fee lawsuit. Because if that gets thrown out, UNLV going to the PAC becomes nearly a no brainer.
Do we have any idea on the timeframe of these lawsuits? I thought I read somewhere that they're unlikely to be resolved before the summer, which would mean that the PAC would need to make their decisions without knowledge of how it would all shake out. That could be incorrect on my part though.
I think there is some sort of hearing on the poaching lawsuit in March
Are they though... I dont disagree that Sam Houston might want to play in the Pac and Texas St, much better competition than they currently face.. and at the same time both Texas St. and Sam Houston possess that same "potential to be" rather than currently are.. They would likely continue to be doormats in the Pac 12 in most sports, and then you add in the additional travel costs to be part of an exclusive West coast conference. Taking half a share puts you at a huge competitive disadvantage vs more stablished FBS programs. Remember Sam Houston just came up from FCS in last 5 yrs and plays in a 14,000 seat stadium and Texas St. historically has not been good at football. Arguing that they should put themselves at a competitive disadvantage financially to help the Pac out because potential NCAA credits (half of which already get taken out from the teams who make the CFP or NCAA tournament) seems like a way to keep your growth potential down even at the possibility that you might get a a few million more for TV and few extra credits payout seems risky especially given the upfront costs and the situation that the Pac is in..
They will be at a competitive disadvantage within the conference, but money is money.
Is it better to make 500K per year and be in a conference that has nearly no shot of the CFP, likely a single 15 or 16 seed in the dance. The top being some crap bowl.
Or make, lets say 4 mil a year, with the option of getting 2-2.5 times that, with even at a reduced share of significant NCAAT credits and bowl revenue?
Where are you more likely to grow?
And what about all of the other sports? Never mind the perception that the new conference brings with more attendance?
Texas State needs to look out for Texas State. It doesn't matter to the PAC if they are doing THEM favor. They need to see if this deal would ultimately help the school. I think it is hard to argue that it wouldn't.
They should fight for a future full share at some point, whether it is gauranteed, or will be met with some sort of metric threshold.
And isn't this exactly what us UNLV fans would be willing to do to go to the big 12? Take a lesser share to make that jump. Except if we take a 1/2 share we would be making 3x more, but Tx State would be taking 8x more.
Now I think we should take a lesser share, but it needs to be temporary. Maybe some sort of minimum metric requirement to earn it.
Now I think we should take a lesser share, but it needs to be temporary. Maybe some sort of minimum metric requirement to earn it.
If they get a $ 9 mil media deal I believe NMSU would jump on a 1/4 share ( $ 2.5 Mil ) for 5 years. They currently get $800,000 in a deal that goes through 2027.
100% I’d take a lesser share in any P4 with a gradual increase over time (5-10 years?) to get to parity. UNLV can competitively hold its own recruiting-wise just thru sheer gravitas of the overall Vegas experience. The greater exposure and gate revenue from a much better schedule would open up other local revenues and private engagement. UNLV is so well positioned right now between the value proposition of the City and the facilities of the program. I’ll be rather surprised if UNLV does not get a P4 invite by 2030.
They only have a few months, and most likely the lawsuit will go well into next year.
Sam Houston just recently paid a ton of cash to make the jump to FBS. They turned down or had no interest in the MWC offer because it wasn't fiscally responsible to pay another large lump sum of money so soon. (Exit fees)
The PAC wants absolutely nothing to do with NMSU butvdesperate times desperate measures and all that.
Whats interesting is if 'There are no potential additions that add value' then what's the hold up? I get the linear vs streaming and the debate likely going on there. I know these contracts take some time. But if the next addition doesn't matter to media deal why not just get that done.
I chuckle thinking about Theresa Gould sitting at a meeting with media partners and them telling her 7-10 million per year max and that's with Memphis and Tulane. And her saying can you run those numbers again? What if we played our games on Wednesday? We'll call it Wednesday Night PACtion! Does that move the needle?
No.
Thursday?
The numbers get worse.
What if we added...
THERE IS NO ONE ELSE THERESA!!!
For the sake of argument, lets say that Texas state is good with a half share. Dcut mentioned $4m, so lets go with that number. That adds 500k to each school in the conference's media deal. That moves the rest of the conference to $8.5m. Certainly it is a boon for some of the MW schools. Equally this is a heavy loss for the OSU and WSU.
But Boise? All of that noise and friction to earn an extra 700k over the MW deal? I don't know if its worth it. We should have spent this season cheering them on instead of being distracted by realignment. I don't know if the cost was worth it for 700k to add OSU, WSU, and Texas State travel on top of having to rebrand everything.
Also TBH I am not sure if we comparing apples to apples either.
We have been talking that our current "base" deal is 5 mil per school, 6 this past season due to the scheduling agreement with the PAC 2.
But our true "base" contract from our partners is only 3.6 mil. The standard CFP sharing and maybe something else gets us to 5.
Is the reported "base" deal with the PAC of 8-10 before or after the CFP? My first inclination is yes, but maybe not. If they are talking strictly media rights deal then it wouldn't.
We have been comparing to the SBC and the CUSA, but when we do that, we aren't including the CFP payouts. The base SBC is 500K per year, and CUSA is 800k, but I think the get at least a mil from the CFP sharing as well. I thought I saw all G5's get the same payout from that.
Just food for thought. If the MW is targeting our old contract, then 3.6 ain't much. even 8 looks a lot better.
For Boise it was never about the added media deal $$.
Boise built a football conference that they feel will be easy to dominate, that will appear to be the best G5 on paper, thus securing their yearly appearance in the CFP adding an extra cool 2-4 million a year plus the 3 million in travel expenses... Thats what it was about...
that starting exit fee for the sun belt is about 5 mil. Now things get negotiated as we have established. 2x base deal is 1 mil, so that could be what is could be negotiated down to.
Even if you double that, that ain't bad.
The PAC was willing to give us 6 mil in help, and if they get to the point where the need an 8th, I'm sure the PAC would cover that cost 100%, especially if they agree to a lesser share.
Perhaps, but that first hearing may indicate better how this lawsuit may actually go.
Similar threads
