You're also not calculating rebranding. Whatever Boise and company may get covered by the PAC they still have to rebrand everything. Uniforms, fields, etc etc..So Boise is still going to be shelling out a ton of money and potentially breaking about even on media deal.
USU paid their own way.
I've seen nothing concrete anywhere that the PAC paid any of the exit fees.
The PAC absolutely needs this deal to be around 10 million.
Uniforms are supplied by Nike and they get several sets of new ones every year anyway
Many of the fields are painted on regularly.
Sure changing the logo on the Basketball floor?
Most o the other stuff is provided by the conference. Stll sounds like a reach to me.
Also it is very possible that with the CFP sharing they will get 10 mil if they have a 8 mill base.
We know that the PAC offered us 6, that came straight from Harp. There were rumors that the PAC was paying all of the exit fees of the initial 4. That was walked back, but I sincerely doubt that Boise gets any less than what they offered us.
Apparently the MOU for their deal is going to be set by the end of the month.
As for some of the other discussion. Many here assume that the new PAC members must be pissed off from what they signed up , but I see nothing of the sort.
Here is an excerpt from the Mercury News
Does the concept of Pac-12 commissioner Teresa Gould working for Washington State and Oregon State sit well with the presidents from the other schools? — @CelestialMosh
By “other schools,” we assume you’re referring to the five members joining in 2026: Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Utah State from the Mountain West and Gonzaga from the West Coast Conference.
Yes, Gould is paid by the Pac-12, and as of now, the Pac-12 is just WSU and OSU. But she’s also working for the five arriving members on issues pertaining to 2026 and beyond. They are heavily involved in the strategic discussions — for all practical purposes, they are already members.
And based on our conversations, the newcomers are quite satisfied with the manner in which Gould is managing the conference in its present and future forms.
"Did the Pac-12 and Mountain West ever make a genuine attempt to reverse merge knowing the Pac-12 had to exist to get the assets? Did the Pac-12 refuse due to a few schools? What’s the story with the merger? — @TonyOnly
To the best of our knowledge, there were no formal negotiations over a reverse merger.
Washington State and Oregon State considered that option for months and concluded it wasn’t right. Yes, they were less-than-thrilled with the Mountain West’s stance on the football scheduling agreement.
And in the interest of full transparency, we never quite understood the position, either. The moment the Cougars and Beavers reached a settlement with the departing Pac-12 schools and gained access to hundreds of millions of dollars, the Mountain West should have done everything possible to embrace its neighbor. Instead, it adopted a hardline position.
(Whether that was commissioner Gloria Nevarez’s decision or she was operating with specific instructions from the university presidents, we cannot say.)
But there were other challenges. For example, absorbing the entire Mountain West would have diluted the Pac-12’s media rights value. Also, it would have hindered the pursuit of College Football Playoff bids, with the least competitive schools hurting the best teams’ strength-of-schedule component.
All in all, there were a few too many obstacles, especially with the variance in positions on the scheduling agreement."
Wilner doesn't know everything, but it sounds like he knows a little.
Which of the current Big 12 schools are best equipped to rise above the masses and gain entrance to one of the Big Two conferences in the 2030s?
www.mercurynews.com
