Because its bad and the commissioner is still trying to find other partners that can help increase it... thats the only thing that I can think of at this point knowing that she has said they were searching for "partners"
MWC & PAC Mediation Discussion for Poaching & Exit Fees
- Thread starter Meister_Rebel
- Start date
Supposedly after the final 4. But that could change to after March Madness.
What will become interest is if Gonzaga become irrelevant in basketball, while the rest of the conference is subsidizing them with football earnings!
That is a stretch. If true, it is impossible to prove.
I don't think the PAC used the scheduling agreement to get closer to MW teams to poach them later. Even if true, that is a completely stupid strategy. I am not arguing that the PAC has done really dumb things, because they have over and over again. But again, if that was their strategy it hurts them down the road.
It would make more sense to reach out to the Sunbelt or CUSA and keep the MW teams completely out of it, knowing that they can still contact schools that they are interested in without any of the issues they now face. On top of that they probably wouldn't have to pay 2-3x over market for those games.
The main point of contention is were they under any duress. You have to acknowledge that they were. Actually you don't have to, but all signs are pointing to the fact that their argument holds water, even with the signed contract. there have been reports of MW teams not expecting nearly what they though after signing the GOR agreement. Which is why the GOR put clauses in there that it would still hold up even if payouts were significantly reduced.
Or the fact that UNLV just had to finance 2 HC contracts and buyout another one, without any use of MW bonus money, because they cannot count on any specific number coming through.
They were starving and they went to McDonalds (their favorite fast food restaurant Mc'D's charged then 2-3 times of every item, and made them sign an agreement that it will cost 10x the price for the next item in the future, with an increase of 10% above that for every additional item. If Wendy's and Taco bell were open around the corner, why agree to that? It is because they were closed.
First no way the merged conference would pay 15 million. If that were the case the merger would have 100% happened.
Crying foul. We totally effed them with that scheduling agreement. We pay Syracuse 300k for playing us, but we charge them over a million for every home and road game?
We totally abused their situation to rake them for those games, then try to force them to merge by adding the poaching agreement.
Who knows what else was discussed, but I imagine that sharing the revenue gained by being abandoned of the rest of the PAC was probably in play. I mean we screwed them with everything else we have done with them, why not that? It is all the same conference right?
If you go to buy a car, and they quote you 2x the cost of the car, will you still buy it and then sue them because they charged you so much? Or would you at least go and shop around to see if you could find a better deal?
It's not an all or nothing thing. They could have done an agreement with other conferences, including smaller conferences, but they knew that their best option was with the MWC, due to getting better quality games than if they played against MAC schools. Geographically, it makes more sense also, as opposed to scheduling games vs. the AAC, Sunbelt, etc.
They had options. The MWC made a deal that was fruitful for the conference, with the additional agreement in place to protect the conference from the PAC poaching teams due to their new scheduling agreement. The PAC made the choice to accept the scheduling deal (which means they thought it was the best option that they had, and agreed to the poaching clause). Now they want to claim that the agreements that they signed up for shouldn't be upheld?
Of course they did, how else were they gonna get their tongues up their assholes.
Last edited:
Gonzaga supposedly keeps most of their tournament credits too. Great for Gonzaga. Go them.
I had read for months that it would be in March. April Fools on me.
Half of their tourney credits. But all teams do get the same deal (I think, G-D better be). Granted, the main reason to add Gonzaga (IMHO) is their tourney income But they get to keep half, and fully share in overall media money? This is the worst F-ing deal ever.
The PAC2 leaders were so desperate to separate themselves from the MWC, that they were will to cur their own throat to say "Look we are big time basketball now that we have Gonzaga"! Now they are getting a basketball program that wasn't even in the top 25, who now get to keep half of their basketball money and an equal portion of the football money even while not having a football team! The PAC2 just keep finding ways to screw the pooch!
There are still people who think the Pac will get $18-20m per school. Regardless of how much you think they will get, you have to plug in that number to see if Gonzaga can cover. Great for Gonzaga if they're having a down year. Bad for everyone in the Pac if they miss the tournament or don't have a deep run.
Nobody on the outside knows how much the PAC media deal will be but I think we can make an educated how much it isn't or wasn't going to be.
Memphis / Tulane get around 8 million per season with current deal. Additional travel costs were estimated at around 1.5 to 2 million to join PAC in all sports.
So just to break even PAC media deal had to come in at around 10 million. I don't think many schools are spending in excess of 10 million in exit fees to break even on a media deal and increase travel.
Have to figure at minimum Memphis would need 12 million to consider it. Even then they basically would break even for five years recouping exit fee money.
I also have to imagine media partners are a bit gun shy right now with how volatile realingment is at the moment. The conference you invest in today may look very different in the next five years, maybe sooner.
Add to that, the four biggest 'brands' in the new PAC Boise/OSU/WSU/SDSU could be potential additions to a power conference. (
That is a ton of instability for a media partner to invest in.
I still think PAC gets around 10 mil per school.
But if that deal comes in around 8 million holy crap is Boise going to be pissed. They are getting close to that now.
Spending over 10 million in exit fees to basically make the same money is not what I would call a great investment strategy.
Side note, what happens if Texas State were to say no? Does PAC go after NMSU? (Call me petty but I wouldn't be sad if the whole thing crumbled before it actually even started).
No. they have to come hard at someone that is valuable at that point, like a Memphis or UNLV... too much egg on their faces to not try and pull a bigger fish. They'd be able to say that Texas St declined once they heard that "X" team was being considered at whatever the offer becomes.
They cant wait too much longer to add an 8th especially if its someone currently locked into a bigger conference- the cost goes up.
By not getting Memphis last week that ship sailed didn't it? Their exit fees just doubled.
There isn't a realistic full member addition out there that drastically moves the needle for their media deal at this point including UNLV.
I think their deal is between 8-10 million.
If it was 12-15 Memphis would have jumped at that already I think.
I think what's going on now is, the PAC has looked high and low at media partners and they are getting told the same thing and it's far less than what they thought they would get.
I want to say Texas State is getting less than a million with SBC deal. Let's call it an even million.
Travel costs for them would be similiar to Memphis. So let's add another 2 million.
PAC has to offer them minimum 3 million for them to break even. I would imagine they would want minimum of 5 million per to jump.
If you're Texas State do you jump? Or with uncertainty in ACC do you stay put and jump to AAC if Memphis/Tulane get poached?
I could be wrong. Maybe PAC makes some amazing announcement next month that shocks everyone. But right now it's starting to look like their backs are a bit against the wall.
Memphis AD flat out said initial offer was a 'bad deal'. You dont see ADs take blatant shots at people like that. They typically use more politic language like 'Wasn't in our best interest' 'We are leaving communications open, but at this time it isn't the right move for us' etc. Instead he flat out said bad deal. Look at it another way, by saying that does the AAC commissioner feel any threat from the PAC? If I'm Memphis I'm selling how great the PAC offer was to see if I can squeeze more out of the AAC.
Point being how bad was the PAC offer or presentation that the Memphis AD made it a point to skip past the usual canned answers?
I agree PAC needs to do something soon, but what? I don't think they are suddenly going to open the war chest and pay exit fees.
If Texas State says no, they would be in big trouble.
That last sentence of yours is part of why I think Texas State should play hardball. Why take a partial contract ($3-4M) when you know they need you. If you want us, give us a full share. If not, we'll see what happens with the PAC and take our chances.
I agree for the most part but there also might be the fear that PAC moves on and goes to somebody like NMSU knowing they could get them on the cheap.
Fine line to walk..
But knowing the PAC needs an 8th member does give them leverage.
If I was Texas State I wouldn't jump for less than 5-6 million per year..With assurances of full share within 3 years.
Something like that would be pretty reasonable for both sides. I'd think Texas State has more appeal and upside than NMSU.
I dont think its a simple as "add anyone"... thats a leverage play because they are being leveraged. TxSt knows the Pac 12 needs them. So the Pac 12 uses media to push narrative that it doesn't really matter who they add, there's 0 value increase.. However, we know that's false. They haven't released any details of their media deal that was supposedly close and there hasn't been any movement since. I get waiting for mediation and Texas St. doesnt have to do anything. Why would you join a conference that doesnt value you when the MWC offered you a full share. Getting a partial share to play in a conference where you have no future seems like a death wish especially when youre holding all the cards
I would love to add Texas St, Sam Houston, UTSA and North Texas, but I digress.
The Texas footprint would be nice to have!
The Texas footprint would be nice to have!
Last edited:
You may be right but let's say right now media partner tells the PAC it's 10 million, adding UNLV isn't pushing that deal to 12 million.
On the other hand an NMSU might actually decrease the payout to each school if given a full share because they add nothing due to brand/market size.
Take this with a huge grain of salt but starting to see 75 million per year as the media deal number for the PAC thrown around on the Twitter. Divided among 9 schools (Gonzaga plus 8th football school) you are looking at 8.3 million per school. Better than the MWC deal, absolutely, but a far far cry from the 15 million that was floated early on.
Between exit fees, lawyer fees, potential poaching fees, was this all really worth it for a media deal marginally better than the AAC.
Would explain why the Memphis talks blew up as quickly as they did. Even adding Memphis they likely don't hit 10 million per.
Between exit fees, lawyer fees, potential poaching fees, was this all really worth it for a media deal marginally better than the AAC.
Would explain why the Memphis talks blew up as quickly as they did. Even adding Memphis they likely don't hit 10 million per.
I've been seeing that number also. Over $8M per year is definitely an upgrade, but I'm not sure some of them would have jumped so quickly, especially Boise, if they knew that's what the dollar amount would end up being, given the cost to buy out of the MWC.
If it's 8 million per it's a bump but not anywhere near the 15-18 that was being floated early on.
I won't go so far as to say there's buyers remorse among MWC defectors, but I imagine there are some rumblings of discontent and unease with how this is playing out.
No doubt the new PAC is a significant downgrade from the current MWC, and the new MWC is a significant downgrade from the current MWC. Instead of having one dominate conference, we now have two conferences that will both struggle in different ways. The closer the PAC comes to $8 million or less, the better I feel about UNLV staying in the MWC with a free pass for a major conference. The best thing the MWC can now do is find other schools that can help keep the MWC at the same level or better, while cutting of the PAC ability to expand. If the PAC picks up the wrong school, we could see that $8 million drop to an even lower number! What is also to say that in 2026 the MWC isn't able to increase their deal depending on how the schools play this year?
Of course they would have. Boise, SDSU and Gonzaga all created a conference that gave them the financial advantages they were looking to keep from losing when a new TV deal was created (Boise)... Gonzaga gets what it thought it was worth by comparison to the rest of the WCC and SDSU gets to claim its reward for "carrying" the MWC brand. All 3 know that they are going to be heads above the rest of the conference with regards to payouts and credits due to them. Look at what Boise has been able to do with just a slight financial advantage. Not they get to play in a perceived higher conference and rake in potentially a few million extra dollars per credit. Especially Boise who saw the writing on the wall that the MWC cash cow was coming to an end with UNLVs rise.
I don't know what the actual number is but I don't think there are any potential additions that increase it.
Example if the PAC deal is 8 they would need a school that was worth 18 million to a media partner to bump the average up to 10 million. (I'm terrible at math but you get the point)
There's nobody left that does that I don't think.
I see the $8 million for the PAC as being their top out number at best, in regards to the MWC, I do see the possibility to move the number up some.
The PAC is completely out of moves. They'll call in NMSU to solidify their conference. UNLV earns the CFP spot this coming season. The "metrics" will be all over SDSU face. BSU will attempt to clean it off and fail miserably. WSU & OSU will tell their towell-boy members it's just mayonnaise.
I believe that sums up things. They're going to be torn to shreds online. Don't forget that the MWC had NMSU begging us for the UTEP spot. UTEP, UC Davis, NIU, and GCU were all picked over NMSU.
I believe that sums up things. They're going to be torn to shreds online. Don't forget that the MWC had NMSU begging us for the UTEP spot. UTEP, UC Davis, NIU, and GCU were all picked over NMSU.
There's a lot of speculation on what actually went down there.
Not sure this is 100% accurate.
I believe they are still in talks.
And I could be 100% wrong but I don't think UNLV is completely off the table for the PAC. Call it reading some tea leaves deduction.
75 million for the conference with 9 full shares works out to 8.33 million per school. No way Boise would be happy making the same as Texas State or even USU for that matter.
They're so Fd... how do you absolutely need a full member but continue to try and undersell those teams you want to join you...
What ever perceived residual value the PAC logo/brand had is rapidly being lost. An immediate reverse merger was the way to go a year ago. If that would have occurred the PAC/MWC would have been better positioned for future expansion of the football playoffs and the possibility of an automatic bid with both UNLV and Boise finishing in the top 25.
Stupidity! Remember the PAC has some of the same leadership in place that were on staff of the commissioners office who declined to invite Texas and Oklahoma.
Because they don't really want them.
Let's say the following X rumors are true.
PAC media deal came in at 75 mil. For 9 members at a full share (Gonzaga plus whoever 8th football school is) that works out to an AAV of 8.33 million per school.
Do you think Boise wants to get paid the same as Texas State?
A half share of that would be around 4.5 million.
On paper that looks solid for Texas State except their travel costs would eat up a bunch of the added money they would be making
So they would be barely breaking even on a half share and be at a competitive disadvantage financially and with travel.
If that 75 million is correct, even adding some solid Eastern time zone teams still wouldn't that that number high enough to offset travel costs.
I do believe MWC schools may still be on the table despite the GOR.
8 million per year is better than the 4 mil being floated for the MWC.
It comes down to does a school want to or can it afford the exit fees. And how much would the PAC be willing to cover.
You guys have no vision. UNLV can be the Hawaii to the SEC. We have small time visionaries at UNLV running the sh*tshow.
A total save-face would be adding UNLV. A revenge save-face would be SJSU (The most likely) or one of the other MWC schools. Rumored on X was the reverse merger was being discussed during the mediation.
I think Texas St is where Memphis & Tulane were when it comes to future options. They have an easy shot at an AAC invite in the near future when Memphis and/or Tulane & USF get called up to a P4 during the next conference restructure. Why risk it for peanuts when this restructure is literally right around the corner during the next media negotiations. Who wants to rebrand twice within a 4 year period? I still believe the last realistic option for the PAC is NMSU or Sac St.
...unless they pony up the cash for a UNLV. And it would have to be a substantial amount of money for the fines we'd be on the hook for.
I don't see where SJSU would be remotely likely. If UNLV got wind that other MWC members were offered and figured out how to leave, I'd guess they would revisit the conversation if offered. And if UNLV did revisit, they'd have to be the preferred MWC member. Even in a revenge scenario, is self-sabotage worthwhile?
To the clowns at SDSU, maybe.
Also, I don't think Sac State helps Pac 12 with their minimum 8 members before best case 2029, does it? If they began the FBS transition this year, wouldn't we expect a period of 3-4 years of transition? FCS to FBS doesn't happen often, I was mostly thinking of all the WAC schools that went D2 to D1, but since that excludes football, it's not necessarily helpful
