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.
