NEXT PAC MEMBERS

[Bullmastiff 1]

This is pretty much based on what's being rumored on the twitterverse but this is how I thinknit unfolds.

Texas State seems the most likely full member. This gets the PAC to the required 8.

I think the PAC will add St Mary's all sports (Fill out there Olympic sports and strengthen their basketball further)

This is a guess but goes under the old where there's smoke there's fire and all that..

PAC invites New Mexico State as a football only member.

Hear me out..

1- NMSU comes super cheap. Their exit fee from CUSA is small.
2-PAC would probably like to get to a minimum of 9 FB schools for scheduling purposes. 5 OOC games is a logistics nightmare.
3- NMSU could likely be given 1 to 1.5 maybe 2 million a year as a FB only member in media deal. It would basically double their current CUSA media deal. They could then simply bury their other sports in the WAC or WCC or whatever.

 

[SilverSpoon]

This is pretty much based on what's being rumored on the twitterverse but this is how I thinknit unfolds.

Texas State seems the most likely full member. This gets the PAC to the required 8.

I think the PAC will add St Mary's all sports (Fill out there Olympic sports and strengthen their basketball further)

This is a guess but goes under the old where there's smoke there's fire and all that..

PAC invites New Mexico State as a football only member.

Hear me out..

1- NMSU comes super cheap. Their exit fee from CUSA is small.
2-PAC would probably like to get to a minimum of 9 FB schools for scheduling purposes. 5 OOC games is a logistics nightmare.
3- NMSU could likely be given 1 to 1.5 maybe 2 million a year as a FB only member in media deal. It would basically double their current CUSA media deal. They could then simply bury their other sports in the WAC or WCC or whatever.

I think you're spot on. Especially with the NMSU(football only) + WCC. Sainy Mary's won't have a choice but to join. Even if they get 1/2 of what Gonzaga is getting.

This turns the PAC into a conference of have and have-nots. And by a large margin. There's going to be a ton of animosity amongst their ranks.

 

[Pistol Pete 1]

Absolutely hilarious that WSU & OSU found it to be a good idea & preferable to give up millions of dollars so they could travel to San Marcos & Las Cruces instead of Laramie & Albuquerque. Could have taken the money and slid over to the Mountain WesT. With all that cash they would have been the top dogs.

 

[LocoRebel]

This is pretty much based on what's being rumored on the twitterverse but this is how I thinknit unfolds.

Texas State seems the most likely full member. This gets the PAC to the required 8.

I think the PAC will add St Mary's all sports (Fill out there Olympic sports and strengthen their basketball further)

This is a guess but goes under the old where there's smoke there's fire and all that..

PAC invites New Mexico State as a football only member.

Hear me out..

1- NMSU comes super cheap. Their exit fee from CUSA is small.
2-PAC would probably like to get to a minimum of 9 FB schools for scheduling purposes. 5 OOC games is a logistics nightmare.
3- NMSU could likely be given 1 to 1.5 maybe 2 million a year as a FB only member in media deal. It would basically double their current CUSA media deal. They could then simply bury their other sports in the WAC or WCC or whatever.

I have seen a lot of speculation that WAC will likely cease to exist before long. Apparently expecting a raid that will result in the leftovers returning to combinations of the Big South, Southland, big sky, etc... who knows if that's true. But if it is, nmsu finding a home for its non revenue sports and it's disaster of a basketball program isn't as obvious as it once was.

But it would be easy for PAC to get them at next to nothing for football, as you mentioned. I'm guessing it would be a nearly a last resort for pac, and nmsu would likely chomp at the bit

 

[dcut03]

This is pretty much based on what's being rumored on the twitterverse but this is how I thinknit unfolds.

Texas State seems the most likely full member. This gets the PAC to the required 8.

I think the PAC will add St Mary's all sports (Fill out there Olympic sports and strengthen their basketball further)

This is a guess but goes under the old where there's smoke there's fire and all that..

PAC invites New Mexico State as a football only member.

Hear me out..

1- NMSU comes super cheap. Their exit fee from CUSA is small.
2-PAC would probably like to get to a minimum of 9 FB schools for scheduling purposes. 5 OOC games is a logistics nightmare.
3- NMSU could likely be given 1 to 1.5 maybe 2 million a year as a FB only member in media deal. It would basically double their current CUSA media deal. They could then simply bury their other sports in the WAC or WCC or whatever.

I say no on NMSU.

Scheduling an extra OOC game is probably worth it vs giving them any share of the PAC deal. They would likely have to give them an equal CFP share too, being a football member. Though I would imagine the PAC will not be able to schedule with a MW all that easily, and vice versa, so that does make things a bit more difficult.

NMSU does nothing for them other than being a "warm body" of sorts. Very little potential in the future. Might as well go for Sam Houston over NMSU, they have been more relevant in football and has much more potential.

 

[Masked_rebel]

Pac has no interest in NMSU. Theres a reason why the MWC also didnt kick those tires. Its not a university that is committed to spending money and building their brands. They dont have it. They dont have the NIL opportunities to be competitive. The PAC is trying to build itself as a psuedo P5 conference brand and adding NMSU drags it down. The whole point of leaving the MWC was to avoid programs that are bloating the conference and not investing in their programs. So no

 

[Rebelious1]

I'm pretty sure the PAC, WSU and OSU specifically, have pi$$ed away about $100 million, or more, by overvaluing its product and refusing the merger. Think about the inherited PAC money just spent recklessly.

Bottom line is PAC is not a Power Conference, MWC is not a Power Conference. UNLV is about $25 million better off.

 

[RebelinWA]

I say no on NMSU.

Scheduling an extra OOC game is probably worth it vs giving them any share of the PAC deal. They would likely have to give them an equal CFP share too, being a football member. Though I would imagine the PAC will not be able to schedule with a MW all that easily, and vice versa, so that does make things a bit more difficult.

NMSU does nothing for them other than being a "warm body" of sorts. Very little potential in the future. Might as well go for Sam Houston over NMSU, they have been more relevant in football and has much more potential.

I get where you are coming from here. Adding NMSU will lower their strength of schedule on top of diluting their overall media value. But at the same time, its already difficult to schedule OOC. It would be a step up from having to add an extra FCS game.

Admittedly this will be difficult now; but they might be able to pencil in some kind of agreement with the MW to trade a set number of games per season. It might be easier once tensions come down a bit in a couple of years.

 

[Masked_rebel]

I get where you are coming from here. Adding NMSU will lower their strength of schedule on top of diluting their overall media value. But at the same time, its already difficult to schedule OOC. It would be a step up from having to add an extra FCS game.

Admittedly this will be difficult now; but they might be able to pencil in some kind of agreement with the MW to trade a set number of games per season. It might be easier once tensions come down a bit in a couple of years.

I'm guessing there isnt a chance in Hell that this happens. Both will want compensation that neither will be willing to pay each other. Blood will continue to be bad, especially if the PAC continues to trash the MWC programs in the same way they have been doing. Add in the financial payouts from lawsuits and scheduling... Especially Boise, itd be great to take a shot at each G5s top school, but theyre going to be scheduling a P4, and a bunch of soft G5s and live off SOS from a conference they hope supports it.

 

[dcut03]

I get where you are coming from here. Adding NMSU will lower their strength of schedule on top of diluting their overall media value. But at the same time, its already difficult to schedule OOC. It would be a step up from having to add an extra FCS game.

Admittedly this will be difficult now; but they might be able to pencil in some kind of agreement with the MW to trade a set number of games per season. It might be easier once tensions come down a bit in a couple of years.

They should target UTSA and UNT. I think there is a window there, it would be more expensive, but worth it. The problem there is the 27 month rule that the AAC has, they may be worth a phase 2 addition to save money down the road. Add Rice to that list too as better options than NMSU.

You can't have more than one FCS team on their schedule without it starting to count against you, so that isn't an option.

I am guessing the Pac 2 has an unspoken agreement to not schedule with former PAC 12 members, but they are running out of options. I am sure some of those schools would not mind given their travel schedule in conference can get hairy,

Then there are the traditional rivalries. Does Wyoming stop playing CSU? OSU and WAZZU are still playing their old PAC rivals.

But NMSU is a bad, bad choice. They are easy for a reason. Sam Houston is a better option, but it may be worth waiting on a texas AAC school for a few years for expansion sake.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Pac has no interest in NMSU. Theres a reason why the MWC also didnt kick those tires. Its not a university that is committed to spending money and building their brands. They dont have it. They dont have the NIL opportunities to be competitive. The PAC is trying to build itself as a psuedo P5 conference brand and adding NMSU drags it down. The whole point of leaving the MWC was to avoid programs that are bloating the conference and not investing in their programs. So no

Trust me I get NMSU is a horrible option.

But adding them football only, at almost nothing price tag fixes a ton of scheduling headaches. 5 OOC games is a logistics nightmare.

 

[dcut03]

But adding them football only, at almost nothing price tag fixes a ton of scheduling headaches. 5 OOC games is a logistics nightmare.

They will tank SOS, they will command a share of the CFP payouts (costing each school another 300k) and they do nothing positive and have a very low ceiling. Not worth it. Especially if they are also adding Texas State.
Agree to add a Texas AAC school or 2 now, play 2 conference years with a lean 8 schools, then get much better options down the road at a reasonable price. Finding an extra OOC game for a couple of years is worth the headache, than adding a bottom feeder that is a detriment to conference is practically every way.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

They will tank SOS, they will command a share of the CFP payouts (costing each school another 300k) and they do nothing positive and have a very low ceiling. Not worth it. Especially if they are also adding Texas State.
Agree to add a Texas AAC school or 2 now, play 2 conference years with a lean 8 schools, then get much better options down the road at a reasonable price. Finding an extra OOC game for a couple of years is worth the headache, than adding a bottom feeder that is a detriment to conference is practically every way.

Looking at AAC GOR...

Not sure how reasonable a price any of them would be.

Plus if PAC had the money to get them they would have now no?

PAC will pay the exit fees. Poaching fees? We'll see.

If they lose the poaching fees case it's a huge bite out of that 'war chest' limiting their options further.

 

[Masked_rebel]

Looking at AAC GOR...

Not sure how reasonable a price any of them would be.

Plus if PAC had the money to get them they would have now no?

PAC will pay the exit fees. Poaching fees? We'll see.

If they lose the poaching fees case it's a huge bite out of that 'war chest' limiting their options further.

They're not spending the war chest. Its earmarked for OSU and WSU to pay debts. Its why they're fighting so hard against both sets of fees. Its also why they wrote into the contract that they have veto power and control over finances.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

They're not spending the war chest. Its earmarked for OSU and WSU to pay debts. Its why they're fighting so hard against both sets of fees. Its also why they wrote into the contract that they have veto power and control over finances.

WSU 250 Million in debt.

War chest ain't covering poop. 😂

 

[UNLVINMD]

PAC is garbage, better then stench of MWC.

 

[dcut03]

Looking at AAC GOR...

Not sure how reasonable a price any of them would be.

Plus if PAC had the money to get them they would have now no?

PAC will pay the exit fees. Poaching fees? We'll see.

If they lose the poaching fees case it's a huge bite out of that 'war chest' limiting their options further.

It looks like the exit fee drops to 10 mil after the 27 month period. Exit fees are negotiated as we have seem time and time again. Not bad.

How about this, the PAC signs a 2 year scheduling agreement with another conference, like the CUSA or SBC. They are usually looking for good games that would pay a decent amount. The PAC could offer them a nice deal ( not as nice as the MW scheduling agreement, because that was robbery). Win/win. Those smaller conferences will get some decent home games out of it that they normally wouldn't get.

The idea of adding a team that offers no value at a lesser amount is dangerous. Either eventually you have to get them to a full share which they won't be worth, or you leave them at a lesser share which creates a bad dynamic and what would be the point then? Why add a team that will never be an equal?

 

[Rod_the_Rebel]

I really wish we weren’t in either.

 

[RebelinWA]

It looks like the exit fee drops to 10 mil after the 27 month period. Exit fees are negotiated as we have seem time and time again. Not bad.

How about this, the PAC signs a 2 year scheduling agreement with another conference, like the CUSA or SBC. They are usually looking for good games that would pay a decent amount. The PAC could offer them a nice deal ( not as nice as the MW scheduling agreement, because that was robbery). Win/win. Those smaller conferences will get some decent home games out of it that they normally wouldn't get.

The idea of adding a team that offers no value at a lesser amount is dangerous. Either eventually you have to get them to a full share which they won't be worth, or you leave them at a lesser share which creates a bad dynamic and what would be the point then? Why add a team that will never be an equal?

One of their AD's did say that there was no one feasible left on the market that would add to their media valuation. Not saying it's going to be NMSU, but anyone they add at this point will be subtraction by addition.

 

[dcut03]

One of their AD's did say that there was no one feasible left on the market that would add to their media valuation. Not saying it's going to be NMSU, but anyone they add at this point will be subtraction by addition.

exactly, so why add more mouths to feed than the minimum? Add Texas State as your bottom, but at least they have some potential.

 

[Masked_rebel]

One of their AD's did say that there was no one feasible left on the market that would add to their media valuation. Not saying it's going to be NMSU, but anyone they add at this point will be subtraction by addition.

I think the misinterpretation of that is adding any team will do vs adding any of their remaining targets. Adding NMSU has an impact and is detrimental, not an increase.
I also think that people suggesting programs jump to a better conference at less $$ than their conference foes simply because it might be higher than their current deals don't consider the impact of being financially handicapped. Sure, your media $ is higher than current deal, but you're likely never to overcome the difference those teams will have to invest in their program... you think it's a coincidence that Boise stays at the top of the MWC every year?

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

exactly, so why add more mouths to feed than the minimum? Add Texas State as your bottom, but at least they have some potential.

because you don't want 5 OOC games.

You need inventory for other sports beyond football.

Boise doesn't have baseball for examplw.

'We're the PAC!. Also all our baseball teams play in the WCC'

 

[dcut03]

I think the misinterpretation of that is adding any team will do vs adding any of their remaining targets. Adding NMSU has an impact and is detrimental, not an increase.
I also think that people suggesting programs jump to a better conference at less $$ than their conference foes simply because it might be higher than their current deals don't consider the impact of being financially handicapped. Sure, your media $ is higher than current deal, but you're likely never to overcome the difference those teams will have to invest in their program... you think it's a coincidence that Boise stays at the top of the MWC every year?

Most instances that a team joins a conference at a lesser share is temporary. Usually because they already have a TV deal in place and they have to work around that. In most cases the new teams are promised an equal share eventually. That is the case with the newest AAC additions as well as the newest B1G additions. The new Big 12 additions may already be getting an equal share.

The only instance that I can recall where there was an unbalance was the Big 12 about 10 years ago. UT and OU had a higher share than everyone else. That unbalance and the significant little brother syndrome led A&M to bolt for the SEC. I am pretty sure the Big 12 changed their revenue sharing the next contract after that.

Which is why UNLV to the Big 12 is a good proposition at a lesser rate, as long as an equal share is in the cards in the future.

because you don't want 5 OOC games.

You need inventory for other sports beyond football.

Boise doesn't have baseball for examplw.

'We're the PAC!. Also all our baseball teams play in the WCC'

The other sports are rarely a factor. A lot of schools do not play baseball and they play in a hodgepodge conference. Big whoop. Outside of the revenue sports there tends to be a good amount of intermingling.

Adding schools that absolutely sack the TV numbers are a killer. Do you think that the MW regrets adding SJSU? I do. They have even been competitive in football winning the conference in 2020, but they have zero draw in a great market, and consistently draw some of the lowest attendance numbers in the conference despite their play on the field. But at least they have that market, . NMSU doesn't have the market, doesn't have the competition. All for 1 additional OOC game?

Try to get a scheduling agreement with another conference, eat crow and reach out to the old PAC schools.

Now I agree with you that they probably should try to get St. Mary's as well. You do need more basketball teams. 14 -16 conference games is not enough.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Most instances that a team joins a conference at a lesser share is temporary. Usually because they already have a TV deal in place and they have to work around that. In most cases the new teams are promised an equal share eventually. That is the case with the newest AAC additions as well as the newest B1G additions. The new Big 12 additions may already be getting an equal share.

The only instance that I can recall where there was an unbalance was the Big 12 about 10 years ago. UT and OU had a higher share than everyone else. That unbalance and the significant little brother syndrome led A&M to bolt for the SEC. I am pretty sure the Big 12 changed their revenue sharing the next contract after that.

Which is why UNLV to the Big 12 is a good proposition at a lesser rate, as long as an equal share is in the cards in the future.

The other sports are rarely a factor. A lot of schools do not play baseball and they play in a hodgepodge conference. Big whoop. Outside of the revenue sports there tends to be a good amount of intermingling.

Adding schools that absolutely sack the TV numbers are a killer. Do you think that the MW regrets adding SJSU? I do. They have even been competitive in football winning the conference in 2020, but they have zero draw in a great market, and consistently draw some of the lowest attendance numbers in the conference despite their play on the field. But at least they have that market, . NMSU doesn't have the market, doesn't have the competition. All for 1 additional OOC game?

Try to get a scheduling agreement with another conference, eat crow and reach out to the old PAC schools.

Now I agree with you that they probably should try to get St. Mary's as well. You do need more basketball teams. 14 -16 conference games is not enough.

You keep saying 'sack' tv numbers.

Again, look at SDSU's numbers on TV and tell me how good they are.

Look at USU's numbers and tell me how great they are when they aren't playing BYU or Utah.

Nobody in the PAC aside from OSU/WSU really draws eyeballs. It's the truth of the majority of the G6.

 

[dcut03]

You keep saying 'sack' tv numbers.

Again, look at SDSU's numbers on TV and tell me how good they are.

Look at USU's numbers and tell me how great they are when they aren't playing BYU or Utah.

Nobody in the PAC aside from OSU/WSU really draws eyeballs. It's the truth of the majority of the G6.

With a large chunk of the MW's games being on CBS, it is really hard to get a good grasp of the TV numbers that are being drawn, good or bad.

I look at attendance as general interest, typically if people are willing to pay to watch a game, they will have more people interested in watching the games on TV. It isn't perfect, but there is at least some worth correlation there.

Then I just follow the moves of the PAC, they took their initial 4 teams for a reason. Every move they have made is to maximize payouts, I do think those are the top 4 in the MW, or at least the CW thinks that they are based off of their research. It's not any conspiracy, its likely data.

SDSU has been as bad as they have every been in 20 years the past 2 seasons, and still had respectable attendance, about as good as we did last 2023 which was one our best ever. Fresno had a down year and still drew. CSU is juiced by their one game with CU every year, but I still think they do well. Boise is Boise obviously.

USU had a really down year, and like Fresno, lost their coach late in the offseason. They have the biggest drop year over year in attendance last season. Bronco was a really, really good hire, and I think it is safe to say they will bounce back. And Utah State is their worst team right now.

 

[RebelinWA]

With a large chunk of the MW's games being on CBS, it is really hard to get a good grasp of the TV numbers that are being drawn, good or bad.

I look at attendance as general interest, typically if people are willing to pay to watch a game, they will have more people interested in watching the games on TV. It isn't perfect, but there is at least some worth correlation there.

Then I just follow the moves of the PAC, they took their initial 4 teams for a reason. Every move they have made is to maximize payouts, I do think those are the top 4 in the MW, or at least the CW thinks that they are based off of their research. It's not any conspiracy, its likely data.

SDSU has been as bad as they have every been in 20 years the past 2 seasons, and still had respectable attendance, about as good as we did last 2023 which was one our best ever. Fresno had a down year and still drew. CSU is juiced by their one game with CU every year, but I still think they do well. Boise is Boise obviously.

USU had a really down year, and like Fresno, lost their coach late in the offseason. They have the biggest drop year over year in attendance last season. Bronco was a really, really good hire, and I think it is safe to say they will bounce back. And Utah State is their worst team right now.

I have seen those numbers. I can't disclose them, but I can tell you that the gap isn't as significant as most of the internet thinks. Its the issue with all g5 schools. Yes, we all have fan bases that range from diehard to fairweather, but that's not what's going to give you higher viewership. You're fighting for viewership from people who aren't fans.

That random person who will turn on the tv for noise on a Saturday while they cook/ prep for a game they actually want to see. We're fighting for a small percentile. Its the same ten's of thousands of viewers to low hundreds of thousands of viewers. We just need to be good enough, and familiar enough for some person on the east coast who might not even be able to point to where Las Vegas is on a map, let alone Fresno, Laramie, Reno, etc. Again, its the exposure that counts. Repetition is the mother of all learning. The more people who aren't in our media market hear about us being "good" the more likely they are to tune in, even if they don't care about the outcome.

Teams on the lower end of P4 have this same issue too.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

With a large chunk of the MW's games being on CBS, it is really hard to get a good grasp of the TV numbers that are being drawn, good or bad.

I look at attendance as general interest, typically if people are willing to pay to watch a game, they will have more people interested in watching the games on TV. It isn't perfect, but there is at least some worth correlation there.

Then I just follow the moves of the PAC, they took their initial 4 teams for a reason. Every move they have made is to maximize payouts, I do think those are the top 4 in the MW, or at least the CW thinks that they are based off of their research. It's not any conspiracy, its likely data.

SDSU has been as bad as they have every been in 20 years the past 2 seasons, and still had respectable attendance, about as good as we did last 2023 which was one our best ever. Fresno had a down year and still drew. CSU is juiced by their one game with CU every year, but I still think they do well. Boise is Boise obviously.

USU had a really down year, and like Fresno, lost their coach late in the offseason. They have the biggest drop year over year in attendance last season. Bronco was a really, really good hire, and I think it is safe to say they will bounce back. And Utah State is their worst team right now.

SDSU's attendance for a city/school that size snd a brand new stadium wasn't very good.

Their TV numbers are not good.

The PAC will get about 10 million per school.

OSU/WSU are going to need to tighten the belts going forward and learn to live on a massively reduced budget.

Do you really truly think 6 months ago Texas State was on the PACs radar?

This is a desperation addition.

They fanned on the AAC schools. Went to plan B.

If Memphis/Tulane had joined initially, the PAC wasn't coming back to the MWC for USU and UNLV. They would have been done or looking for other AAC scalps like UTSA and probably North Texas.

The absolute reality of it is, the PAC will have added two schools USU/Texas State that it never wanted.

They overestimated there own value.

I may end up being wrong but if the value in media rights was there, Memphis and Tulane would already be in the PAC.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

SDSU's attendance for a city/school that size snd a brand new stadium wasn't very good.

Their TV numbers are not good.

The PAC will get about 10 million per school.

OSU/WSU are going to need to tighten the belts going forward and learn to live on a massively reduced budget.

Do you really truly think 6 months ago Texas State was on the PACs radar?

This was a despatation addition.

They fanned on the AAC schools. Went to plan B.

If Memphis/Tulane had joined initially, the PAC wasn't coming back to the MWC for USU and UNLV. They would have been done or looking for other AAC scalps like UTSA and probably North Texas.

The absolute reality of it is, the PAC will have added two schools USU/Texas State that it never wanted.

They overestimated there own value.

I may end up being wrong but if the value in media rights was there, Memphis and Tulane would already be in the PAC.

Bull - I agree completely with your sentiments. Except what does "despatation" mean? Is that some kind of casino/brothel slang for you whoremongers?

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Bull - I agree completely with your sentiments. Except what does "despatation" mean? Is that some kind of casino/brothel slang for you whoremongers?

It would appear my spell check doesn't work...