PAC 8?

[TimothyC3]

Right now I feel anything is possible. Because 3 years ago who would have anticipated the blow up of the PAC 12? Right now the ACC could lose 7 schools. That would bring their numbers to 10. I could foresee a ACC PAC alliance in some form where the conference champions play each other for an automatic bid in football to the playoffs.

 

[Rebel1986]

Right now I feel anything is possible. Because 3 years ago who would have anticipated the blow up of the PAC 12? Right now the ACC could lose 7 schools. That would bring their numbers to 10. I could foresee a ACC PAC alliance in some form where the conference champions play each other for an automatic bid in football to the playoffs.

I have also noticed that UNLV is out recruiting all of the MWC and many of the teams in the Big 12 conference. Currently UNLV is even with Kansas State and 247 still has Parker Meese with a zero rating while my expectation is he will end up as either a high 3 star or even a 4* ranked recruit.

 

[Masked_rebel]

I will continue to say, our best bet at keeping sports relevant isn't jumping to a compact Pac 8 or sticking to the MWC +2, but continuing to excel at football and inviting Big 12 to constantly hold events in our buildings and city...

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Right now I feel anything is possible. Because 3 years ago who would have anticipated the blow up of the PAC 12? Right now the ACC could lose 7 schools. That would bring their numbers to 10. I could foresee a ACC PAC alliance in some form where the conference champions play each other for an automatic bid in football to the playoffs.

So much in this thread. Couple of my thoughts, then off to bed.

Media rights - Agree that any deal will be far, far less than what WSU is used to, but that is just reality. No point in looking back or comparing. Any deal would be better than the basically $-0- the Pac-2 is looking at in FY 24 and probably FY25 if we renew. I kind of question that 9/1/24 2nd year renewal deadline. We looked at that language a while back, and I was confused. May find and read through it again.

Our 2-year grace period as a conference ends 6/30/26. At this point, all that may matter is the subsequent loss of the $30M in NCAA BB $ if we cease to exist. But that is $15M each for WSU and OSU. Not chump change. We are basically independents now. for all other purposes.

A PacMtn-14 media deal - so what's to stop the league from structuring a deal where the upper half gets all the desirable games, and relegate the "no-eyeballs or interest" schools to the poop schedule? That's more or less what we had in the Pac-12. USC, etc in primetime on the big networks, WSU playing at 7PM on the Pac-12 network. Not always but to some extent. Not sure how that would work financially among the schools.

So much more, but I stick to the notion of a Pac-8 being stupid. And what about the MW's NCAA 6=year allocations? they stay with the remaining teams like ours did? How much is that? And all the poaching penalty money? Shit the bottom feeders probably are hoping a handful of you bail.

 

[dcut03]

That PAC8 would be a pretty solid league.

But 8 teams means no football championship game, and no championship game means you're going to get less money.

You have to have 12 teams if you want a title game.

Ideally the ACC explodes. You add Cal and Stanford + two other teams looking to move up, but if you want to dip into Texas, you'll almost have to go at last 14 teams to give them some regional travel partners. SMU and UTSA means that New Mexico and Tulane or Utah State make a lot of sense for travel partners.

Gun to my head, I think the 16 team WAC with rotating 4 team blocks was the most elegant way to handle a lot of these things--just too far ahead of its time.

2 years ago they changed that rule of requiring 12 teams for a championship game. I references that above. They did that for the big 12 when it got down to 10 teams. There is no minimum requirement anymore.

 

[dcut03]

But I'm not talking a huge gap. Im talking about the new Monopolization of Power amongst the P4s who now have consolidated into an even tighter group of competing powers. They've essentially created a secondary tier competitively between them and the G5s. If I'm a TV executive moving forward into that new reality that they've negotiated with those 4 conferences, why would I throw more money at these smaller programs/markets? Might it be a small increase than currently, maybe, but again, G5s have essentially become more competitive versions of FCS schools compared to the Big 4 and I expect future TV negotiations to reflect that current difference between what are G5 contracts and the FCS conferences and their media deals. That's why ultimately unless there is some sort of NCAA governance change, the P4s will become their own division of NCAA or their own league entirely, and everyone else will once gain fall into a subdivision category. The Pac-12s break up isnt an opportunity to reform a slimmer but more competitive league with more dollars because it gets viewed on the same competitive level as the P4, it was the death of a really true NCAA D1 and the first step towards the creation of a league of their own.

I agree 100% I think we are talking about 2 separate things here.
The Pac 8 would be on the outside looking in.
Since there is such a huge gap and you practically relegated to a lower division, to me that makes more sense to try to maximize revenue but cutting out the market fat. Which is what this is proposing.

 

[dcut03]

I will continue to say, our best bet at keeping sports relevant isn't jumping to a compact Pac 8 or sticking to the MWC +2, but continuing to excel at football and inviting Big 12 to constantly hold events in our buildings and city...

That should be the goal and honestly this doesn't change that very much.
But it is a pipedream. Especially with an ACC blowup, UNLV will br far down the list for expansion for the B12. They don't need UNLV to get Vegas. In a way it is almost a detriment due to the competitive advantage it can give the hometown school.

 

[Couev]

2 years ago they changed that rule of requiring 12 teams for a championship game. I references that above. They did that for the big 12 when it got down to 10 teams. There is no minimum requirement anymore.

I know that they gave an exception in 2016 (starting in 2017) for the Big12, but I had thought that was just for the Big12, but I couldn't find the bylaw changes. Looks like the AAC also got the exception in 2017 so I'm just wrong/confused. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[dcut03]

I know that they gave an exception in 2016 (starting in 2017) for the Big12, but I had thought that was just for the Big12, but I couldn't find the bylaw changes. Looks like the AAC also got the exception in 2017 so I'm just wrong/confused. Thanks for the clarification!

NCAA oversight committee: Ease conference title game requirements, waive recruiting class size restrictions

The two proposed pieces of legislation will be voted on by the Division I Council later in May

www.cbssports.com

This is the only article I could find, but it sure sounds like all restrictions are lifted for all conferences

 

[dcut03]

So much in this thread. Couple of my thoughts, then off to bed.

Media rights - Agree that any deal will be far, far less than what WSU is used to, but that is just reality. No point in looking back or comparing. Any deal would be better than the basically $-0- the Pac-2 is looking at in FY 24 and probably FY25 if we renew. I kind of question that 9/1/24 2nd year renewal deadline. We looked at that language a while back, and I was confused. May find and read through it again.

Our 2-year grace period as a conference ends 6/30/26. At this point, all that may matter is the subsequent loss of the $30M in NCAA BB $ if we cease to exist. But that is $15M each for WSU and OSU. Not chump change. We are basically independents now. for all other purposes.

A PacMtn-14 media deal - so what's to stop the league from structuring a deal where the upper half gets all the desirable games, and relegate the "no-eyeballs or interest" schools to the poop schedule? That's more or less what we had in the Pac-12. USC, etc in primetime on the big networks, WSU playing at 7PM on the Pac-12 network. Not always but to some extent. Not sure how that would work financially among the schools.

So much more, but I stick to the notion of a Pac-8 being stupid. And what about the MW's NCAA 6=year allocations? they stay with the remaining teams like ours did? How much is that? And all the poaching penalty money? Shit the bottom feeders probably are hoping a handful of you bail.

They could structure the schedule for the upper teams, they could even have an unbalanced revenue structure for the contract like the B12 has done in the past, but that didn't work out well and steered TAMU to the SEC. Hell, the MW is still salty about Boise's deal.
But you still have to pay those weak market teams something. Adding them drives down per school revenue no matter how they slice it. You could make the argument that they may be worth it for NCAA tournament dollars, but SDSU are the only team that can win games. So there is that.
It's about the bottom line, just like every other conference alignment decision.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like this may have been the plan for quite some time now. Why set up the 2 year agreement with the MW? Why not just merge right away?
To wait and see if the ACC blows up? Perhaps, but that is risky. I am no lawyer, but those ACC signed the contract agreeing to those ridiculous buyouts. I'm not sure what kind of argument these teams suing really have. So that is a risk in counting on a NoCal reunion, especially those schools who have made their decisions without any logic. I would say it could be less than 50/50 that they would rejoin anyway of the ACC did blow up.
But the 2 years lines up perfectly with the MW contract. If the 6 MW detectors announce on 8/2/25 the large fees are gone, perhaps all fees, and the New PAC 8 starts in 2026 fall without much of a financial hit.
You could argue that they wanted to wait until the MW is over to develop a new TV contact with a reverse merger, but these contracts are being amended all the time with this realignment stuff, so that argument is weak. FOX and CBS are good partners. Its not like the MW are playing on the CW and Apple TV. I'm sure they would have amended the contract by creating a new PAC already if it was going to be a traditional merger/reverse merger.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

They could stucture the schedule for the upper teams, they could even have an unbalanced revenue structure for the contract like the B12 has done in the past, but that didnt work out well and steered TAMU to the SEC. He'll the MW is still salty about Boise's deal.
But you still have to pay those weak market teams something. Adding them drives down per school revenue no matter hownthey slice it. You could make the argument that they may be worth it for NCAA tournament dollars, but SDSU are the only team that can win games. So there is that.
It's about the bottom line, just like every other conference alignment decision.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like this may have been the plan for quite some time now. Why set up the 2 year agreement with the MW? Why not just merge right away?
To wait and see if the ACC blows up? Perhaps, but that is risky. I am no lawyer, but those ACC signed the contract agreeing to those ridiculous buyouts. Im nitnsure what kind of argument thise teams suing really have. So that is a risk in counting on a NoCal reunion, especially those schools who have made their decisions without any logic. I would say it could be less than 50/50 that they would rejoin anyway of the ACC did blow up.
But the 2 years lines up perfectly with the MW contract. If the 6 MW detectors announce on 8/2/25 the large fees are gone, perhaps all fees, and the New PAC 8 starts in 2026 fall without much of a financial hit.
You could argue that they wanted to wait until the MW is over to develop a new TV contact with a reverse merger, but these contracts are being ammedended all the time with this realignment stuff, so that argument is weak. FOX and CBS are good partners. Its not like the MW are playing on the CW and Apple TV. I'm sure they would have amended the contract by creating a new PAC already if it was going to be a tradional merger/reverse merger.

I just don't buy the ACC implosion, and if it happens it will take years, IMHO. Who knows what the landscape will be then? I just don't see any sense of urgency in the Pac-2, which is exactly what we need IMHO. Wait and see will bite us in the ass. And our shitty leadership (we have now elevated our lifer interim AD to permanent) will F-it up.

 

[TimothyC3]

They could stucture the schedule for the upper teams, they could even have an unbalanced revenue structure for the contract like the B12 has done in the past, but that didnt work out well and steered TAMU to the SEC. He'll the MW is still salty about Boise's deal.
But you still have to pay those weak market teams something. Adding them drives down per school revenue no matter hownthey slice it. You could make the argument that they may be worth it for NCAA tournament dollars, but SDSU are the only team that can win games. So there is that.
It's about the bottom line, just like every other conference alignment decision.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like this may have been the plan for quite some time now. Why set up the 2 year agreement with the MW? Why not just merge right away?
To wait and see if the ACC blows up? Perhaps, but that is risky. I am no lawyer, but those ACC signed the contract agreeing to those ridiculous buyouts. Im nitnsure what kind of argument thise teams suing really have. So that is a risk in counting on a NoCal reunion, especially those schools who have made their decisions without any logic. I would say it could be less than 50/50 that they would rejoin anyway of the ACC did blow up.
But the 2 years lines up perfectly with the MW contract. If the 6 MW detectors announce on 8/2/25 the large fees are gone, perhaps all fees, and the New PAC 8 starts in 2026 fall without much of a financial hit.
You could argue that they wanted to wait until the MW is over to develop a new TV contact with a reverse merger, but these contracts are being ammedended all the time with this realignment stuff, so that argument is weak. FOX and CBS are good partners. Its not like the MW are playing on the CW and Apple TV. I'm sure they would have amended the contract by creating a new PAC already if it was going to be a tradional merger/reverse merger.

I feel you are on to something here. Why wait two years and play the MWC in a scheduling agreement in football if the plan is a reverse merger? Makes no sense. Barring a Big 12 invite (not going to happen) this appears to be the PAC ‘s best option. Go lean with more $$$ per school and wait for more fall out. Also, what ever course the PAC 2 takes it will include the advice of the TV executives as to the value of the TV contract.

 

[TimothyC3]

I just don't buy the ACC implosion, and if it happens it will take years, IMHO. Who knows what the landscape will be then? I just don't see any sense of urgency in the Pac-2, which is exactly what we need IMHO. Wait and see will bite us in the ass. And our shitty leadership (we have now elevated our lifer interim AD to permanent) will F-it up.

I can understand your frustration. But the PAC has to add 6 schools by the end of 2026 or it will cease to exist as a conference. IMO that’s urgency.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I can understand your frustration. But the PAC has to add 6 schools by the end of 2026 or it will cease to exist as a conference. IMO that’s urgency.

6/30/26 (or maybe 7/1/26). But there again, our $30M in future NCAA BB money is at risk here. Otherwise we already don't really have a conference.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I feel you are on to something here. Why wait two years and play the MWC in a scheduling agreement in football if the plan is a reverse merger? Makes no sense. Barring a Big 12 invite (not going to happen) this appears to be the PAC ‘s best option. Go lean with more $$$ per school and wait for more fall out. Also, what ever course the PAC 2 takes it will include the advice of the TV executives as to the value of the TV contract.

What we need, which will never happen because this isn't how things are done, is to get all the MW and Pac-2 reps (prez's or AD's whatever) in a room with Gloria and our lame ass Commissioner Teresa Gould, and lay all the cards on the table. No conversation or option is sacred. What does the money look like on both sides, poaching and exit penalties, NCAA allocations, media rights current and imagined, bowl tie-ins, attendance, eyeballs on TV's, etc. No F-ing lawyers, media or anyone else.

No backdoor or airport shenanigans.

Welcome to Fantasy Island. Da Plane, da Plane!!!

 

[Masked_rebel]

you're right.. That'll never happen, but the conversation should take place. Unfortunately, I just dont see Media rights being anywhere close to worthwhile enough to burn cash in the hopes that itll put that new conference on a "even" tier with the other P4s. Itll just be a slightly more lean version of a G5 and its very clear that the P4 didnt want another high tier conference otherwise they wouldn't have done the stupidity of stretching the Big 10 market into SoCal and Seattle (coast to coast)..
I also dont think he ACC will just fall apart and or the Big 12.. Makes no sense to just have 2 conferences for major college football, unless your creating a minor league for the NFL and basically calling it like the AFC and NFC. I think the ACC will hold together and if they lose certain players in the next few years, that revenue from buyouts might be enough to redistribute and bring back teams that dont belong in say the Big 10- looking at you Maryland and Rutgers, maybe WVU... Honestly Id like to see some redistribution of programs in these wacky geographical conferences.. Plus, WVU getting enticed to go to the ACC opens a spot for UNLV in the Big 12, lol

 

[jmcnamaraiii]

ACC is not going to merge with new PAC/MW. They have plenty of teams in the east they can add. UConn, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane.

You don’t need 12 teams for championship game anymore.

It’s a no brainer for the top half of the Mountain West to break away. They have over 25k fans in the seats for football games, markets and/or brands. Which provides more value and less team to divide it up with.

The lower half average about 15k a game for football and/or don’t have a market. Wyoming has a good football program and New Mexico has a market. Utah state just wins. They would be the next up if Washington state and Oregon State move on in the future.

Agree on Big 12 being our best possible spot in the future. Both football and basketball have to able to compete consistently. Think the first step is a new PAC.

 

[dcut03]

I feel you are on to something here. Why wait two years and play the MWC in a scheduling agreement in football if the plan is a reverse merger? Makes no sense. Barring a Big 12 invite (not going to happen) this appears to be the PAC ‘s best option. Go lean with more $$$ per school and wait for more fall out. Also, what ever course the PAC 2 takes it will include the advice of the TV executives as to the value of the TV contract.

6/30/26 (or maybe 7/1/26). But there again, our $30M in future NCAA BB money is at risk here. Otherwise we already don't really have a conference.

What we need, which will never happen because this isn't how things are done, is to get all the MW and Pac-2 reps (prez's or AD's whatever) in a room with Gloria and our lame ass Commissioner Teresa Gould, and lay all the cards on the table. No conversation or option is sacred. What does the money look like on both sides, poaching and exit penalties, NCAA allocations, media rights current and imagined, bowl tie-ins, attendance, eyeballs on TV's, etc. No F-ing lawyers, media or anyone else.

No backdoor or airport shenanigans.

Welcome to Fantasy Island. Da Plane, da Plane!!!

I wonder what it takes to keep the conference going. A rebuilt PAC can be announced and agreed upon as early as next year after 8/2/25. Is that enough? In terms of the NCAA and tournament money, I would imagine that would suffice. Especially if the new league starts by the first football game of 2026.

As for knowing what each team is worth, I'm sure the PAC teams and president know exactly what each MW teams brings to the table financially. They have been talking to TV people for several years, and they have been looking at MW as possible expansion candidates for the old pac 12 for a while.

As for bringing everyone together and hashing this out? Not going to happen. Gloria has to protect the whole conference, or at least appear to do so. Also people aren't going to look at Wyoming's prez and say, your TV numbers aren't good enough. This is all about money, but outward facing apparently it is poor taste to say that out loud.

Actually having 6 teams leave is better for the survival of the MW. They will have some remaining decent football and basketball teams to rebuild from. They will keep NCAAT revenue, they will be able to add some teams to stay afloat. Their revenue will drop so that sucks.

 

[jmcnamaraiii]

I wonder what it takes to keep the conference going. A rebuilt PAC can be announced and agreed upon as early as next yet after 8/2/25. Is that enough? In terms of the NCAA and tournament money, I would imagine that would suffice. Especially if the new league starts by the first football game of 2026.

As for knowing what each team is worth, I'm sure the PAC teams and president know exactly what each MW teams brings to the table financially. They have been talking to TV people for several years, and tey have been looking at MW as possible expansion candidates for the old pac 12 for a while.

As for bringing everyone together and hashing this out? Not going to happen. Gloria has to protect the whole conference, or at least appear to do so. Also people aren't going to look at Wyoming's prez and say, your TV numbers aren't good enough. This is all about money, but outward facing apparently it is poor taste to say that out loud.

Actually having 6 teams leave is better for the survival of the MW. They will have some remaining decent football and basketball teams to rebuild from. They will keep NCAAT revenue, they will be able to add some teams to stay afloat. Their revenue will drop so that sucks.

Agee I think it will be better if there is 2 western conferences versus one. MW would not be done. Can add UTEP, New Mexico St, Montana, Montana St. North Dakota St and South Dakota st. Maybe Grand Canyon for Basketball. There’s options.

Can see new PAC and MW come up with scheduling agreements to keep rivalries in place.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I wonder what it takes to keep the conference going. A rebuilt PAC can be announced and agreed upon as early as next year after 8/2/25. Is that enough? In terms of the NCAA and tournament money, I would imagine that would suffice. Especially if the new league starts by the first football game of 2026.

As for knowing what each team is worth, I'm sure the PAC teams and president know exactly what each MW teams brings to the table financially. They have been talking to TV people for several years, and they have been looking at MW as possible expansion candidates for the old pac 12 for a while.

As for bringing everyone together and hashing this out? Not going to happen. Gloria has to protect the whole conference, or at least appear to do so. Also people aren't going to look at Wyoming's prez and say, your TV numbers aren't good enough. This is all about money, but outward facing apparently it is poor taste to say that out loud.

Actually having 6 teams leave is better for the survival of the MW. They will have some remaining decent football and basketball teams to rebuild from. They will keep NCAAT revenue, they will be able to add some teams to stay afloat. Their revenue will drop so that sucks.

I like your post, but if you think this: "I'm sure the PAC teams and president know exactly what each MW teams brings to the table financially." then I think you terribly overestimate the stooges that are in the current administration of WSU, The Pac-2 offices and probably OSU.

The more we go round and round and the clock keeps ticking, the more of a no-brainer it is to do the PacMtn-14 full merger. The MW is surviving just fine, arguably (or maybe there is no argument) the best G5 conference. Your revenue is much higher than the AAC, and way higher than the others G5's. The Pac-2 represents the strongest addition that is out there. We have discussed the financial issues with us just joining you (our loss of BB money, being unable to rid yourselves of the BSU premium, etc.) The reverse merger fixes all that. MW schools will overall keep their NCAA and other money, BSU's premium goes away. Pac-2 keeps their money. The P5 ship has sailed for the Pac-2. All we are doing by sitting on our hands is frittering away our money and losing media and NCAA money. The WCC scheduling arrangement was stupid and will cost us. We end up with by far the best G5 conference, we structure in flexibility (as in low exit fees) to allow for future opportunities (that are unlikely to happen), and we have a nice stable conference with only 2 time zones and a lot of nearby schools, which you already enjoy and the Pac-2 would enhance.

Why is this so incomprehensible to some? As paraphrased on my home site - do you grab the nice, cute drunk girl at the bar and take her home, or do you hold out for the hot chick that you probably have no chance at? My vote? The former. My dipshit Cougar brethren? The latter.

 

[TimothyC3]

I don’t feel it’s just about the money, which is always very important. Access to the new football playoffs or tourney is also a factor in my opinion. So what happens to the new 5-7. Model adopted after the PAC imploded if the ACC follows the same fate. Because if Clemson, FSU, North Carolina and a few others leave, will there be a new play off with a 4-8 model? Because at that point the ACC left overs will be no better off than a potential PAC 8 in football and the left over ACC schools and champion won’t deserve an auto bid. How is that issue handled?

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I don’t feel it’s just about the money, which is always very important. Access to the new football playoffs or tourney is also a factor in my opinion. So what happens to the new 5-7. Model adopted after the PAC imploded if the ACC follows the same fate. Because if Clemson, FSU, North Carolina and a few others leave, will there be a new play off with a 4-8 model? Because at that point the ACC left overs will be no better off than a potential PAC 8 in football and the left over ACC schools and champion won’t deserve an auto bid. How is that issue handled?

Why should "we" care what happens to the ACC orphans? And no, a leftover P4 ACC will not be equivalent to a G5 filled Pac-8. This Pac-8 BS, started by some dumbshit on Twitter, does not deserve any discussion. Derision maybe.

 

[Masked_rebel]

The ACC isn't going anywhere... it's to expensive for the teams to exit and in exchange they will try and poach traditional ACC schools like Maryland, Rutgers, and add a school like WVU and Central Florida.. again, if anything there will be a redistribution of schools that get traded. It's in their best interests to keep 4 power conferences, having 2 20+ team conferences doesn't make sense and would competitively suck and if that's the case, they'd simply get rid of NCAA and form their own league

 

[LocoRebel]

They don't need UNLV to get Vegas.

This is something I think people forget. No conference needs UNLV to own the Vegas market. If UNLV has sustained success, then gets invited to a better spot, it comes with new fans. But as is, 3 of the P4 can claim sovereignty over Las Vegas. The Big 10 because of the two LA schools. The Big 12 because of the Arizona schools and the Utah schools, therefore influence by relevance. The SEC owns any major city where they put two of its teams.


Just to divert pack to the concept of a Pac 8... I think I quite like it for (or even a Pac 9, since we are already beyond full regionality due to there not being enough teams in this part of the US, and also since divisions aren't require for conference title game)... Full football round robin, equal and complete scheduling... which you could do with 10, but does it really matter? Pac 8-10 it's doable. Ya know what? Sign me up.

WSU and OSU
BSU and Fresno
UNLV and SDSU
CSU and USU

Then determine with TV partner guidance whether or not it's worth bringing in Wyoming or AFA or 2-4 Texas/Louisiana/elsewhere (Really only UTSA, Tulane, Memphis... maybe a Texas State if you get UTSA... San Marcos and San Antonio are an hour apart, I think that's huge to give them a natural regional rival... they have never shared a conference, at least not in D1A.... Texas State was decent last year, but has been mostly bad in recent history. Like 2-4 wins. They are probably too much dead weight currently.)

...stream of consciousness typing.... Anyway, uhhh... UNLV not needed for Vegas market, and give the Pac 8 a thought...

 

[LocoRebel]

The ACC isn't going anywhere... it's to expensive for the teams to exit and in exchange they will try and poach traditional ACC schools like Maryland, Rutgers, and add a school like WVU and Central Florida.. again, if anything there will be a redistribution of schools that get traded. It's in their best interests to keep 4 power conferences, having 2 20+ team conferences doesn't make sense and would competitively suck and if that's the case, they'd simply get rid of NCAA and form their own league

That 2036 GOR is a pretty tough look (unless it gets worked out in court that teams can leave at a fraction of the cost). ACC *should* be stable. Enough regionality and "non-dominant" schools, they should be okay with 2-4 leave. Do FSU and Clemson break the camels back? How about UNC? Miami? NC State? Wake?

Your point remains true. If there are 6-7 that stay committed, just grab WVU, UCF, UConn. Beyond that, I can't think of anyone who would add value. I'm not convinced that UCF or WVU do. But the ACC nucleus *should* be solid. NC State, Wake, BC, Georgia Tech, V-Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville. I don't feel like they are threat to leave. Maaaaybe Louisville. Maybe.

 

[LocoRebel]

in exchange they will try and poach traditional ACC schools like Maryland, Rutgers,

I glossed over there. No chance Rutgers or Maryland would consider leaving Big Ten, right? It's like $20mil per school less in the ACC currently, isn't it?

 

[dcut03]

I like your post, but if you think this: "I'm sure the PAC teams and president know exactly what each MW teams brings to the table financially." then I think you terribly overestimate the stooges that are in the current administration of WSU, The Pac-2 offices and probably OSU.

The more we go round and round and the clock keeps ticking, the more of a no-brainer it is to do the PacMtn-14 full merger. The MW is surviving just fine, arguably (or maybe there is no argument) the best G5 conference. Your revenue is much higher than the AAC, and way higher than the others G5's. The Pac-2 represents the strongest addition that is out there. We have discussed the financial issues with us just joining you (our loss of BB money, being unable to rid yourselves of the BSU premium, etc.) The reverse merger fixes all that. MW schools will overall keep their NCAA and other money, BSU's premium goes away. Pac-2 keeps their money. The P5 ship has sailed for the Pac-2. All we are doing by sitting on our hands is frittering away our money and losing media and NCAA money. The WCC scheduling arrangement was stupid and will cost us. We end up with by far the best G5 conference, we structure in flexibility (as in low exit fees) to allow for future opportunities (that are unlikely to happen), and we have a nice stable conference with only 2 time zones and a lot of nearby schools, which you already enjoy and the Pac-2 would enhance.

Why is this so incomprehensible to some? As paraphrased on my home site - do you grab the nice, cute drunk girl at the bar and take her home, or do you hold out for the hot chick that you probably have no chance at? My vote? The former. My dipshit Cougar brethren? The latter.

Hey I don't want to underplay the ineptitude of the PAC over the years. There has been some questionable decisions no doubt. Some of those decisions were because the inevitable was going to happen ( teams leaving for greener pastures) and there wasn't much that the commish or the other teams could do about it.

But come on, you don't think the PAC 2 and thier commish has any idea what the worth of these schools are? Once USC and UCLA announced they were leaving, and probably before that, the PAC has been looking at all possible expansion targets, and they got this close to adding SDSU. They have had discussions with all of the major and non major TV/streaming providers for the next media contract.

And then in the past year where everyone bailed, you don't think that the PAC 2 and the new commish has not been trying to exhaust every opportunity on what to do next? They haven' talked to any media partners about scenarios and worth in the past year? They have had multiple discussions with the MW themselves, you don't think they talked about markets and realistic expectations on contracts?

They know exactly their own worth and what every school in the region, and perhaps every school west of the Mississippi and Tulane (that isn't P4 right now) brings to the table.

As for the MW "doing fine" sure they are, especially competitively. But the AAC and the freaking Sunbelt both have better media contracts right now, and they almost both have the MW doubled ( not sure of the AAC since they lost more teams).


It may not be 100% about money, but it is 98% about money. I don't think the PAC 2 to willingly take a 50% paycut on their annual TV deal just because the MW is "doing fine".

Clock is ticking, but it sure looks like they have had a plan for a while. Stay the PAC 2 , play football with the MW and other sports with the WCC then start the new PAC in 2026 where they can potentially get the top MW teams/markets with little to no fees.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Hey I don't want to underplay the ineptitude of the PAC over the years. There has been some questionable decisions no doubt. Some of those decisions were because the inevitable was going to happen ( teams leaving for greener pastures) and there wasn't much that the commish or the other teams could do about it.

But come on, you don't think the PAC 2 and thier commish has any idea what the worth of these schools are? Once USC and UCLA announced they were leaving, and probably before that, the PAC has been looking at all possible expansion targets, and they got this close to adding SDSU. They have had discussions with all of the major and non major TV/streaming providers for the next media contract.

And then in the past year where everyone bailed, you don't think that the PAC 2 and the new commish has not been trying to exhaust every opportunity on what to do next? They haven' talked to any media partners about scenarios and worth in the past year? They have had multiple discussions with the MW themselves, you don't think they talked about markets and realistic expectations on contracts?

They know exactly their own worth and what every school in the region, and perhaps every school west of the Mississippi and Tulane (that isn't P4 right now) brings to the table.

As for the MW "doing fine" sure they are, especially competitively. But the AAC and the freaking Sunbelt both have better media contracts right now, and they almost both have the MW doubled ( not sure of the AAC since they lost more teams).


It may not be 100% about money, but it is 98% about money. I don't think the PAC 2 to willingly take a 50% paycut on their annual TV deal just because the MW is "doing fine".

Clock is ticking, but it sure looks like they have had a plan for a while. Stay the PAC 2 , play football with the MW and other sports with the WCC then start the new PAC in 2026 where they can potentially get the top MW teams/markets with little to no fees.

Well you may be right. But no I don't think the Pac-2 has any clue about anything. Our Commish is weak and learned under Kwackkoff and Scott, our new AD is weak, and President has failed miserably and is a lame duck. I think OSU is sneaking around talking to the Big-12 behind our back.

Taking a 50% cut on our media deal is better than the cut we took for 2024 - basically 100%.

 

[TimothyC3]

Put a fork in the ACC in it's current form. Because stable conferences do not have their flagship football programs (Clemson and Florida State) filing lawsuits against the conference and the conference also suing their flagship football programs (Clemson and Florida State).

Also, I don't blame OSU and WSU for kicking the can down the road on the reverse merger. Because once that decision is made they are done and will be a mid-major program. That's why I feel right now for OSU and WSU money is secondary and they are trying to figure out a way to stay relevant and avoid becoming a mid-major program. If it was just about money, why did SMU forego any media rights in the sum of $28.5 mill from the ACC for the first 7 years and and also, give up the $9 mill per year from the AAC. They actually had to raise $200 mill to help fund their athletic program during the interim 7 years. After 40 years they are finally able to get rid of the mid-major label for the time being.

There will be fall out from the ACC implosion and all 17 teams will not find a home in a power conference because after the ACC power programs leave what's left will be no better off than the PAC 8.

 

[dcut03]

Put a fork in the ACC in it's current form. Because stable conferences do not have their flagship football programs (Clemson and Florida State) filing lawsuits against the conference and the conference also suing their flagship football programs (Clemson and Florida State).

Also, I don't blame OSU and WSU for kicking the can down the road on the reverse merger. Because once that decision is made they are done and will be a mid-major program. That's why I feel right now for OSU and WSU money is secondary and they are trying to figure out a way to stay relevant and avoid becoming a mid-major program. If it was just about money, why did SMU forego any media rights in the sum of $28.5 mill from the ACC for the first 7 years and and also, give up the $9 mill per year from the AAC. They actually had to raise $200 mill to help fund their athletic program during the interim 7 years. After 40 years they are finally able to get rid of the mid-major label for the time being.

There will be fall out from the ACC implosion and all 17 teams will not find a home in a power conference because after the ACC power programs leave what's left will be no better off than the PAC 8.

SMU got duped with Stanford and Cal. They decided to blindly follow whatever those NoCal schools were going to do. Now they have some cash flow to afford it right now, but in general it isn't good business to do stuff for free when it is worth millions of dollars.
All of that and ACC may dissolve as well. But those 3 definitely seem to be the exception. Every other move has come with a significant bump in media revenue. Why else would these west coast schools willing get in bed with midwest and east coast teams. It is a burden otherwise.
I'm torn on the ACC. I agree it isn't a good sign when the flagship programs are suing. But that contract is what it is, and they agreed to it. They did it at the time when they thought expansion was stopped. So I'm not convinced it is doomed simply because those are the legal terms, but wouldn't be surprised if some sort of blow up happens either.
I think OSU and WAZZU know that they are mid major now, there really is no way around it. They were left behind.
The saving grace would be a ACC blow up and some sort of union/agreement with them for football. I can see a cross conference championship game with a new PAC and the leftover ACC be good enough to perhaps earn a designated seat in the football playoffs. It would be something between the power conference and G5.
But other than setting up a new PAC 8 that can be augmented later, the only other reason that the PAC 2 would wait would be to hopefully get picked up on the next round of additions. It is a long shot, but waiting to the last minute to pull the trigger on a new PAC or a reverse merger leaves a speck of hope for that.

 

[dcut03]

Well you may be right. But no I don't think the Pac-2 has any clue about anything. Our Commish is weak and learned under Kwackkoff and Scott, our new AD is weak, and President has failed miserably and is a lame duck. I think OSU is sneaking around talking to the Big-12 behind our back.

Taking a 50% cut on our media deal is better than the cut we took for 2024 - basically 100%.

But again. They have the opportunity to keep things slim and make double the money. Considering they are taking it on the chin right now, chasing the maximum dollar makes even more sense, no? It still is a solid conference that has some options.

A lot of the PAC ineptitude came from the NoCal schools. They shut down any thoughts of expansion because they were so up their own butts about academic perception for an athletic union. Look where they are now. In a pretty stupid spot.

The other part was that USC/UCLA and Oregon and UW were probably gone no matter what. They are getting big time bucks and that is a tough thing to turn down. So of course those schools were going to try to shut down decent media contracts and other things, becuase they new it would cost them money to be poached for greener pastures down the road.