I don’t know how many times it has to be said but that is what the scheduling agreement called for, so the damage was done by the defectors. I don’t know how you reward them by welcoming SDSU and Boise back for a third time now.
Texas State....
- Thread starter TimothyC3
- Start date
You add stipulations like larger exit fees?
I don't know.
But the conference is better with them than without.
Gloria would be a fool not to add Sac State and Grand Canyon U..
That is who we are seriously looking at..
That is who we are seriously looking at..
I'm cool with Grand Canyon. Especially if you could add Saint Mary's as well for basketball only.
I like the idea of Sac State addition but not sure it's enough to help out the football situation. Definitely not if it's the last move and she says mission accomplished.
Honestly I'd almost rather just collapse CUSA by adding Sam Houston, WKU and Midd Tenn State. (Sorry CUSA fans desperate times require desperate measures). Another Texas school and market plus two new markets and recruiting pipelines.
You know your conference sucks when they would rather stay in the freaking Sunbelt conference than go there.
Another aspect that doesn’t seem to get discussed is that budget shortfall and how it would have affected any decision to leave with the regents.
Even if it wasn’t going to cost you the full $18 million (I still think it’s gonna be close to that), and you say it ends up being $10-$12 million, and you don’t factor in the bonus you got from the MW to stay…
How does it play when you’re already in the red to the tune of $20 million (at least) and you have to ask to take on another $12 million in debt?
Probably not great. Would they approve? Yeah, probably. But they also know you’re going to be asking for MORE money because you HAVE to extend your coach… how do you think that goes?
Dear god they need to extend Odom now!
Oh, I don’t think we needed that to tell us our conference sucked.
We’ll just have to cry ourselves to sleep on our huge pillows filled with pictures of Ben Franklin.
If that's the metric, here's my honest answer with the goal as a coach to move up to a P4 job.
1. Fresno State
2. San Jose State
3. Colorado State
4. Wyoming
5. Utah State
Now if you're just looking at performance over the last 5 years, not from a future coaches perspective, but for building the best football conference for quality on the field--if Colorado State and Utah State are in your top 5 by that metric then you're probably due to check into a rehab facility haha.
I’m glad you’re all finally realizing that this isn’t worth putting your time into anymore
If we take your very favorable perception of what happened. We won't have the voting rights of OSU/WSU, and we almost certainly would have been getting less assistance with exit fees. That's a worse deal by your own metrics which I think are a little too PAC-favorable.
So I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose or not, but you get this thing where you rule my conjecture as unreasonable due to lack of evidence, but then your own conjecture without evidence is fine. It makes having a reasonable conversation difficult because either conjecture is fine or it's not, but having two different standards for acceptable evidence is a little daunting to want to have discussions around.
Even if we accept what is being reported as the Memphis buyout as being the same as ours (despite that making little sense from a graduated invite plan) AND we say that we get half of what the exit fees are supposed to be due to negotiation AND we say that the poaching penalty is waived completely. That's still a net difference of nearly 45 million dollars out of the gate between this deal and the Memphis deal. Say that the PAC gets a great deal of 10 million. We get 6.8 a year until 2032. That means to play in a better conference we only have 14 years before we hit a break even point (though the distribution of basketball units probably mean it's closer to 10). Will the PAC even exist in 14 years? Will the NCAA? I just don't think that's a tenable position given the flux of the market and the chaos that exists.
You're probably a don't player on the craps table, right? I respect your decision to walk way. I think it's pretty weak to say you're walking away and keep coming back trying to get other people to join you.
Last edited:
I think these are the key questions to ask. It's been trending towards break up for a while as the have's and have not's have drifted further apart. This is evident by how much money the B1G and the SEC get in their media deals. And there are teams in those conferences that drag the money down as well. When it comes down to the big break up, it's really anyone's guess as to how it will shake out.
Will they form entirely new conferences? Or will they just add/drop schools from certain conferences and change the format and rules to favor them?
With this recent talk of the B1G and SEC commissioners getting together and stating that they think the football playoffs should give 4 auto bids to each of the B1G and SEC, that is pretty clear of what they're thinking. They want a guaranteed bigger pot of money.
It's similar to a lot of this other conference realignment stuff, but also will have a much larger impact, depending on how it shakes out. Unfortunately, UNLV is in a position where if the school wants to be considered for the move up at that time, they need to put the pedal to the metal and push hard these next 5 years or so.
Saint Mary's is a bad deal. That is only a school of a few thousand students that has always been secondary to Gonzaga. Grand Canyon I believe has the largest school population overall with about 25K at the campus, and a total of around 120K students including online. Grand Canyon has a lot of money and huge potential which has already shown in basketball. Grand Canyon was 30-5 last year in basketball with wins over #25 SDSU, a win against #15 Saint Mary's in the NCAA tournament, and a loss by 11 to #19 Alabama.
That’s a tough statement to read. The MWC can’t even poach from the Sun Belt. We’re pretty much at the bottom now. We’re above C-USA! At least I think we are?
I respect your decision to walk away. But do it after this season. We haven’t been 4-0 in 48 years. Enjoy it while you can.
Point to where I asked anyone to join. All I said was I’d keep my subscription to support the site. Thanks for convincing me to shut it off after almost ten years. You won’t hear from me again.
It's going to be divided into two or three tiers not too long from now. That's why I'm not really worried about conference affiliation for the time being. PAC or MWC, we're all in the same boat right now. 5 years from now will probably look totally different.
Was there anywhere that is was reported that we were less annual revenue? I only saw it here with people guessing. We assumed that it was less based off of the AAC declining. The AAC also has likely much steeper exit fees and have to deal with the travel costs. Also it seemed that Memphis was driving the bus, and it makes sense for them stay put and keep options open. Either way, even if we got a lesser deal (only fees mind you) than the original 4 that is inconsequential. It should be about what is the best for UNLV not what other teams got vs us. So say with bonuses and staying we get 5.5 mil a year ( it was reported that UTEP expects 4 mil a year by joining the MW ). We pay off 11 mil in feels over three years at 3.6 mil, but make 8-9 million in the PAC, it seems like for us the break even point in terms of anual revenue is immediate or near to it. Remember the fees are mostly based off the revenue from these last 2 seasons. 11 mil. So not sure if we are cut off now, or we pay them back later. But I think we pay them off later. That is what other conferences has done.
This was a hypothetical. I was just bringing up the point that we had leverage and we caved early. Again I don't know if we were given a timeline with the MW or not. But even if we did, we had leverage and it doesn't mean they wouldn't come back with a better offer. In fact that exact thing happend. They offered , we rescinded, and then they offered a better deal. My point was that our stock has been rising, we could have played the 3 conferences off each other a bit more. DO you really think the PAC wants Tx State and Sac State over us?
It really doesn't matter what Memphis would get. And it is different for them. They are looking at a reduced exit fee to about 18 million, what the previous 4 got from over 27.5 mill in exit fees. So them getting 2.5 and us getting none is still a significantly worse deal for them vs us. They have travel costs to boot. The poaching fee is also inconsequential if we get no help. We aren't paying a dime of that. The only way it matters if it gets reduced and they can afford to help more with our exit fees. See above to a break even point annualy. But total break even point would not be 14 years. W get 14 in 2025, then 1.5 extra over the next 6 years or so. Netting 6.8 per year while paying off fees is already better on an annual basis. so say we get the 14 mill in 2025, the break even point would be 4.375 years NOT 14.
Last edited:
I wonder if they expect Memphis to go Pac 12 eventually. And then get an offer to join the American. Ultimately, wherever they are, I feel Texas State and UTSA will end up together
As long as there isn’t a picture on the nightstand next to it of Odom signing a new contract with say ASU.
This is probably why Texas State said they are staying for now the PAC has to find out what the numbers are first.
www.cbssports.com
Pac-12 pausing expansion efforts as conference enters media rights evaluation with current members
The league is one short of full membership and will seek evaluation of its media rights before pursuing more schools
www.cbssports.com
Yeah, definitely could be. Or Memphis, or others.This is probably why Texas State said they are staying for now the PAC has to find out what the numbers are first.
Pac-12 pausing expansion efforts as conference enters media rights evaluation with current members
The league is one short of full membership and will seek evaluation of its media rights before pursuing more schools
But nobody pays all of those, right? You've spent the last few days saying there's no way we're getting 18 from each departing school so why would Memphis have to pay the full 25+ million?
But I don't think it IS inconsequential. If you enter into a relationship--business or personal--where you accept less than your peers, then you are less than your peers because you show the world what you value yourself as. You'd be a second tier player with fewer institutional rights in the best 2nd tier conference. If they wanted us, they could have had us. They didn't even discuss it with us while planning it per Harp's interview. I don't think this tack is without risk--it's probably the best choice in a couple of bad choices. If the current conference alignment lasts for 10 years, then even with the huge financial hit we take then it will have been a mistake--I just don't think given the evidence on hand that it will be what happens.
I think with the redistribution of the 5 departing teams including the Boise Bonus, we're supposed to be getting 6.8 a year for the remainder of the MOU period for staying--not counting the incremental payment of the 6-11 million part of our 20-25 million signing bonus. But lets call it 7 to keep the math simple. We pay UTEP as well at that number.
I can't find this 11 million figure you're mentioning. Where is that from? The only recent exit fee negotiation I could find settled was SMU paying 27 million instead of 25 to join the ACC. Is that you thinking that contract only applies to remaining years on the media contract, because I don't believe that's the language in the contract, do you have a source that says that?
I know that the teams' surrendered media rights as part of their exit fees (so that would be 10 million each for everyone but Boise, and Boise would 14 million).
Lets go with your 11 million for the sake of argument. That's 2 full years of media gone from an athletic department that's running in the red with a despearate need to extend their red hot coach. It's a net 36 million dollar penalty vs staying though (we don't pay an exit fee and keep our 11 million--which is actually 14 million now), and 2 full years before we see dime one from a new media deal. And that's a BEST case scenario of no full 18 million penalty AND no poaching fee that the PAC isn't helping with beyond their legal team. And the more money we make in the PAC only is a little higher (call it 3 million) more than we make staying--that's why the total payoff is not a quick payment. You're giving up liquid cash now to pay fees in order to make more money later--but you still have to run your department, and the oppurtunity cost isn't just 10 million vs zero.
No, probably not. but they did want Fresno, CSU, Boise, SDSU, Memphis, USF, UTSA, and Tulane before us and only offered us when their lowball offer didn't work for those programs who didn't entertain or put people against each other--it was low enough to just walk away. And they didn't wait for us, they went and got USU.
When I'm doing the math i'm looking at position A - leave for the PAC and Position B stay in the MWC.
Position A requires minimally an 11 million dollar penalty, refusing a 25 million dollar lump some, hoping that the poaching penalty gets overturned, and offers a net difference at best of 3 million a year based on optimistic media contracts for the PAC and with the MWC staying at the same rate (also optimistic but GN seems pretty confident enough to put things in writing there).
We don't get to keep the 14 million payment AND leave for the PAC. Those are mutually exclusive. We don't get the 6.8 if we're leaving, those funds will get redistribruted to other people. Sure if we could all the best parts of staying AND then leave we'd break even really fast...but that's not how this would go down. We'll be making a net 3.2 million more per year in the PAC and had to surrender 11 million (minimal) in fees and 25 million bonus PLUS increase shares of 2 million a year. And we'd also get a full CFP redistriion of 300k per school per year which the PAC schools aren't getting (going into the 'conference fund).
At this point I think we can just agree to disagree.
What you said was:
Which in the context is celebrating other people reaching the same level of discouragement that you have. I think you're right it's not exactly a call to join you, but it is a pat on the back for anyone that WILL join you, which is a difference without much distinction to me. But if you truly didn't see it as that, then your reaction is kind of puzzling to me. If I was mischaracterizing you, then saying 'now i'm taking my ball and going home' seems like the opposite of what most normal people would do.
I don't know why you think that's effecting me at all. If one snarky comment after you said something kind of snarky makes you melt, you might be a snowflake. I don't think Joe really cares about the money rolling in on the site and you not renewing your subscription doesn't effect me in any way. This is the free board and I cancelled my subscription this year after 17 years of paying. I'm glad you're finally realizing that this isn't worth putting your money into anymore.
But seriously, no need to respond to this. Leave or don't leave. Ignore/Block me if I bother you. But don't be so dramatic about it.
Last edited:
Neither scenario is particularly appealing honestly.
Nope, they both have risks--and with the PAC not having a media deal in hand I think it's the bigger short term risk, but probably the better long term risk--assuming that everything else stays static, which is a big assumption.
I don't think there is much risk in them not having a deal if we already know what our deal is in this watered down version of a conference then we can be sure theirs will be a decent amount more than that. But I guess they will know for sure in another 60 days.
They missed on 50% of their primary targets and when they offered us, Harp said that PAC wouldn't provide a financial guarantee for media rights, which means the deal they thought they had isn't on the table anymore without the AAC 4. The PAC is also having to settle. USU was a panic move, but it's still better than UTEP. But the third best market in Utah--and a DISTANT third at that, isn't as appealing as Vegas.
But they never wanted us. They snuck around and stabbed us in the back, then when their great plan fell apart they wanted us to bail them out. F that.
I'm also a prideful SOB that will happily take a watered down conference if it screws those guys over haha.
I'll reiterate.
What if UNLV and USU were their doomsday scenario?
UNLV staying put was not expected or impacted one of their media models in a way that is creating a little panic.
They could easily have grabbed UTEP or NMSU or Texas State and been done with this nonsense.
Maybe media numbers are looking pretty sketchy now and there are some rumblings from the original 4?
The thing that makes me NOT think that this is the case, is that they got Gonzaga to join. I don't know what Gonzaga was making before, but it seems unlikely that Gonzaga would make the jump if they weren't quite certain that the agreement would be favorable for them.
But I've been wrong before...hopefully I am in this case too
I could only find the numbers for 2022, but Gonzaga got 3.21 million of the 4.25 million for the basketball rights. If they're getting a full share it would be a huge raise over what they receive now and they stand to get more tournament units with the the strength of the conference.
Well, you went from a 4 time zone conference to a 2 time zone conference. You went form having eyes on the 16th, 26th, 31st, and 51st markets to getting Logan and Tacoma. I'm sure the calculus on the offer has to have gone down.
Exactly.
Has it reached an 'Oh crap this isn't much better than what we were getting before' Plus for SDSU and Boise they signed a 30 million exit fee. Basically locking themselves into the PAC. Forever.
They wouldn't. I said 18 million for the AAC because that is what the last leaving 4 schools paid when leaving together. So 18 is negotiated down from the 25+ mil. It would likely be less since it was another year earlier, but also maybe not because the AAC are more desperate without these next 4 uf they decided to leave. 18 million is probably a safe bet for the AAC schools. 2.5 mill help, if true, totally sucks and was a terrible offer.
Fair enough. But if your co worker gets poached by a rival company, but then he is able to get you raise, even if you are no longer equals you don't take it because your feelings are hurt? He gets a signing bonus, you don't but you make the same salary. That is the comp: same annual revenue with less money to help up front. But you still are equals in the long run. I get it saying eff you to them. And I like Harp's approach because there is a bit of that here. But again, long term if we don't win the P4 lottery we are in a worse spot.
I don't believe this is true at all. We get 10-14 million in 2025, then 1.3-1.6 on top of the base contract for 6 years or so. However it euqals out or 24.5% on the distributed money received from the PAC. When UTEP joined it was reported they we likely looking at 4.0 mill a year. SO it will likely 5.3-5.6 for UNLV with the next deal. That is it. That is all of the additional distribution. I don't think we get more in the contract. We get more than others based off the 24.5% distribution deal.
As for the next 2 years? I believe the traiterous 4 still get paid, but they pay it back as part of the exit fees. That's how it worked with other conference. Which would be 11 total mill for UNLV, more for Boise. yes. But I don't we get Boise's cut until they pay it back after they leave as a part of their fees. They don't lose 11 mil now AND pay 11 mil later. It is one or the other.
The 11 million is what is UNLV will get leftover after the lump sum up front. So that is assuming the full 25 million, 14 up front and 11 to be stretched out over the next few years.
The OTHER 11 million is what is owed to each time besides Boise. It would be 11 for us. 6 mil this year, 5 mil next season ( no aggreement with the PAC 2 so it is less). Sorry not sure which 11 million you were confused about. I am guessing this one.
I agree a bit here, but the more I read, the it seems like they pay back after they leave. Nothing mentioned double dipping.
As for extending the hot coach? yes that will be problem. But unfortunately we aren't getting that first lump sum until 2025 so we can't do it now. I thought we would be getting our payouts sooner. Harp talked about using booster support in the article to get him extended now. Which is good, but I doubt he gets 10-14 mil right now. But yes, we could extend him with using that money in the future. But the problem is that it based off of things that we won't know for 2 years. What the final exit fee number will be after negotiations and if all of the poaching fees stick. I believe the lump some is based off the poaching fees which we should get before they leave whenever that is settled.
That article also mentioned the PAC would give us 6 mil for fees. So if it ends up the 11 mil that is a 5 mil deficit. Which is a 15-19 mil swing in the MW's favor initially. Max 26 (14 + 12) if we pay 18 mil which is somewhat unprecedented. Not a 36 million swing. If they get 10 and we get < 6 for 6 years, then down to 4 mil after that. It doesn't take that long to break even.
Again position A is refusing a 10-14 million lump sum in 2025. And paying a maximum of 12 million in exit fees ( 18-6 from the PAC). It is more likely 5 mil in fees or less. The net difference of the base PAC and MW deal is 5-6 million perhaps? Hard to say. It will be at least 4. The next 6 year will be closer to a 3 mil difference then it grows from there.
I agree we give up 10-14 mil now. We cant get any of that and join the PAC as some thought initially, including me.
I am happy to disagree whether this is a bad idea. In fact, We may actually agree. I think it is probably a bad idea, but I can get behind it for the potential of it. If it pays off ( P4) will look like geniuses and we are betting on ourselves. I do love that mentality
But I think objectively staying in the MW without a P4 invite is the worse of the 2 options long term vs going to the PAC. Especially looking at the numbers. Then you factor in Gonzaga and all of the NCAA credits they will be getting, etc etc. The additional revunue sharing potential in the PAC is much higher.
I think the 1.6 million per was to account for the inevitable shortfall of next media contract.
If not that 10 million would have been eaten up just in lost media deal revenue.
And amounted to nothing.
I think the 1.6 per plus the P4 out was necessary for UNLV to stick around.
I thought I read that between today and July 1, 2026 if they backed away from the PAC the penalty was $30 million. After they join officially on July 1, 2026 their exit fee was like ours at 3 x revenue and less than one year it was double that. I could be wrong my eyeballs are starting to swirl over the last few days.
