ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment | Page 340 | Syracusefan.com

ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

It’s interesting because these schools have to pay a massive buyout to go to PAC12 because of the contract the pac 12 and MWC signed for scheduling. They did that to stop this exact thing from happening.

Obviously the PAC is going to pay that buyout for the schools, but it makes you wonder if they have some other bigger brand names they are going to go after soon to be in the PAC
 
It’s interesting because these schools have to pay a massive buyout to go to PAC12 because of the contract the pac 12 and MWC signed for scheduling. They did that to stop this exact thing from happening.

Obviously the PAC is going to pay that buyout for the schools, but it makes you wonder if they have some other bigger brand names they are going to go after soon to be in the PAC
The Pac name is worth something. Schools will have Presidents and Board members and ADs that want that name for their schools. WSU and OSU knew that and acted patiently to make certain they saved that name for their future.

The fools are the people running the MWC. The MWC is not some Rockies based old time league. It is a new creation to reject the utterly failed leadership of the WAC. So everybody in the MWC should have known all the facts, including the one about how virtually all its members would greatly prefer having the Pac name. MWC leaders should have been working with WSU and OSU to create that new Pac. But some of them would choose to fight that because of their own faith in delivering the final blow to the Pac, and some would fight it because they knew that the new Pac could not take 100% of the MWC members. Some would fight it because they knew that they would not be given positions as high in the new Pac.

What bigger names can they get? Going from CA to play in a league on the Atlantic Coast is not ideal, but does anybody think that Calford will give up new associations with all the elite ACC schools just to have their Pac name back and to become league peers with Boise St? Nor will AAU schools Utah, Arizona, and Arizona St want to kale a move back to only the Pac name.

The 6 Pac has 2 basic choices, which will be discussed and weighed as they have talks about future TV deals. One choice is to expand to 8 or 9, maybe 10, with each school located in either PST or MST. In many ways UNLV would be the best addition to go that route, but. aporblem may be UN-Reno, if the 6 Pac does not want 2 NX schools. Reno is the state's Flagship and Land Grant and has much more power in the state legislature, perhaps enough to derail UNLV leaving it behind.

As Reno is right on the CA border, close to Sacramento, and the Reno and SanFran areas have a goodly number of UN-Reno alums, having UN-Reno will lessen the calls to add San Jose ST. I would make the 9th New Mexico. I assume that many will want Air Force because it can put 40K in its football stadium anytime the Falcon are decent.

If I were CSU I would not want Wyoming because Wyoming recruits in CO against CSU for a dozen and more players every year. If I were Boise St, I would not want Utah St for a similar reason.

If the 6 Pac thinks it had best profit by goin g big, as in 14 or 16, maybe even more, then it will likely offer old Mississippi River foes Memphis and Tulane. The latter is just 2 seasons from winning the AAC and then toppling SoCal in a Major Bowl. Memphis easily could make the playoffs this season. If the Pac adds that pair, it then can bridge the geographic gap with TX schools, thus placing the league in both recruit loaded CA and TX.
 
The Pac name is worth something. Schools will have Presidents and Board members and ADs that want that name for their schools. WSU and OSU knew that and acted patiently to make certain they saved that name for their future.

The fools are the people running the MWC. The MWC is not some Rockies based old time league. It is a new creation to reject the utterly failed leadership of the WAC. So everybody in the MWC should have known all the facts, including the one about how virtually all its members would greatly prefer having the Pac name. MWC leaders should have been working with WSU and OSU to create that new Pac. But some of them would choose to fight that because of their own faith in delivering the final blow to the Pac, and some would fight it because they knew that the new Pac could not take 100% of the MWC members. Some would fight it because they knew that they would not be given positions as high in the new Pac.

What bigger names can they get? Going from CA to play in a league on the Atlantic Coast is not ideal, but does anybody think that Calford will give up new associations with all the elite ACC schools just to have their Pac name back and to become league peers with Boise St? Nor will AAU schools Utah, Arizona, and Arizona St want to kale a move back to only the Pac name.

The 6 Pac has 2 basic choices, which will be discussed and weighed as they have talks about future TV deals. One choice is to expand to 8 or 9, maybe 10, with each school located in either PST or MST. In many ways UNLV would be the best addition to go that route, but. aporblem may be UN-Reno, if the 6 Pac does not want 2 NX schools. Reno is the state's Flagship and Land Grant and has much more power in the state legislature, perhaps enough to derail UNLV leaving it behind.

As Reno is right on the CA border, close to Sacramento, and the Reno and SanFran areas have a goodly number of UN-Reno alums, having UN-Reno will lessen the calls to add San Jose ST. I would make the 9th New Mexico. I assume that many will want Air Force because it can put 40K in its football stadium anytime the Falcon are decent.

If I were CSU I would not want Wyoming because Wyoming recruits in CO against CSU for a dozen and more players every year. If I were Boise St, I would not want Utah St for a similar reason.

If the 6 Pac thinks it had best profit by goin g big, as in 14 or 16, maybe even more, then it will likely offer old Mississippi River foes Memphis and Tulane. The latter is just 2 seasons from winning the AAC and then toppling SoCal in a Major Bowl. Memphis easily could make the playoffs this season. If the Pac adds that pair, it then can bridge the geographic gap with TX schools, thus placing the league in both recruit loaded CA and TX.
The musical chairs have just accelerated in the Group of 5 conferences
 
If the PAC wanted to hurt the AAC, here are the teams that have had a season .500 over better in conference post 2020:

2021 ECU 5-3
2021 Tulsa 5-3
2022 Tulane 7-1
2022 ECU 4-4
2022 Navy 4-4
2023 Tulane 8-0
2023 UTSA 7-1
2023 Memphis 6-2
2023 USF 4-4
2023 Rice 4-4
2023 Navy 4-4


The above plus the avg attendance that I posted earlier should make ECU, Tulane, UTSA, Memphis, USF the most attractive picks that would also hurt the AAC big time. Although could Tulane being private hurt their chances? Is that a long term risk? The current PAC 6 all have "State" in their name. Tulane wouldn't really fit that.

I don't think they would want Navy as a FB only. Tulsa maybe as the 12th team but I think there are better options. They too are private. Rice is up there but being a small private school I think would make them a poor choice. Also, if they wanted a 2nd Texas school there are North Texas (who is now in the AAC) or Texas State. FAU has made strides in their AD, especially in BBall. If you wanted a 2nd Fla team they make sense.

If the PAC wanted to be the PAC 12 again and national, I think they add Memphis, USF, UTSA, ECU for sure. Then they need to decide on Tulane. Otherwise maybe they take Texas State and FAU which gives them 2 teams in each of California, Texas, and Florida. The AAC would lose 5 major teams and would be down to 9 total.
 
If the PAC wanted to hurt the AAC, here are the teams that have had a season .500 over better in conference post 2020:

2021 ECU 5-3
2021 Tulsa 5-3
2022 Tulane 7-1
2022 ECU 4-4
2022 Navy 4-4
2023 Tulane 8-0
2023 UTSA 7-1
2023 Memphis 6-2
2023 USF 4-4
2023 Rice 4-4
2023 Navy 4-4


The above plus the avg attendance that I posted earlier should make ECU, Tulane, UTSA, Memphis, USF the most attractive picks that would also hurt the AAC big time. Although could Tulane being private hurt their chances? Is that a long term risk? The current PAC 6 all have "State" in their name. Tulane wouldn't really fit that.

I don't think they would want Navy as a FB only. Tulsa maybe as the 12th team but I think there are better options. They too are private. Rice is up there but being a small private school I think would make them a poor choice. Also, if they wanted a 2nd Texas school there are North Texas (who is now in the AAC) or Texas State. FAU has made strides in their AD, especially in BBall. If you wanted a 2nd Fla team they make sense.

If the PAC wanted to be the PAC 12 again and national, I think they add Memphis, USF, UTSA, ECU for sure. Then they need to decide on Tulane. Otherwise maybe they take Texas State and FAU which gives them 2 teams in each of California, Texas, and Florida. The AAC would lose 5 major teams and would be down to 9 total.
Tulsa, Texas State, North Texas, Arkansas State, Tulane, Rice, Rajun Cajuns, Air Force, UNLV, New Mexico, Utah State, Nevada, Hawaii, San Jose State, UTSA, and some of the FCS contingents of NDSU and Montana State are probably under consideration
 
If the PAC wanted to hurt the AAC, here are the teams that have had a season .500 over better in conference post 2020:

2021 ECU 5-3
2021 Tulsa 5-3
2022 Tulane 7-1
2022 ECU 4-4
2022 Navy 4-4
2023 Tulane 8-0
2023 UTSA 7-1
2023 Memphis 6-2
2023 USF 4-4
2023 Rice 4-4
2023 Navy 4-4


The above plus the avg attendance that I posted earlier should make ECU, Tulane, UTSA, Memphis, USF the most attractive picks that would also hurt the AAC big time. Although could Tulane being private hurt their chances? Is that a long term risk? The current PAC 6 all have "State" in their name. Tulane wouldn't really fit that.

I don't think they would want Navy as a FB only. Tulsa maybe as the 12th team but I think there are better options. They too are private. Rice is up there but being a small private school I think would make them a poor choice. Also, if they wanted a 2nd Texas school there are North Texas (who is now in the AAC) or Texas State. FAU has made strides in their AD, especially in BBall. If you wanted a 2nd Fla team they make sense.

If the PAC wanted to be the PAC 12 again and national, I think they add Memphis, USF, UTSA, ECU for sure. Then they need to decide on Tulane. Otherwise maybe they take Texas State and FAU which gives them 2 teams in each of California, Texas, and Florida. The AAC would lose 5 major teams and would be down to 9 total.
What if Tulane changes its name? They could add 'state' and just let it be a secret they're a private school.
 
The additional two or more teams will be determined by the Pac's media partners and what those partners are willing to pay for a school to be added. From a practical standpoint, as the Pac's new deal will be significantly less than the ACC's or B1G's, a national conference may not be feasible from a cost perspective. It is a lot easier to justify flying cross country when the athletic department is being paid $45 million+ as opposed to $15 million.

I had thought a merger of the Pac-2 and MWC under the Pac name made some sense. Obviously, the media partners disagreed. The real question is when the value of the streaming markets is better able to be calculated. Until then, it is a little bit of a crapshoot for the Pac when picking schools to invite.
 
What if Tulane changes its name? They could add 'state' and just let it be a secret they're a private school.
This might be just what is needed to join a conference with Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, and Boise State. In fact, I will be a little disappointed if the Pac does not become the "little bother" conference and only invite schools with "state" in their names. Jacksonville State, Texas State, Kennesaw State, New Mexico State, Ball State, Kent State, San Jose State, Utah State, App State, and Georgia State should be the only additional schools considered for admission.
 
Interesting take from the Sports Business Journal that addresses some of my bewilderment from yesterday...

But why did the MWC schools leave? The short version: Cash. The four departing schools represent four of the highest revenue generating schools in the Mountain West. Combine that with aspirations to distance themselves from lower-budget conference-mates such as Utah State and San Jose State, and the impetus for leaving is clear.

“Movement creates opportunity,” Boise State AD Jeramiah Dickey said during an interview with local TV station KTVB on Thursday. “I said it when I got here, ‘It’s always what’s next.’ We are not going to sit back and let things happen.”

The other key driver in leaving the MWC centers on media rights. The conference's deal with ESPN and CBS Sports, which is up in 2026, distributes around $5 million on average annually to its members. A league source said the hope was to see that distribution climb to somewhere around $7.5 million with a new deal, while a per-school payout in the $10 million range was unlikely.

Could a rebuilt Pac-12 net more on the open market? That’s what those involved are betting on -- albeit there’s ample skepticism in the industry around a valuation in the $15 million-$20 million neighborhood.
 
I would be surprised if the PAC stayed just Western. But I suppose it is possible that they are delaying adding more MWC teams until the MWC first adds new teams. I am sure there wasn't a merger because Hawaii, San Jose State, Utah State, Nevada, Wyoming are not wanted. Also they don't want to kill the MWC off entirely. So when the MWC backfills, maybe then UNLV and New Mexico are added. At that point UNLV would have to separate from Nevada to save itself. A lot easier to leave Nevada behind in that scenario.
 
But why did the MWC schools leave? The short version: Cash.

This is the answer to every conference re-alignment question, basically. I'd only add the specificity of short-term cash, in some cases. This one doesn't seem to be driven by short-term thinking, but these also aren't schools that have any real hope of being in the P-whatever conferences at the end.
 
I would be surprised if the PAC stayed just Western. But I suppose it is possible that they are delaying adding more MWC teams until the MWC first adds new teams. I am sure there wasn't a merger because Hawaii, San Jose State, Utah State, Nevada, Wyoming are not wanted. Also they don't want to kill the MWC off entirely. So when the MWC backfills, maybe then UNLV and New Mexico are added. At that point UNLV would have to separate from Nevada to save itself. A lot easier to leave Nevada behind in that scenario.
Nevada Reno is so close to the norCal major cities that all the serial killers from norCal spend a lot of time in Reno as well. That means that Nevada-Reno, which has quite a few alums living in norCal, is a plus if this PAC is not going to add San Jose St.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,549
Messages
4,899,094
Members
6,004
Latest member
fsaracene

Online statistics

Members online
380
Guests online
1,763
Total visitors
2,143


...
Top Bottom