ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment
- Thread starter Cusefan0307
- Start date
HtownOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12,166
- Like
- 15,467
Thank you. I will read it over the weekend. Work frowns on me using their time for my amusement.
And a now perennially ranked football program.
Moontan
2017 ESPN College Bowl Pick’em Winner
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 10,281
- Like
- 10,227
They only thing not blacked out:
John Wildhack
Executive Vice President, Programming
ESPN, Inc.
ESPN Plaza
Bristol, CT 06010
John Swofford
Commissioner
Atlantic Coast Conference
4512 Weybridge Lane
Greensboro, NC 27407
HtownOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12,166
- Like
- 15,467
Thanks, again, Tom.
From the link to download, go to Page 164 on your PDF counter, Section 14 of the Amended and Restated Multi-Media Agreement:
14. Extension Option: [redacted]
14.1 Extension Option. ESPN has the exclusive, revocable option (the "Extension Option"), but not the obligation, to extend the Agreement until [redacted] subject to the remainder of this paragraph (such extended term of July 1, 2027 to [redacted] the "Extension Term") by providing written notice to the Conference no later that two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network. {redacted]
14.2 [redacted]
14.3 [redacted]
14.4. [redacted]
14.5 [redacted]
(a) [redacted]
(b) [redacted]
To analyze this paragraph correctly, one must know the redacted information. As the entire section is roughly two pages and we have only a few lines, the bulk of any analysis is in truth mere speculation.
What we can readily discern is that ESPN had an "exclusive, revocable option";* this means that ESPN owned the option and it is revocable. While the option is revocable, the revocation conditions are not disclosed. As FSU mouthpieces and internet blowhards are the source of most claims pertaining to the Option, we can logically discount the credibility and accuracy of their claims. What is clear is that the redacted portions of Section 14 are highly important in explaining ESPN's revocable option.
Next we see ESPN had no obligation to extend the agreement to a specified but redacted time, presumable 2036 as that is the internet rumor and if I recall, has been disclosed by some officials (speculation on my part as I lack evidence to support the claim, others are welcome to prove/discredit and I will defer).
Then we see that all of the above is "subject to the remainder of the paragraph (such extended term of 1 July, 2027 to [redacted] the "Extension Term")..." Thus, my position that the remaining redacted subparagraphs are highly important to the proper understanding of the entire section, the visible language plainly states that the option and everything associated with it are conditioned by the redacted portions.
Finally, we see how and when the extension must occur: "by providing written notice to the Conference no later that two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network. {redacted]" As the ACCN has been on the air several years, well beyond the two years, in which ESPN had to exercise their option, and considering the fact that ACC Commissioner Phillips has expressed the agreement will continue, we can reasonably conclude that ESPN exercised their option within the stated two-year period. Had ESPN not exercised their option, there would be no basis for FSU, and Clemson's, lawsuits. FSU and Clemson merely would need to wait a couple years and complete the agreement in 2027 and based on UCLA, USC, UT, OU, SU, and PITT's prior handling of the matter and act accordingly, a much less costly and surefire method of exiting the ACC. Further, both lawsuits readily recognize that the agreement was extended beyond 2027 claiming the longer date as a part of the damages.
To clarify, this is a revocable option on ESPN's part, but no internet blowhard knows the the conditions on which ESPN may revoke their intent to continue the agreement after 2027 as previously noticed to the ACC. That said, all indications are that ESPN plans to continue the agreement. The look-in will occur, and if I recall, there will be a third look-in around 2030 (this is from memory, I will defer to any substantive proof - No, Locked On Big 12 does NOT constitute proof of most anything!)
With the completely redacted subparagraphs which contain the conditions under which ESPN may revoke the agreement, there is only speculation as to how ESPN may revoke. Without a methodology of how ESPN may revoke, you must apply logic to any claim (until some time when the agreement is fully disclosed) that the speculating party may have a bias. As the speculation is essentially starting with FSU fans, you should seek documented proof before believing anything they report. Equally, if other ACC school fans present speculation you should also seek documented proof. There is nothing wrong with speculation in and of itself, however, if you are to give it credence, you should have supporting evidence.
Further, the language proves FSU and Clemson would need to sue ESPN to get out of the ACC, with one exception. If FSU and/or Clemson could cause enough disruption to destroy/damage the ACC enough to the point that ESPN would no longer wish to continue the agreement and revoke their option. This tactic has failed miserably. Thus, the suits are likely frivolous. Ironically, their actions serve as proof that ESPN was not the impetus of moving more valuable properties to the SEC to make more money and dump the ACC deadweight; a fact that discounts the very basis that they "need" to change conferences, as perpetuated by many FSU mouthpieces.** And without ESPN being the impetus for FSU and Clemson changing conferences and ESPN's notice that they would extend the agreement, we can justifiably question why ESPN would destroy the ACC, especially when the ACCN has proved to be a profitable entity, making an action in which ESPN destroys the ACC and ACCN a very bad business decision.
We can reasonably conclude that most of the "information" coming from FSU and FSU related sources should be viewed through a skeptic lens. Further, when the "information" contradicts known facts, this "information" is false.
We know that that the majority of the Power 4/5 schools and likely many of the G5 schools have had their legal departments and contracted law firms search for means of breaking the agreements and GORs. All have concluded the same thing, as have independent firms looking for ways to generate new revenue. No one figured a means of defeating statutory and case law in well-resolved areas of law, namely IP, contract, and entertainment.
For another perspective on the FSU lawsuit against the ACC, see the following link and the internal links to our new ACC Member Cal:
Guest Post: FSU vs. ACC - Florida State's Amended Complaint
FSU has gone back to the drawing board to find reasons why the ACC is bad. Did they turn up anything good?
writeforcalifornia.com
For any deeper analysis on ESPN's Option, we would need to know the actual language of the redacted portions.
*On the existence of the Option, I stand corrected. However, the major point stands that the Option is highly controlled and is not merely a whimsical decision as portrayed by FSU.
**FSU and Clemson's desire for more money remains valid, as every school wants more money; however, the claim of the "need" and ESPN as the impetus for conference change have been destroyed.
kcsu
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 21,341
- Like
- 46,959
Thank you. This is excellent and i truly appreciate all the time and effort.Thanks, again, Tom.
From the link to download, go to Page 164 on your PDF counter, Section 14 of the Amended and Restated Multi-Media Agreement:
14. Extension Option: [redacted]
14.1 Extension Option. ESPN has the exclusive, revocable option (the "Extension Option"), but not the obligation, to extend the Agreement until [redacted] subject to the remainder of this paragraph (such extended term of July 1, 2027 to [redacted] the "Extension Term") by providing written notice to the Conference no later that two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network. {redacted]
14.2 [redacted]
14.3 [redacted]
14.4. [redacted]
14.5 [redacted]
(a) [redacted]
(b) [redacted]
To analyze this paragraph correctly, one must know the redacted information. As the entire section is roughly two pages and we have only a few lines, the bulk of any analysis is in truth mere speculation.
What we can readily discern is that ESPN had an "exclusive, revocable option";* this means that ESPN owned the option and it is revocable. While the option is revocable, the revocation conditions are not disclosed. As FSU mouthpieces and internet blowhards are the source of most claims pertaining to the Option, we can logically discount the credibility and accuracy of their claims. What is clear is that the redacted portions of Section 14 are highly important in explaining ESPN's revocable option.
Next we see ESPN had no obligation to extend the agreement to a specified but redacted time, presumable 2036 as that is the internet rumor and if I recall, has been disclosed by some officials (speculation on my part as I lack evidence to support the claim, others are welcome to prove/discredit and I will defer).
Then we see that all of the above is "subject to the remainder of the paragraph (such extended term of 1 July, 2027 to [redacted] the "Extension Term")..." Thus, my position that the remaining redacted subparagraphs are highly important to the proper understanding of the entire section, the visible language plainly states that the option and everything associated with it are conditioned by the redacted portions.
Finally, we see how and when the extension must occur: "by providing written notice to the Conference no later that two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network. {redacted]" As the ACCN has been on the air several years, well beyond the two years, in which ESPN had to exercise their option, and considering the fact that ACC Commissioner Phillips has expressed the agreement will continue, we can reasonably conclude that ESPN exercised their option within the stated two-year period. Had ESPN not exercised their option, there would be no basis for FSU, and Clemson's, lawsuits. FSU and Clemson merely would need to wait a couple years and complete the agreement in 2027 and based on UCLA, USC, UT, OU, SU, and PITT's prior handling of the matter and act accordingly, a much less costly and surefire method of exiting the ACC. Further, both lawsuits readily recognize that the agreement was extended beyond 2027 claiming the longer date as a part of the damages.
To clarify, this is a revocable option on ESPN's part, but no internet blowhard knows the the conditions on which ESPN may revoke their intent to continue the agreement after 2027 as previously noticed to the ACC. That said, all indications are that ESPN plans to continue the agreement. The look-in will occur, and if I recall, there will be a third look-in around 2030 (this is from memory, I will defer to any substantive proof - No, Locked On Big 12 does NOT constitute proof of most anything!)
With the completely redacted subparagraphs which contain the conditions under which ESPN may revoke the agreement, there is only speculation as to how ESPN may revoke. Without a methodology of how ESPN may revoke, you must apply logic to any claim (until some time when the agreement is fully disclosed) that the speculating party may have a bias. As the speculation is essentially starting with FSU fans, you should seek documented proof before believing anything they report. Equally, if other ACC school fans present speculation you should also seek documented proof. There is nothing wrong with speculation in and of itself, however, if you are to give it credence, you should have supporting evidence.
Further, the language proves FSU and Clemson would need to sue ESPN to get out of the ACC, with one exception. If FSU and/or Clemson could cause enough disruption to destroy/damage the ACC enough to the point that ESPN would no longer wish to continue the agreement and revoke their option. This tactic has failed miserably. Thus, the suits are likely frivolous. Ironically, their actions serve as proof that ESPN was not the impetus of moving more valuable properties to the SEC to make more money and dump the ACC deadweight; a fact that discounts the very basis that they "need" to change conferences, as perpetuated by many FSU mouthpieces.** And without ESPN being the impetus for FSU and Clemson changing conferences and ESPN's notice that they would extend the agreement, we can justifiably question why ESPN would destroy the ACC, especially when the ACCN has proved to be a profitable entity, making an action in which ESPN destroys the ACC and ACCN a very bad business decision.
We can reasonably conclude that most of the "information" coming from FSU and FSU related sources should be viewed through a skeptic lens. Further, when the "information" contradicts known facts, this "information" is false.
We know that that the majority of the Power 4/5 schools and likely many of the G5 schools have had their legal departments and contracted law firms search for means of breaking the agreements and GORs. All have concluded the same thing, as have independent firms looking for ways to generate new revenue. No one figured a means of defeating statutory and case law in well-resolved areas of law, namely IP, contract, and entertainment.
For another perspective on the FSU lawsuit against the ACC, see the following link and the internal links to our new ACC Member Cal:
Guest Post: FSU vs. ACC - Florida State's Amended Complaint
FSU has gone back to the drawing board to find reasons why the ACC is bad. Did they turn up anything good?
For any deeper analysis on ESPN's Option, we would need to know the actual language of the redacted portions.
*On the existence of the Option, I stand corrected. However, the major point stands that the Option is highly controlled and is not merely a whimsical decision as portrayed by FSU.
**FSU and Clemson's desire for more money remains valid, as every school wants more money; however, the claim of the "need" and ESPN as the impetus for conference change have been destroyed.
sutomcat
No recent Cali or Iggy awards; Mr Irrelevant
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 26,726
- Like
- 116,534
FSU is saying that the original deadline for review/renewal 2 years after the start of the ACCN was moved to February of 2025 with an addition to the contract. One of the things they are upset about is that the change to the contract was alledgely made without a vote of the conference members, only by the commissioner. And that the ACC got nothing for that concession.Thanks, again, Tom.
From the link to download, go to Page 164 on your PDF counter, Section 14 of the Amended and Restated Multi-Media Agreement:
14. Extension Option: [redacted]
14.1 Extension Option. ESPN has the exclusive, revocable option (the "Extension Option"), but not the obligation, to extend the Agreement until [redacted] subject to the remainder of this paragraph (such extended term of July 1, 2027 to [redacted] the "Extension Term") by providing written notice to the Conference no later that two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network. {redacted]
14.2 [redacted]
14.3 [redacted]
14.4. [redacted]
14.5 [redacted]
(a) [redacted]
(b) [redacted]
To analyze this paragraph correctly, one must know the redacted information. As the entire section is roughly two pages and we have only a few lines, the bulk of any analysis is in truth mere speculation.
What we can readily discern is that ESPN had an "exclusive, revocable option";* this means that ESPN owned the option and it is revocable. While the option is revocable, the revocation conditions are not disclosed. As FSU mouthpieces and internet blowhards are the source of most claims pertaining to the Option, we can logically discount the credibility and accuracy of their claims. What is clear is that the redacted portions of Section 14 are highly important in explaining ESPN's revocable option.
Next we see ESPN had no obligation to extend the agreement to a specified but redacted time, presumable 2036 as that is the internet rumor and if I recall, has been disclosed by some officials (speculation on my part as I lack evidence to support the claim, others are welcome to prove/discredit and I will defer).
Then we see that all of the above is "subject to the remainder of the paragraph (such extended term of 1 July, 2027 to [redacted] the "Extension Term")..." Thus, my position that the remaining redacted subparagraphs are highly important to the proper understanding of the entire section, the visible language plainly states that the option and everything associated with it are conditioned by the redacted portions.
Finally, we see how and when the extension must occur: "by providing written notice to the Conference no later that two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network. {redacted]" As the ACCN has been on the air several years, well beyond the two years, in which ESPN had to exercise their option, and considering the fact that ACC Commissioner Phillips has expressed the agreement will continue, we can reasonably conclude that ESPN exercised their option within the stated two-year period. Had ESPN not exercised their option, there would be no basis for FSU, and Clemson's, lawsuits. FSU and Clemson merely would need to wait a couple years and complete the agreement in 2027 and based on UCLA, USC, UT, OU, SU, and PITT's prior handling of the matter and act accordingly, a much less costly and surefire method of exiting the ACC. Further, both lawsuits readily recognize that the agreement was extended beyond 2027 claiming the longer date as a part of the damages.
To clarify, this is a revocable option on ESPN's part, but no internet blowhard knows the the conditions on which ESPN may revoke their intent to continue the agreement after 2027 as previously noticed to the ACC. That said, all indications are that ESPN plans to continue the agreement. The look-in will occur, and if I recall, there will be a third look-in around 2030 (this is from memory, I will defer to any substantive proof - No, Locked On Big 12 does NOT constitute proof of most anything!)
With the completely redacted subparagraphs which contain the conditions under which ESPN may revoke the agreement, there is only speculation as to how ESPN may revoke. Without a methodology of how ESPN may revoke, you must apply logic to any claim (until some time when the agreement is fully disclosed) that the speculating party may have a bias. As the speculation is essentially starting with FSU fans, you should seek documented proof before believing anything they report. Equally, if other ACC school fans present speculation you should also seek documented proof. There is nothing wrong with speculation in and of itself, however, if you are to give it credence, you should have supporting evidence.
Further, the language proves FSU and Clemson would need to sue ESPN to get out of the ACC, with one exception. If FSU and/or Clemson could cause enough disruption to destroy/damage the ACC enough to the point that ESPN would no longer wish to continue the agreement and revoke their option. This tactic has failed miserably. Thus, the suits are likely frivolous. Ironically, their actions serve as proof that ESPN was not the impetus of moving more valuable properties to the SEC to make more money and dump the ACC deadweight; a fact that discounts the very basis that they "need" to change conferences, as perpetuated by many FSU mouthpieces.** And without ESPN being the impetus for FSU and Clemson changing conferences and ESPN's notice that they would extend the agreement, we can justifiably question why ESPN would destroy the ACC, especially when the ACCN has proved to be a profitable entity, making an action in which ESPN destroys the ACC and ACCN a very bad business decision.
We can reasonably conclude that most of the "information" coming from FSU and FSU related sources should be viewed through a skeptic lens. Further, when the "information" contradicts known facts, this "information" is false.
We know that that the majority of the Power 4/5 schools and likely many of the G5 schools have had their legal departments and contracted law firms search for means of breaking the agreements and GORs. All have concluded the same thing, as have independent firms looking for ways to generate new revenue. No one figured a means of defeating statutory and case law in well-resolved areas of law, namely IP, contract, and entertainment.
For another perspective on the FSU lawsuit against the ACC, see the following link and the internal links to our new ACC Member Cal:
Guest Post: FSU vs. ACC - Florida State's Amended Complaint
FSU has gone back to the drawing board to find reasons why the ACC is bad. Did they turn up anything good?
For any deeper analysis on ESPN's Option, we would need to know the actual language of the redacted portions.
*On the existence of the Option, I stand corrected. However, the major point stands that the Option is highly controlled and is not merely a whimsical decision as portrayed by FSU.
**FSU and Clemson's desire for more money remains valid, as every school wants more money; however, the claim of the "need" and ESPN as the impetus for conference change have been destroyed.
Which I think is correct.
I have seen the February 2025 deadline for ESPN to renew the contract to 2036 from many sources. Including some ESPN articles. I am pretty sure it is legit.
Everytime I see it, including in ESPN articles, the article says it is widely believed ESPN is going to renew the contract. But they haven’t done so yet. I assume this is because they want to see what the ACC looks like by that point. If it still includes FSU and Clemson, I assume it will be renewed. If those schools somehow leave, maybe they don’t renew. Or more lilkely, they renew and give the remaining ACC member a nice haircut.
It will be interesting to see what ESPN does if the lawsuits are still going on in February of 2025. I am not sure when all the lawsuits will be resolved but have heard many people say it is likely going to take a long time.
Hopefully this mess is over before Christmas.
HtownOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12,166
- Like
- 15,467
I have not seen anything substantive to support the claim of a change in the date. I would wonder why no other school has raised the matter. Further, even if Swofford had revised the date, there would have to be new consideration to enforce the revised agreement, otherwise it would not likely withstand a challenge. ESPN is not likely to play a game without at least some new consideration to protect themselves from a lawsuit, which would necessarily involve ESPN as a party. Thus, FSU's action and active avoidance of involving ESPN would indicate that the claim is less accurate than presented.
It may be that the article writers are misunderstanding the right to revoke as ESPN's renewal date of 2025, which would fit within the agreement you linked. Though, this limits ESPN's ability to revoke as Section 14 lays out in the redacted portions.
I am also reluctant to believe FSU claims because some of their claims are often facts taken out of context while others are not based in fact.
I agree, it would be nice to have this settled before Christmas, but Alford has to save face. I am not sure anyone in the ACC wants to give Alford a token, especially if they believe FSU is gone is 2036.
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 227,869
- Like
- 408,657
As always with realignment, there’s a fear of inaction. Schools worry about being left behind when others jump. But my sense from sources is that the AAC schools are being patient and deliberate — and talking to each other. They’re weighing the risks.
There’s a great deal of skepticism within the industry about the Pac-12/its consultant projecting $10-15M per school in a media rights deal that doesn’t exist yet. And the AAC exit fees would be significant — who pays them? So, we’ll see.
HRE Otto IV
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2016
- Messages
- 7,922
- Like
- 13,103
Looks like there is a tug of war between the PAC and the AAC over Memphis, Tulane, and USF. I would prefer that those three end up in the PAC. USF and Tulane IMO would grow more in the PAC, should the ACC need those two as fillers in the future.
Also looks like the MWC is offering more money to UNLV (PAC) and Air Force (AAC) to entice them to stay.
It will be interesting to see who wins these battles. We really haven't seen these in prior expansions.
Also looks like the MWC is offering more money to UNLV (PAC) and Air Force (AAC) to entice them to stay.
It will be interesting to see who wins these battles. We really haven't seen these in prior expansions.
HRE Otto IV
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2016
- Messages
- 7,922
- Like
- 13,103
Supposedly Gonzaga is going to the PAC. They still need 2 more for FB. Maybe they go for a Texas school? UNLV?
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 227,869
- Like
- 408,657
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 227,869
- Like
- 408,657
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 227,869
- Like
- 408,657
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 227,869
- Like
- 408,657
sutomcat
No recent Cali or Iggy awards; Mr Irrelevant
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 26,726
- Like
- 116,534
Here is an excerpt from one of a series of tweets David Hale of ESPN posted last week. I have included a direct link to the tweet as well.
It acknowledges the ESPN option to extend the ACC contract to 2036 must be exercised by February of 2025.
The February 2025 deadline has also been published by many other reputable sources. This is not a pie in the sky thing by the FSU crazy people
ESPN writers are not going to post references to the ESPN contract unless they know what they are writing is accurate.
This is a fact.
What's ESPN's perspective on all this?(Preface: This is based on reporting, not on any inside knowledge from ESPN.) The elephant in the room is ESPN's option which must be exercised by February if the TV agreement with the ACC is to continue through 2036. I'm not sure what incentive ESPN would have to want to see the GoR reduced but it certainly makes sense for ESPN to want an amicable solution to the ongoing legal battles with FSU/Clemson. The bigger question is whether ESPN sees a financial value in adding a bit more to the overall pot to make this happen. I've heard nothing to suggest that is imminent. I also continue to hear there's no reason to expect the option won't be picked up, but the sticking points remain safeguards on future expansion and guarantees on TV time slots and network preferences.
9:39 AM · Sep 18, 2024
·
10.8K
Views
x.com
x.com
Scooch
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 17,157
- Like
- 57,443
This just means that these schools don't buy that the Pac can land the TV deal they're promising. And they're probably correct.
Can't be in a coast-to-coast conference without the corresponding payday.
HRE Otto IV
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2016
- Messages
- 7,922
- Like
- 13,103
This is back and forth. Looks like UNLV is still open to the PAC. Which means Air Force might be open to the AAC. MWC might have to go after FCS schools.
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 227,869
- Like
- 408,657
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 227,869
- Like
- 408,657
orangefog
Certified Message Board Genius
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 18,942
- Like
- 61,916
School name ends in “State”, this checks out.
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 227,869
- Like
- 408,657
This is what 2026-27 looks like today:
| ACC | SEC | Big 12 | Big 10 | Pac 12 | AAC | MWC | CUSA | MAC | Sun Belt | Independent |
| Boston College | Alabama | Arizona | Illinois | Oregon State | Army | Air Force | Delaware | Akron | Appalachian State | Notre Dame |
| California | Arkansas | Arizona State | Indiana | Washington State | Charlotte | Hawaii | FIU | Ball State | Arkansas State | UConn |
| Clemson | Auburn | Baylor | Iowa | Boise State | East Carolina | Nevada | Jacksonville State | Bowling Green | Coastal Carolina | |
| Duke | Florida | BYU | Maryland | Colorado State | Florida Atlantic | New Mexico | Kennesaw State | Buffalo | Georgia Southern | |
| Florida State | Georgia | Cincinnati | Michigan | Fresno State | Memphis | San Jose State | Liberty | Central Michigan | Georgia State | |
| Georgia Tech | Kentucky | Colorado | Michigan State | San Diego State | Navy | UNLV | Louisiana Tech | Eastern Michigan | James Madison | |
| Louisville | LSU | Houston | Minnesota | Utah State | North Texas | Wyoming | Middle Tennessee | Kent State | Louisiana | |
| Miami (FL) | Mississippi State | Iowa State | Nebraska | Rice | Missouri St | Miami (OH) | Louisiana–Monroe | |||
| NC State | Missouri | Kansas | Northwestern | South Florida | New Mexico State | Northern Illinois | Marshall | |||
| North Carolina | Oklahoma | Kansas State | Ohio State | Temple | San Houston State | Ohio | Old Dominion | |||
| Pittsburgh | Ole Miss | Oklahoma State | Oregon | Tulane | UTEP | Toledo | South Alabama | |||
| SMU | South Carolina | TCU | Penn State | Tulsa | Western Kentucky | Western Michigan | Southern Miss | |||
| Stanford | Tennessee | Texas Tech | Purdue | UAB | UMass | Texas State | ||||
| Syracuse | Texas | UCF | Rutgers | UTSA | Troy | |||||
| Virginia | Texas A&M | Utah | UCLA | |||||||
| Virginia Tech | Vanderbilt | West Virginia | USC | |||||||
| Wake Forest | Washington | |||||||||
| Wisconsin |
If UNLV changes its name to Nevada State, then it can join the Pac. Problem solved.
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 227,869
- Like
- 408,657
Sorry. Already spoken for.
Nevada's Four-year Teaching Institution - Nevada State University
Nevada State University, the four-year teaching institution in NV. Small class sizes, great professors and a welcoming community
nevadastate.edu
