(06-10-2023 11:51 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  So what is a holdup?

I am 99% sure that the Pac 12 presidents saw at least preliminary numbers. ESPN must have given their best offer long time ago.

And I understand the Pac 12 hasn't received any great offer. Based on what WSU president said, it doesn't look like the Pac would get an increase. But still I don't think all of the Pac 12 schools collectively reject all the offers. Many schools including WSU should be so ready to sign whatever the best deal they have.

So I guess there must be a few schools that are not willing to accept any offers and that must be the holdup. So who are those schools and what are they waiting for???

That offers is no longer on the table. Espn promptly sought out the big12 , after the pac12 turned down that offer. The big12 took it.

Merchant has said repeatedly, going back last year that espn’s interest in the pac12 is really low. He said a deal with the pac would be highly unlikely.

(06-09-2023 07:35 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:33 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:16 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  June 30 = GreenFreak's B-day!!!

...perhaps SDSU's 'timeline constraints' factor into all of this, along with the fact that July gets you into the 'less than a year left' in the current contract...

I am pretty sure that ANY proposed PAC deal will be CLOSELY line-itemed by the law teams of each member institution, given the recent track record of the PAC's 'deals'... ...and with that, is 2-3 weeks sufficient time to DO that?

Yes, the PAC is fully aware that should we not announce we are leaving the MWC and make the initial payment by June 30, the exit fee could double.

well, hope y'all make it to that next level without too much hassle!

Thanks, back atcha.

(06-09-2023 07:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:33 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Yes, the PAC is fully aware that should we not announce we are leaving the MWC and make the initial payment by June 30, the exit fee could double.

The problem for your school is that you don’t have a viable partner to join together as a pair. Not your problem, I get it, but if there is not consensus on the 12th school, we could roll past the deadline, or Yormark may grab you at the same price point. It bodes well for SDSU regardless, but I’m just not sure they add and go with eleven schools only. Maybe count ND Stanford as a conference game… or BYU Utah, to even out the conference records while playing a 9 game schedule. I don’t know.

The PAC would add us alone if that is the case. But, I've heard SMU is going to be paired with us. Keeping San Diego is imperative to the PAC. They don't do that, then the B12 comes in and takes SDSU and Fresno and the PAC is locked out of California south of the Bay Area. SDSU is in the largest market without a P5 school.

(06-09-2023 07:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think saying a member or two is overly optimistic. The PAC 10 works with the 10 they’ve got but once you start pulling away members, the whole thing collapses. Ariz St and Utah have to realize that it’s just a matter of time before Oregon and Washington get called up and at that point, the PAC no longer has tv value—we’re talking AAC level contracts.

Nobody knows that. Ohio State might partner with Amazon and Michigan with Apple for their own football streaming deals in 2030. That's where the money will be, sweetheart.

(06-10-2023 03:03 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:33 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Yes, the PAC is fully aware that should we not announce we are leaving the MWC and make the initial payment by June 30, the exit fee could double.

The problem for your school is that you don’t have a viable partner to join together as a pair. Not your problem, I get it, but if there is not consensus on the 12th school, we could roll past the deadline, or Yormark may grab you at the same price point. It bodes well for SDSU regardless, but I’m just not sure they add and go with eleven schools only. Maybe count ND Stanford as a conference game… or BYU Utah, to even out the conference records while playing a 9 game schedule. I don’t know.

The PAC would add us alone if that is the case. But, I've heard SMU is going to be paired with us. Keeping San Diego is imperative to the PAC. They don't do that, then the B12 comes in and takes SDSU and Fresno and the PAC is locked out of California south of the Bay Area. SDSU is in the largest market without a P5 school.

The Big XII or the PAC arent adding Fresno St. Zero chance. The Big XII would add Memphis or USF before the Bulldogs. Come on!

(06-09-2023 08:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:35 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:33 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:16 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  June 30 = GreenFreak's B-day!!!

...perhaps SDSU's 'timeline constraints' factor into all of this, along with the fact that July gets you into the 'less than a year left' in the current contract...

I am pretty sure that ANY proposed PAC deal will be CLOSELY line-itemed by the law teams of each member institution, given the recent track record of the PAC's 'deals'... ...and with that, is 2-3 weeks sufficient time to DO that?

Yes, the PAC is fully aware that should we not announce we are leaving the MWC and make the initial payment by June 30, the exit fee could double.

well, hope y'all make it to that next level without too much hassle!

I second that. Realignment is a lot of fun for some of us, but it's not much fun when you're stuck waiting and doubt starts to creep in. SDSU is fully deserving of the P5 and I hope to see them in the club very soon.

This has been a process that began some 40 years ago. People do not understand how the UC schools have hamstrung the CSU schools academically. No one in the CSU system comes close to SDSU when it comes to research spending and awarding Phds. We are fortunate that UCSD has been a willing partner in the latter. SDSU has had an acceptance rate in the 30s for over a decade now. It is not an easy school to get in. The campus expansion will allow SDSU to increase their student population to 50K and allow them to devote more of their main campus towards academics, rather than housing.

Since losing the Chargers everything has gone great. We built a stadium on time and under budget, that doesn't happen here doing something the Chargers said "no" to. The project has gained popularity over time as well. One of the things the PAC is interested is the "Innovation District" at the new campus. Our research capabilities will increase significantly with that. Already partnering with Qualcomm there and if Apple gets the PAC media deal - well who doesn't want to be associated with a company with $2.8 trillion market capitalization and a leader in the tech industry. We just got a MSL team because of the new stadium. Two years ago San Diego was #5 on the expansion list. Along with that will be a "Right to Dream" campus which will make San Diego the leader in youth soccer in the nation.

(06-09-2023 10:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 10:30 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 08:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 08:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:35 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  well, hope y'all make it to that next level without too much hassle!

I second that. Realignment is a lot of fun for some of us, but it's not much fun when you're stuck waiting and doubt starts to creep in. SDSU is fully deserving of the P5 and I hope to see them in the club very soon.

Washington ST. and Oregon ST. are the ones worried. SDSU at worst ends up in the same place they are now. Similarly, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse and Pitt have to be nervous about the ACC in the next decade.

SDSU ending up in the same place as they are now would be a bad thing. They didn't build Snapdragon Stadium to remain Boise's lapdog or be playmates with Wyoming and Air Force.

They built the stadium because the Chargers (edit) were leaving and they would have no place at all to play.

They bought the land for a $3B campus expansion which includes a stadium, the only FBS qualifying stadium in a county of 3.1M. That also brings in the NWSL, MSL, and profession rugby in. We have Manchester United playing a friendly here in July. Mexico is playing against Cameroon there today. Stadium will be packed. The stadium is generating profits even before the MSL comes here and ADs from around the country have come to see what we are doing. SDSU had always wanted it's own stadium and, when the chargers left, they had an opportunity to buy the MV site. They won voter approval by a large margin. Chargers were offered over $900M to stay here before they even had to dip into their pockets and still chose to leave. They have little following in LA. However, what SDSU is doing in Mission Valley dwarfs the amount of income the Chargers would have brought in.

(06-10-2023 12:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 11:02 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 10:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 10:30 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 08:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  Washington ST. and Oregon ST. are the ones worried. SDSU at worst ends up in the same place they are now. Similarly, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse and Pitt have to be nervous about the ACC in the next decade.

SDSU ending up in the same place as they are now would be a bad thing. They didn't build Snapdragon Stadium to remain Boise's lapdog or be playmates with Wyoming and Air Force.

They built the stadium because the Padres were leaving and they would have no place at all to play.

I think you meant the Chargers. But a new stadium wasn't constructed with the goal of metely staying in the MWC.

Corrected to the Chargers. I was also thinking about the Padres not being willing to do the changes to Petco needed for college football.

You do understand that the Holiday Bowl is now played at Petco, right? They made the changes to allow for football there but SDSU wanted its own stadium.

(06-10-2023 07:13 AM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Judging by the Washington State meeting. No deal is even close. He only talked projected numbers. If a deal was close you would at least know the range of the deal financially.

What? Here is what the Wazzu president said:

Quote:But Schulz also offered this comment about media revenue: “At least the projections (athletic director) Pat Chun and I and others have seen, I’m not sure that it will be a lot larger than we saw in the past, (and) it shouldn’t be smaller than in the past. It may be fairly flat.”

As each school in the PAC earned about $32M from the media rights package in 2022

I think its fair to assume it is going to be around that number initially.

(06-10-2023 11:57 AM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  

(06-10-2023 11:51 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  So what is a holdup?

I am 99% sure that the Pac 12 presidents saw at least preliminary numbers. ESPN must have given their best offer long time ago.

And I understand the Pac 12 hasn't received any great offer. Based on what WSU president said, it doesn't look like the Pac would get an increase. But still I don't think all of the Pac 12 schools collectively reject all the offers. Many schools including WSU should be so ready to sign whatever the best deal they have.

So I guess there must be a few schools that are not willing to accept any offers and that must be the holdup. So who are those schools and what are they waiting for???

...remember that the B1G has 'vetted and petted' UO and Udub... and I figure Stanford may get a serious look as well, and with that, you might as well get the quartet with the Golden Bears...

And they value UW more than UO. The B1G just turned down Cal in December.

(06-10-2023 01:02 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(06-10-2023 11:51 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  So what is a holdup?

I am 99% sure that the Pac 12 presidents saw at least preliminary numbers. ESPN must have given their best offer long time ago.

And I understand the Pac 12 hasn't received any great offer. Based on what WSU president said, it doesn't look like the Pac would get an increase. But still I don't think all of the Pac 12 schools collectively reject all the offers. Many schools including WSU should be so ready to sign whatever the best deal they have.

So I guess there must be a few schools that are not willing to accept any offers and that must be the holdup. So who are those schools and what are they waiting for???

That offers is no longer on the table. Espn promptly sought out the big12 , after the pac12 turned down that offer. The big12 took it.

Merchant has said repeatedly, going back last year that espn’s interest in the pac12 is really low. He said a deal with the pac would be highly unlikely.

ESPN will likely want a few games, they are a sports network for the record. It appears that Apple will include other linear partners to satisfy that component of the media deal.

(06-10-2023 03:12 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-10-2023 03:03 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:33 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Yes, the PAC is fully aware that should we not announce we are leaving the MWC and make the initial payment by June 30, the exit fee could double.

The problem for your school is that you don’t have a viable partner to join together as a pair. Not your problem, I get it, but if there is not consensus on the 12th school, we could roll past the deadline, or Yormark may grab you at the same price point. It bodes well for SDSU regardless, but I’m just not sure they add and go with eleven schools only. Maybe count ND Stanford as a conference game… or BYU Utah, to even out the conference records while playing a 9 game schedule. I don’t know.

The PAC would add us alone if that is the case. But, I've heard SMU is going to be paired with us. Keeping San Diego is imperative to the PAC. They don't do that, then the B12 comes in and takes SDSU and Fresno and the PAC is locked out of California south of the Bay Area. SDSU is in the largest market without a P5 school.

The Big XII or the PAC arent adding Fresno St. Zero chance. The Big XII would add Memphis or USF before the Bulldogs. Come on!

The B12 would only add Fresno St if SDSU was included and they don't get any PAC schools. You don't come out West for a game every other week. That said, I don't think the B12 would add Fresno alone, or paired with UNLV.

I have never even implied that the PAC would add Fresno. Their academics are even close to making the cut there.

(06-10-2023 03:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-10-2023 12:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 11:02 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 10:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 10:30 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  SDSU ending up in the same place as they are now would be a bad thing. They didn't build Snapdragon Stadium to remain Boise's lapdog or be playmates with Wyoming and Air Force.

They built the stadium because the Padres were leaving and they would have no place at all to play.

I think you meant the Chargers. But a new stadium wasn't constructed with the goal of metely staying in the MWC.

Corrected to the Chargers. I was also thinking about the Padres not being willing to do the changes to Petco needed for college football.

You do understand that the Holiday Bowl is now played at Petco, right? They made the changes to allow for football there but SDSU wanted its own stadium.

Petco Park capacity for the Holiday Bowl
Up to 50,000...
https://go.sandiegouniontribune.com/petc...y-bowl/p/1

Snapdragon Stadium capacity for NCAA Division I FBS college football
(Home of the San Diego State Aztecs of the Mountain West Conference)
35,000-seat stadium...
*Snapdragon Stadium was designed to be expandable to a capacity of 55,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_Stadium

Holiday Bowl could migrate to Snapdragon Stadium if/when Snapdragon Stadium is expanded to 55K...

(06-10-2023 03:21 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 10:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 10:30 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 08:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 08:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I second that. Realignment is a lot of fun for some of us, but it's not much fun when you're stuck waiting and doubt starts to creep in. SDSU is fully deserving of the P5 and I hope to see them in the club very soon.

Washington ST. and Oregon ST. are the ones worried. SDSU at worst ends up in the same place they are now. Similarly, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse and Pitt have to be nervous about the ACC in the next decade.

SDSU ending up in the same place as they are now would be a bad thing. They didn't build Snapdragon Stadium to remain Boise's lapdog or be playmates with Wyoming and Air Force.

They built the stadium because the Chargers (edit) were leaving and they would have no place at all to play.

They bought the land for a $3B campus expansion which includes a stadium, the only FBS qualifying stadium in a county of 3.1M. That also brings in the NWSL, MSL, and profession rugby in. We have Manchester United playing a friendly here in July. Mexico is playing against Cameroon there today. Stadium will be packed. The stadium is generating profits even before the MSL comes here and ADs from around the country have come to see what we are doing. SDSU had always wanted it's own stadium and, when the chargers left, they had an opportunity to buy the MV site. They won voter approval by a large margin. Chargers were offered over $900M to stay here before they even had to dip into their pockets and still chose to leave. They have little following in LA. However, what SDSU is doing in Mission Valley dwarfs the amount of income the Chargers would have brought in.

Measure E: Better known as SoccerCity, the ballot measure from La Jolla-based private investment firm FS Investors took shape as the Chargers prepared to relocate to Los Angeles. The group’s stated intent is to bring a Major League Soccer franchise to San Diego. FS Investors and SDSU, under then president Elliot Hirschman, were originally on the same team and in talks to build a joint-use professional soccer and college football stadium at the Mission Valley site. The relationship soured, however, after FS Investors announced its stadium initiative in January 2017, with the sides disagreeing over design and land-control issues. The SoccerCity group pressed forward with a successful signature drive in March 2017 and sought to go before voters in a special election. Instead, City Council voted in June of last year to send the proposal to voters this November.

The initiative would allow, but not require, a stadium for a professional soccer team, or a joint-use football and soccer stadium.

Measure G: The SDSU West initiative — spearheaded by Jack McGrory, former city manager and past chairman of SDSU’s Campanile Foundation Board — came to be as the university’s relationship with FS Investors fell apart in early 2017. By June of that year, SDSU was publicly talking about pursuing stadium alternatives. In September of 2017 a newly formed group of 24 university supporters, known as “Friends of SDSU,” announced the SDSU West ballot initiative drive, which proved successful. City Council voted to send measure to the November ballot in March of this year.

Proposes the sale of 132 acres at the Mission Valley stadium site for public, government or commercial purposes that promote the university’s higher education mission. Those purposes could include academic facilities, a stadium, parks, student and faculty housing, retail and hotels.

The Mission Valley stadium ballot measures explained.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/bus...story.html

Measure G: The SDSU West initiative ended up doing what the competing ballot measure Measure E: Better known as SoccerCity wanted to...bring MLS soccer to San Diego...and a whole lot more...as mentioned above...all play at Snapdragon Stadium...
Major League Soccer (MLS) - SAN DIEGO FC (working title)
National Womens Soccer League (NWSL) - SAN DIEGO WAVE FC
Major League Rugby (MLR) SAN DIEGO LEGION

I voted for measure G, golfer. Better to have that land administered by the University and their partners vs some private firm.

(06-10-2023 03:12 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-10-2023 03:03 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:33 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Yes, the PAC is fully aware that should we not announce we are leaving the MWC and make the initial payment by June 30, the exit fee could double.

The problem for your school is that you don’t have a viable partner to join together as a pair. Not your problem, I get it, but if there is not consensus on the 12th school, we could roll past the deadline, or Yormark may grab you at the same price point. It bodes well for SDSU regardless, but I’m just not sure they add and go with eleven schools only. Maybe count ND Stanford as a conference game… or BYU Utah, to even out the conference records while playing a 9 game schedule. I don’t know.

The PAC would add us alone if that is the case. But, I've heard SMU is going to be paired with us. Keeping San Diego is imperative to the PAC. They don't do that, then the B12 comes in and takes SDSU and Fresno and the PAC is locked out of California south of the Bay Area. SDSU is in the largest market without a P5 school.

The Big XII or the PAC arent adding Fresno St. Zero chance. The Big XII would add Memphis or USF before the Bulldogs. Come on!

Or UConn, Boise, UNLV.

(06-10-2023 03:26 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-10-2023 07:13 AM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Judging by the Washington State meeting. No deal is even close. He only talked projected numbers. If a deal was close you would at least know the range of the deal financially.

What? Here is what the Wazzu president said:

Quote:But Schulz also offered this comment about media revenue: “At least the projections (athletic director) Pat Chun and I and others have seen, I’m not sure that it will be a lot larger than we saw in the past, (and) it shouldn’t be smaller than in the past. It may be fairly flat.”

As each school in the PAC earned about $32M from the media rights package in 2022

I think its fair to assume it is going to be around that number initially.

I was unable to draw any conclusions from what he said. He could have just said “I don’t know”.

(06-10-2023 03:28 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-10-2023 11:57 AM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  

(06-10-2023 11:51 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  So what is a holdup?

I am 99% sure that the Pac 12 presidents saw at least preliminary numbers. ESPN must have given their best offer long time ago.

And I understand the Pac 12 hasn't received any great offer. Based on what WSU president said, it doesn't look like the Pac would get an increase. But still I don't think all of the Pac 12 schools collectively reject all the offers. Many schools including WSU should be so ready to sign whatever the best deal they have.

So I guess there must be a few schools that are not willing to accept any offers and that must be the holdup. So who are those schools and what are they waiting for???

...remember that the B1G has 'vetted and petted' UO and Udub... and I figure Stanford may get a serious look as well, and with that, you might as well get the quartet with the Golden Bears...

And they value UW more than UO. The B1G just turned down Cal in December.

Do they? I heard that the original deal was for USC and Oregon.

(06-10-2023 03:34 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-10-2023 03:12 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-10-2023 03:03 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2023 07:33 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Yes, the PAC is fully aware that should we not announce we are leaving the MWC and make the initial payment by June 30, the exit fee could double.

The problem for your school is that you don’t have a viable partner to join together as a pair. Not your problem, I get it, but if there is not consensus on the 12th school, we could roll past the deadline, or Yormark may grab you at the same price point. It bodes well for SDSU regardless, but I’m just not sure they add and go with eleven schools only. Maybe count ND Stanford as a conference game… or BYU Utah, to even out the conference records while playing a 9 game schedule. I don’t know.

The PAC would add us alone if that is the case. But, I've heard SMU is going to be paired with us. Keeping San Diego is imperative to the PAC. They don't do that, then the B12 comes in and takes SDSU and Fresno and the PAC is locked out of California south of the Bay Area. SDSU is in the largest market without a P5 school.

The Big XII or the PAC arent adding Fresno St. Zero chance. The Big XII would add Memphis or USF before the Bulldogs. Come on!

The B12 would only add Fresno St if SDSU was included and they don't get any PAC schools. You don't come out West for a game every other week. That said, I don't think the B12 would add Fresno alone, or paired with UNLV.

I have never even implied that the PAC would add Fresno. Their academics are even close to making the cut there.

Fresno’s academics aren’t even close to Memphis’ academics. I’m not sure about their other rankings, but their average SAT is under 1000.

For fun and with no personal information I want to throw out a date for everyone to watch, June 27th. It's the beginning of the NCAA dead period and 3 days before the June 30th "Deadline". It's also a Tuesday, Lol. Come, go, leave, stay, expansion, contraction, new TV deal or none, I think we should all watch for news on June 27th from the PAC the 4c's and SDSU.

We'll see