(08-11-2023 02:18 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:30 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It wouldn’t shock me at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, if Stanford and Cal didn’t like the academics of the Big 12, there’s no way they’d like the academics of the MWC.

Think of adding the following:

SDSU
SMU
Rice
Tulane
USF
UConn (FB-only)
Gonzaga (non-FB)

No network is paying for this nonsense... UConn FB only? If this is Luck's thinking, they are all screwed. I can't believe they are still in this mentality. In fact, they probably aren't, and just hired Luck to tell them what they want to hear before listening to more pragmatic offers. It's dead. I too thought they'd get B1G invites as well, perhaps at permanent partial shares, but the fact they didn't really tells you all you need to know. We were some of the few posters here overrating Stanford/Cal's prospects.

I believe there is a path to a national Magnolia League of sorts, but we are years away from that. We haven't gone hard enough in the semi-professional direction for the pendulum to swing hard enough in the other direction that such a league becomes possible again.

Well, yes, you might be right on that front, but it’s less about comparing this to a Big Ten/ACC invite and more about this option compared to the MWC, AAC or independence for Stanford and Cal.

Let’s put it this way: if Stanford and Cal are going to no longer consider academics for conference-mates in search of more TV money, then they should just join the Big 12 and forget about rebuilding the Pac-4 entirely. At least the new Big 12 has 4 of their old conference mates that also happen to be AAU members along with a 5th one in Kansas while actually paying out a good amount of TV money. To me, the main reason for Stanford and Cal to stick around and rebuild the Pac-4 compared to going to the Big 12 or going independent is to create a conference in whatever image that they deem to be desirable. Is it elitism again? Yes, but we’ve seen how powerful of a force that can be at those two particular schools.

I agree this is all about an alternative to independence for Cal and Stanford. That's the problem. It requires that all the others would have to be willing to do what's in Stanford's and Cal's best interest instead of their own. It's all about bailing those two out. At this point, realignment decisions are about self interest, not rescuing two schools who played their hand badly.

Great points. I’m sure WSU and OSU are weary of this complex with Stanford and Cal.

Ehhh I mean if I had to guess WSU and OSU probably want less to do with being in a league with Boise than Stanford and Cal do. Outside of the P conference thing Boise is a way better athletics program in the sports that matter, and have them in the same league and Boise would leave them in the dust.

(08-11-2023 02:18 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  I agree this is all about an alternative to independence for Cal and Stanford. That's the problem. It requires that all the others would have to be willing to do what's in Stanford's and Cal's best interest instead of their own. It's all about bailing those two out. At this point, realignment decisions are about self interest, not rescuing two schools who played their hand badly.

Great points. I’m sure WSU and OSU are weary of this complex with Stanford and Cal.

I mean, yes it's a problem that Stanford and Cal's best interests don't precisely coincide with WSU's and OSU's.

But out of all Wazzu's and OSU's remaining options, their overwhelming best interest is to continue to be in a conference with Cal and Stanford. So they're waiting. As they should.

(08-11-2023 02:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:54 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:30 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No network is paying for this nonsense... UConn FB only? If this is Luck's thinking, they are all screwed. I can't believe they are still in this mentality. In fact, they probably aren't, and just hired Luck to tell them what they want to hear before listening to more pragmatic offers. It's dead. I too thought they'd get B1G invites as well, perhaps at permanent partial shares, but the fact they didn't really tells you all you need to know. We were some of the few posters here overrating Stanford/Cal's prospects.

I believe there is a path to a national Magnolia League of sorts, but we are years away from that. We haven't gone hard enough in the semi-professional direction for the pendulum to swing hard enough in the other direction that such a league becomes possible again.

Bye bye PAC 4. Make your conference worst in the money sports if you grab all the academics schools that have not won anything in the money sports. I am wondering who is spearheading this move? It is not California, Washington State and Oregon. I think Stanford is trying to do this to kill any chances with any mergers with MWC who is much stronger than them now in both money sports. I think GK also put out this lie so that he can keep his job as the new PAC 12 conference.

David---its just this simple. They value academics over athletic performance. I thought they would at least throw in a token "high performance" team (like Boise) just to juice the conference value---but maybe not. Once they get 8 teams together---perhaps they may tweak the final product to improve the networks interest.

Frankly I could see Wazzu and Oregon State refusing to join this nonsense of a Conference due to the lack of $$ it would generate.

Nothing they can do will net the Pac4 rebuild Big10/SEC/ACC/Big12 dollars. The point is to create a home they can live with that produces as much or more revenue than going to the MW or AAC. I think they can accomplish that fairly easily. This is what I have been suggesting.

Stanford
Cal
OSU
WSU
Rice
SMU
Tulsa
SDSU
Air Force
Boise

Plus---Gonzaga as a non-football addition

Every school except Boise is an academically elite institution. The footprint is big--but not horrific. Ive only added one school simply for its athletic performance and TV value. The rest are academically top tier schools. I think this conference probably can net the schools something around 10 million each in TV money. It looks like they could be angling for something similar to what Ive mapped out.

You're not getting 10 million per school with this lineup, you have what 1 brand in Boise that adds media value from an athletics standpoint?

A full merger with the MWC is a much better option, more states and markets plus some of the PAC4 would beat this.

I don't understand these PAC/AAC/MWC mash-up ideas. No combination yields anything that TV executives will pay much for, nor anything close to the P4 conferences athletically. Playing Tulane and USF rather than say, Fresno State and Colorado State, is basically the same thing with extra travel.

WSU and OSU should merge the PAC shell with the MWC.

Stanford and Cal should work something out with the Big XII at a temporarily reduced share of $10M or something. Fox/ESPN would probably be on board with that and cover it.

If that doesn't work and MWC is unpalatable, then go Indy in football and place your Olympics in the WCC, Big West, or PAC/MWC.

Getting a 12 game Indy schedule with about 6 or 7 Power 5 schools would not be that hard to do.

(08-11-2023 02:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:04 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  This likely wouldn’t work because no media partner will pay any significant money for it. This would essentially be a G5 level athletic conference primarily consisting of private schools west of the Mississippi with little national following or fan base. The would be lucky to receive $10m per year at best.

Thats exactly what I think they will make---and thats more than they get in the MW (4 million per team) and more than they would get in the AAC (7 million per team). No matter who they add, there is really no path back to P5 for the Pac4---but that doesnt mean there aren't some paths forward that are better than others. To them, membership in a conference of academic peers is the main goal---and everything else appears to be a secondary concern.

I read that the contract for the MWC is for performance, the conference will get a raised in money. With Air Force, Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Utah State? They did have several games on the linear on CBS with close to 1.5 viewers than they were getting on CBS sports network which got less than .500 million viewers on average. CBS and Fox have seen that the MWC have been getting high numbers when they were not on FS1, FS2 and CBSSports Network. Adding the P4 and top AAC schools would boast the ratings more, and would get the MWC at the table on a raise until 2026, and a better tv deal in 2026. ESPN have no control of the MWC, and FOX and CBS might be licking their chops to get the merger down and grab some schools out of ESPN. It would be nice to see the tables get turned on ESPN for taken schools away from conferences that other networks show on tv.

(08-11-2023 02:06 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:53 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:49 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Well, yes, you might be right on that front, but it’s less about comparing this to a Big Ten/ACC invite and more about this option compared to the MWC, AAC or independence for Stanford and Cal.

Let’s put it this way: if Stanford and Cal are going to no longer consider academics for conference-mates in search of more TV money, then they should just join the Big 12 and forget about rebuilding the Pac-4 entirely. At least the new Big 12 has 4 of their old conference mates that also happen to be AAU members along with a 5th one in Kansas while actually paying out a good amount of TV money. To me, the main reason for Stanford and Cal to stick around and rebuild the Pac-4 compared to going to the Big 12 or going independent is to create a conference in whatever image that they deem to be desirable. Is it elitism again? Yes, but we’ve seen how powerful of a force that can be at those two particular schools.

I'm convinced that ship has sailed, especially because they just absorbed four of their old conference mates.

The Big XII is not option until TV says it is. They aren't going to turn Stanford/Cal away if TV matches the money.

Therein lies the rub. No way ESPN is going to pay for those programs to join the B12 when they don't carry nearly the same value as the teams already chosen. If anything, I see ESPN maneuvering to get them at fire sale prices.

Keep in mind that they just picked up UCF/Cincy/Houston and are paying them the same 30m as the bigger teams. 7m teams magically become 30m teams in power conferences.

(08-11-2023 02:19 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5 conference currently gets 7 million per team. That conference currently has just ONE school that has ever been an AQ or P5 team during its existence. The Pac4 has 4 schools that are current P5 members---and is looking to add two more schools that were both seriously vetted by 2 or more P5 conferences (SDSU and SMU). Thats a pretty solid start toward a 10 million a team non-power conference.

If they were "power" conference material, they wouldn't be the odd men out. Something to consider wouldn't you say?

Somehow the least valuable members of a conference that got a 25 million all streaming offer plus the like middle tier TV draws (and in some cases the lower tier TV draws) of conferences with 4 million and 7 million dollar deals are going to get something that nets at least 10 million. Makes perfect sense no chance that could fail.

(08-11-2023 01:07 PM)PredatorUTEP Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:05 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  Saw this on the Mwc board

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...289662.php

Quote:The onus is on the four remaining Pac-12 schools to ensure that expansion targets meet certain standards in terms of brand recognition and academics. Though speculation has amplified this week that the quartet could try adding four or five Mountain West teams, a league source told The Chronicle that San Diego State is the only Mountain West school that would likely receive an invite.

They are going to have to expand their horizons/stop being so snobby.

Yeah, those Mountain West teams really need to cut the attitude.

(08-11-2023 02:23 PM)WAChsenburggemeinde Wrote:  I don't understand these PAC/AAC/MWC mash-up ideas. No combination yields anything that TV executives will pay much for, nor anything close to the P4 conferences athletically. Playing Tulane and USF rather than say, Fresno State and Colorado State, is basically the same thing with extra travel.

WSU and OSU should merge the PAC shell with the MWC.

Stanford and Cal should work something out with the Big XII at a temporarily reduced share of $10M or something. Fox/ESPN would probably be on board with that and cover it.

If that doesn't work and MWC is unpalatable, then go Indy in football and place your Olympics in the WCC, Big West, or PAC/MWC.

Getting a 12 game Indy schedule with about 6 or 7 Power 5 schools would not be that hard to do.

BIG12 wants nothing to do with Stanford or CAL, why Yormark was rumored to be looking at OSU and UCONN/Wazzu. They bring nothing to to the Conference except a Pacific Time slot which OSU and Wazzu do as well, don't fit culturally and don't even do well in their own market. They'd bring on Wazzu + OSU before Calford

(08-11-2023 02:19 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5 conference currently gets 7 million per team. That conference currently has just ONE school that has ever been an AQ or P5 team during its existence. The Pac4 has 4 schools that are current P5 members---and is looking to add two more schools that were both seriously vetted by 2 or more P5 conferences (SDSU and SMU). Thats a pretty solid start toward a 10 million a team non-power conference.

If they were "power" conference material, they wouldn't be the odd men out. Something to consider wouldn't you say?

What we know is they are probably not worth 30+ million each. Its quite a leap to take from that one fact that these P4 schools are worth no more than the average G5. Much more likely their value lies somewhere between the two extremes. How can we prove that? Well---if they had no real value over a typical G5---you wouldnt have the MW and AAC fighting a cage match over the Pac4 rump. Apparently---these 2 G5's seem to think "there's gold in them there hills".

(08-11-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:30 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It wouldn’t shock me at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, if Stanford and Cal didn’t like the academics of the Big 12, there’s no way they’d like the academics of the MWC.

Think of adding the following:

SDSU
SMU
Rice
Tulane
USF
UConn (FB-only)
Gonzaga (non-FB)

No network is paying for this nonsense... UConn FB only? If this is Luck's thinking, they are all screwed. I can't believe they are still in this mentality. In fact, they probably aren't, and just hired Luck to tell them what they want to hear before listening to more pragmatic offers. It's dead. I too thought they'd get B1G invites as well, perhaps at permanent partial shares, but the fact they didn't really tells you all you need to know. We were some of the few posters here overrating Stanford/Cal's prospects.

I believe there is a path to a national Magnolia League of sorts, but we are years away from that. We haven't gone hard enough in the semi-professional direction for the pendulum to swing hard enough in the other direction that such a league becomes possible again.

Well, yes, you might be right on that front, but it’s less about comparing this to a Big Ten/ACC invite and more about this option compared to the MWC, AAC or independence for Stanford and Cal.

Let’s put it this way: if Stanford and Cal are going to no longer consider academics for conference-mates in search of more TV money, then they should just join the Big 12 and forget about rebuilding the Pac-4 entirely. At least the new Big 12 has 4 of their old conference mates that also happen to be AAU members along with a 5th one in Kansas while actually paying out a good amount of TV money. To me, the main reason for Stanford and Cal to stick around and rebuild the Pac-4 compared to going to the Big 12 or going independent is to create a conference in whatever image that they deem to be desirable. Is it elitism again? Yes, but we’ve seen how powerful of a force that can be at those two particular schools.

I agree this is all about an alternative to independence for Cal and Stanford. That's the problem. It requires that all the others would have to be willing to do what's in Stanford's and Cal's best interest instead of their own. It's all about bailing those two out. At this point, realignment decisions are about self interest, not rescuing two schools who played their hand badly.

Great points. I’m sure WSU and OSU are weary of this complex with Stanford and Cal.

(08-11-2023 02:23 PM)WAChsenburggemeinde Wrote:  I don't understand these PAC/AAC/MWC mash-up ideas. No combination yields anything that TV executives will pay much for, nor anything close to the P4 conferences athletically. Playing Tulane and USF rather than say, Fresno State and Colorado State, is basically the same thing with extra travel.

WSU and OSU should merge the PAC shell with the MWC.

Stanford and Cal should work something out with the Big XII at a temporarily reduced share of $10M or something. Fox/ESPN would probably be on board with that and cover it.

If that doesn't work and MWC is unpalatable, then go Indy in football and place your Olympics in the WCC, Big West, or PAC/MWC.

Getting a 12 game Indy schedule with about 6 or 7 Power 5 schools would not be that hard to do.

This makes the most sense, which is why it probably won’t happen.

(08-11-2023 02:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:19 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5 conference currently gets 7 million per team. That conference currently has just ONE school that has ever been an AQ or P5 team during its existence. The Pac4 has 4 schools that are current P5 members---and is looking to add two more schools that were both seriously vetted by 2 or more P5 conferences (SDSU and SMU). Thats a pretty solid start toward a 10 million a team non-power conference.

If they were "power" conference material, they wouldn't be the odd men out. Something to consider wouldn't you say?

Somehow the least valuable members of a conference that got a 25 million all streaming offer plus the like middle tier TV draws (and in some cases the lower tier TV draws) of conferences with 4 million and 7 million dollar deals are going to get something that nets at least 10 million. Makes perfect sense no chance that could fail.

Why not? 10 is a lot less than 25. Schools like SDSU and SMU, on their own, would command considerably more TV money than Utah State and Tulsa. $10M for a conference of 4 PAC schools and the cream of the G5 seems like a very reasonable estimate to me.

(08-11-2023 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:19 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5 conference currently gets 7 million per team. That conference currently has just ONE school that has ever been an AQ or P5 team during its existence. The Pac4 has 4 schools that are current P5 members---and is looking to add two more schools that were both seriously vetted by 2 or more P5 conferences (SDSU and SMU). Thats a pretty solid start toward a 10 million a team non-power conference.

If they were "power" conference material, they wouldn't be the odd men out. Something to consider wouldn't you say?

What we know is they are probably not worth 30+ million each. Its quite a leap to take from that one fact that these P4 schools are worth no more than the average G5. Much more likely their value lies somewhere between the two extremes. How can we prove that? Well---if they had no real value over a typical G5---you wouldnt have the MW and AAC fighting a cage match over the Pac4 rump. Apparently---these 2 G5's seem to think "there's gold in them there hills".

I don't think OSU and WSU without the P label are worth more than Boise.

(08-11-2023 02:24 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:06 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Therein lies the rub. No way ESPN is going to pay for those programs to join the B12 when they don't carry nearly the same value as the teams already chosen. If anything, I see ESPN maneuvering to get them at fire sale prices.

Keep in mind that they just picked up UCF/Cincy/Houston and are paying them the same 30m as the bigger teams. 7m teams magically become 30m teams in power conferences.

The point I was making is that ESPN saw the value in the four corner schools. Snatched them up in a day. I don't see them going back and bringing in CalStan as the value simply isn't there to justify it.

(08-11-2023 02:25 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:23 PM)WAChsenburggemeinde Wrote:  I don't understand these PAC/AAC/MWC mash-up ideas. No combination yields anything that TV executives will pay much for, nor anything close to the P4 conferences athletically. Playing Tulane and USF rather than say, Fresno State and Colorado State, is basically the same thing with extra travel.

WSU and OSU should merge the PAC shell with the MWC.

Stanford and Cal should work something out with the Big XII at a temporarily reduced share of $10M or something. Fox/ESPN would probably be on board with that and cover it.

If that doesn't work and MWC is unpalatable, then go Indy in football and place your Olympics in the WCC, Big West, or PAC/MWC.

Getting a 12 game Indy schedule with about 6 or 7 Power 5 schools would not be that hard to do.

BIG12 wants nothing to do with Stanford or CAL, why Yormark was rumored to be looking at OSU and UCONN/Wazzu. They bring nothing to to the Conference except a Pacific Time slot which OSU and Wazzu do as well, don't fit culturally and don't even own their market. They'd bring on Wazzu + OSU before Calford

Reports of San Diego State and Fresno State as well. SASU, FSU and Boise State would say yes to join the Big 12 at a reduced rate. The problem is that Stanford is incapable to grasp being snobbiest to other schools with the better sports that could get you the ratings would kill you. Both Luck and Nevarez will tell them the exact same thing that you need the MWC more than you would think.

(08-11-2023 02:28 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:19 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5 conference currently gets 7 million per team. That conference currently has just ONE school that has ever been an AQ or P5 team during its existence. The Pac4 has 4 schools that are current P5 members---and is looking to add two more schools that were both seriously vetted by 2 or more P5 conferences (SDSU and SMU). Thats a pretty solid start toward a 10 million a team non-power conference.

If they were "power" conference material, they wouldn't be the odd men out. Something to consider wouldn't you say?

Somehow the least valuable members of a conference that got a 25 million all streaming offer plus the like middle tier TV draws (and in some cases the lower tier TV draws) of conferences with 4 million and 7 million dollar deals are going to get something that nets at least 10 million. Makes perfect sense no chance that could fail.

Why not? 10 is a lot less than 25. Schools like SDSU and SMU, on their own, would command considerably more TV money than Utah State and Tulsa. $10M for a conference of 4 PAC schools and the cream of the G5 seems like a very reasonable estimate to me.

If it were the cream of the G5 then sure. The cream of the G5 though includes schools like Boise, Fresno, Memphis, etc. Also I wouldn't count out Tulsa from being included in the academics club makes perfect sense.

The article mentions the considerable obstacles for a rebuild including keeping A5 status, bringing in the right schools (whatever "right" is), and obtaining a media deal.

A new commissioner is required by mid-September (they named Gloria and Bob Thompson) and meanwhile the schools should determine their media shares, emergency reserve, and debt obligations. The money, depending on amount, could help pay for exit fees.

(08-11-2023 02:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:19 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5 conference currently gets 7 million per team. That conference currently has just ONE school that has ever been an AQ or P5 team during its existence. The Pac4 has 4 schools that are current P5 members---and is looking to add two more schools that were both seriously vetted by 2 or more P5 conferences (SDSU and SMU). Thats a pretty solid start toward a 10 million a team non-power conference.

If they were "power" conference material, they wouldn't be the odd men out. Something to consider wouldn't you say?

What we know is they are probably not worth 30+ million each. Its quite a leap to take from that one fact that these P4 schools are worth no more than the average G5. Much more likely their value lies somewhere between the two extremes. How can we prove that? Well---if they had no real value over a typical G5---you wouldnt have the MW and AAC fighting a cage match over the Pac4 rump. Apparently---these 2 G5's seem to think "there's gold in them there hills".

I don't think OSU and WSU without the P label are worth more than Boise.

No doubt. Abysmal market and not even the flagships schools in their state. Good luck selling that.

(08-11-2023 02:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:19 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5 conference currently gets 7 million per team. That conference currently has just ONE school that has ever been an AQ or P5 team during its existence. The Pac4 has 4 schools that are current P5 members---and is looking to add two more schools that were both seriously vetted by 2 or more P5 conferences (SDSU and SMU). Thats a pretty solid start toward a 10 million a team non-power conference.

If they were "power" conference material, they wouldn't be the odd men out. Something to consider wouldn't you say?

What we know is they are probably not worth 30+ million each. Its quite a leap to take from that one fact that these P4 schools are worth no more than the average G5. Much more likely their value lies somewhere between the two extremes. How can we prove that? Well---if they had no real value over a typical G5---you wouldnt have the MW and AAC fighting a cage match over the Pac4 rump. Apparently---these 2 G5's seem to think "there's gold in them there hills".

I don't think OSU and WSU without the P label are worth more than Boise.

And I would add Boise---but Im not sure they will.