(08-21-2023 06:19 PM)seurat92 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 04:37 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 03:58 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 03:41 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 10:22 AM)b2b Wrote:  Reputable source?

No. Just a gut feeling. There's too many schools in The American and MWC that Stanford/Cal won't associate with.

If a vote to accept CalStan is happening tomorrow, why no smoke? Nobody credible has said anything. Surely there would be something.

I have no idea what’s going on. All I can do is guess. Admittedly, I can also be very ‘negative.’

If Stanford and Cal are rejected, I think they’ll do all they can to rebuild the PAC, no matter the challenge. The ‘optics’ of them joining or merging with a G5 conference would be too much for them to handle. They’ll want to show that they have enough value to rebuild. It also allows them to cherry pick the most desirable schools

I’m afraid The American is about to get raided of 4-6 members. Next year, the MWC will lose 4-6.

I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong.

__________________________________________________________
"I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong."

Hate to say this but....I hope you're not holding your breath.
Have already cited his track record. It ain't good.
He pulls off something here and it will be the 1st big thing he will have pulled off.

If teams want to leave to rebuild the PAC into basically a peer conference, then Aresco needs to put the squeeze on those programs on their way out the door. It is one thing to leave for the Big12, and a completely different thing to leave for a PAC that is just a shell of its' former self.

Someone mentioned that programs leaving early should be hit with a $50 million early exit fee. I'd bump that figure to $62.5million, but I'd take it a step further. I'd like any early exit fee agreement to require the exiting programs to schedule two home & home OOC series with remaining AAC programs within the first 5 seasons after leaving the AAC (no overlapping). So if 4 programs leave, that would provide 8 of the remaining 10 programs with quality home & home OOC series in the near future and hopefully help retain some of the AAC's media value.

That along with $250million of the PAC's cash from the exit fees, would help the AAC as we begin competing with the PAC for the 5th best FBS conference designation. Because the PAC is in a time crunch, I think Aresco has the leverage to squeeze them and try to fortify our position as we move towards the 12-team playoff. Thoughts?

(08-21-2023 06:10 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This seems like a reputable source to me. But really, the whole concept of a "Reputable Source" is kind of vague. I think to some degree, they are all guessing.

Monday Up Date - Judgement Soon.

1. Stanford, Cal and SMU should know this week if they have a future in ACC. The trio have yet to get the 11 votes needed for membership they remain 1 vote shy. Multiple news outlets are reporting if the conference can't get either FSU, Clemson, UNC and NC. State to vote YES then there's no hope for Stanford, Cal or SMU to join the ACC despite their many concessions including a tiny media rights portion they're willing to accept

https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/169...116011%2F3

UNC, NCSU, FSU, and CU have said all there is to say on this by not saying anything. Stanford needs to come to terms with it and accept their fate

(08-21-2023 06:25 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:10 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This seems like a reputable source to me. But really, the whole concept of a "Reputable Source" is kind of vague. I think to some degree, they are all guessing.

Monday Up Date - Judgement Soon.

1. Stanford, Cal and SMU should know this week if they have a future in ACC. The trio have yet to get the 11 votes needed for membership they remain 1 vote shy. Multiple news outlets are reporting if the conference can't get either FSU, Clemson, UNC and NC. State to vote YES then there's no hope for Stanford, Cal or SMU to join the ACC despite their many concessions including a tiny media rights portion they're willing to accept

https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/169...116011%2F3

Not sure what will change this week to sway the four hold outs.

The rumor mongers are spreading the idea that Cal and Stanford are proposing playing only football and basketball in the ACC and putting the non-revenue sports elsewhere. Too bad it’s not allowed under NCAA rules. If your primary multi-sport D1 conference offers a sport, you don’t have to play it, but you can’t play it in another league. Navy can do it because the Patriot League isn’t FBS for football.

Stanford can’t just put its sports in the WCC or Big West and play basketball in the ACC. They have to choose one or the other. But you still see this stuff thrown out there to give the illusion of progress in negotiations.

Football-only IS an option for them to join the ACC. But they’d have to join a league that doesn’t offer FBS football. And if you think they’d turn their noses up at joining the American, wait until you propose they link up with CSU-Bakersfield or Northridge. And the WCC are all small religious schools. I just don’t see it. You’d also have to think about whether these conferences want to give up their NCAA bids to Stanford in every sport.

(08-21-2023 06:44 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:19 PM)seurat92 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 04:37 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 03:58 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 03:41 PM)Ourland Wrote:  No. Just a gut feeling. There's too many schools in The American and MWC that Stanford/Cal won't associate with.

If a vote to accept CalStan is happening tomorrow, why no smoke? Nobody credible has said anything. Surely there would be something.

I have no idea what’s going on. All I can do is guess. Admittedly, I can also be very ‘negative.’

If Stanford and Cal are rejected, I think they’ll do all they can to rebuild the PAC, no matter the challenge. The ‘optics’ of them joining or merging with a G5 conference would be too much for them to handle. They’ll want to show that they have enough value to rebuild. It also allows them to cherry pick the most desirable schools

I’m afraid The American is about to get raided of 4-6 members. Next year, the MWC will lose 4-6.

I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong.

__________________________________________________________
"I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong."

Hate to say this but....I hope you're not holding your breath.
Have already cited his track record. It ain't good.
He pulls off something here and it will be the 1st big thing he will have pulled off.

If teams want to leave to rebuild the PAC into basically a peer conference, then Aresco needs to put the squeeze on those programs on their way out the door. It is one thing to leave for the Big12, and a completely different thing to leave for a PAC that is just a shell of its' former self.

Someone mentioned that programs leaving early should be hit with a $50 million early exit fee. I'd bump that figure to $62.5million, but I'd take it a step further. I'd like any early exit fee agreement to require the exiting programs to schedule two home & home OOC series with remaining AAC programs within the first 5 seasons after leaving the AAC (no overlapping). So if 4 programs leave, that would provide 8 of the remaining 10 programs with quality home & home OOC series in the near future and hopefully help retain some of the AAC's media value.

That along with $250million of the PAC's cash from the exit fees, would help the AAC as we begin competing with the PAC for the 5th best FBS conference designation. Because the PAC is in a time crunch, I think Aresco has the leverage to squeeze them and try to fortify our position as we move towards the 12-team playoff. Thoughts?

You’re stretching it here. You want the exiting schools to actually pay it and not fight it in court for years. My sense is you can have the games or the cash, but probably not both, and you’re not going to get that much cash. $20m per school seems about right, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

(08-21-2023 05:11 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 04:41 PM)TripleA Wrote:  MWC exit fees:

If you want to leave July 1, 2024, you have to give notice BEFORE July 1, 2023.

IF you do, the fee is $17M. If you give less than a year's notice, it's $34M. Works the same every year. July 1 is the pivot date.

That's why SDSU gave their semi-sorta notice near the end of June, thinking they were about to be invited to the PAC for 2024, and they didn't want to run past July 1, 2023 and thus have to pay $34M rather than $17M. But then, the PAC fell apart.

AAC exit fee is $10 + 27 months notice. Shorter notice than that is negotiable for more money. General negotiation to date has fallen somewhere around $17M.

The AAC negotiated early exits before, but are under no obligation to do so.

An exit for 2024 produces a new precedent. The fee will go way up and will be due a lot sooner than before. If I'm the conference my ask would begin at $50M or you can always wait until 11/27.

Yes it can go there if the PAC gets hostile attempting to raid the conference.

I agree having 4 (or more) current members giving notice of less than a year to join the rebuilt PAC on 7-1-24 is definitely a new precedent.

The prior "negotiated" rate of $17m is not going to fly but $50m is not either. I can see $30m being agreed upon.

4 members leaving would be $120m split among the AAC HQ and 11 members - $10m each. The 10 members that play both FB and BB get full shares; with Navy/WSU splitting a share 70%-30%).

The longer this draws out the most likely scenario is:
Stanford going independent

California,Oregon State and Washington State joining AAC or MWC. Most likely MWC not enough money for the distance to come to AAC.

(08-21-2023 06:44 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:19 PM)seurat92 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 04:37 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 03:58 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 03:41 PM)Ourland Wrote:  No. Just a gut feeling. There's too many schools in The American and MWC that Stanford/Cal won't associate with.

If a vote to accept CalStan is happening tomorrow, why no smoke? Nobody credible has said anything. Surely there would be something.

I have no idea what’s going on. All I can do is guess. Admittedly, I can also be very ‘negative.’

If Stanford and Cal are rejected, I think they’ll do all they can to rebuild the PAC, no matter the challenge. The ‘optics’ of them joining or merging with a G5 conference would be too much for them to handle. They’ll want to show that they have enough value to rebuild. It also allows them to cherry pick the most desirable schools

I’m afraid The American is about to get raided of 4-6 members. Next year, the MWC will lose 4-6.

I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong.

__________________________________________________________
"I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong."

Hate to say this but....I hope you're not holding your breath.
Have already cited his track record. It ain't good.
He pulls off something here and it will be the 1st big thing he will have pulled off.

If teams want to leave to rebuild the PAC into basically a peer conference, then Aresco needs to put the squeeze on those programs on their way out the door. It is one thing to leave for the Big12, and a completely different thing to leave for a PAC that is just a shell of its' former self.

Someone mentioned that programs leaving early should be hit with a $50 million early exit fee. I'd bump that figure to $62.5million, but I'd take it a step further. I'd like any early exit fee agreement to require the exiting programs to schedule two home & home OOC series with remaining AAC programs within the first 5 seasons after leaving the AAC (no overlapping). So if 4 programs leave, that would provide 8 of the remaining 10 programs with quality home & home OOC series in the near future and hopefully help retain some of the AAC's media value.

That along with $250million of the PAC's cash from the exit fees, would help the AAC as we begin competing with the PAC for the 5th best FBS conference designation. Because the PAC is in a time crunch, I think Aresco has the leverage to squeeze them and try to fortify our position as we move towards the 12-team playoff. Thoughts?

Yeah, good plan. Let's hold teams hostage to stay in the American because you're angry. Great recipe for a healthy relationship going forward.

Now we've got teams who never played a game in the AAC trying to dictate the rules.

Think about what may have made so many teams want to leave the AAC. I'll give you a chance to answer first.

EDIT: What did you six traitors have to pay the CUSA? Don't throw stones in glass houses.

(08-21-2023 06:56 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:44 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:19 PM)seurat92 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 04:37 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 03:58 PM)msu35 Wrote:  If a vote to accept CalStan is happening tomorrow, why no smoke? Nobody credible has said anything. Surely there would be something.

I have no idea what’s going on. All I can do is guess. Admittedly, I can also be very ‘negative.’

If Stanford and Cal are rejected, I think they’ll do all they can to rebuild the PAC, no matter the challenge. The ‘optics’ of them joining or merging with a G5 conference would be too much for them to handle. They’ll want to show that they have enough value to rebuild. It also allows them to cherry pick the most desirable schools

I’m afraid The American is about to get raided of 4-6 members. Next year, the MWC will lose 4-6.

I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong.

__________________________________________________________
"I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong."

Hate to say this but....I hope you're not holding your breath.
Have already cited his track record. It ain't good.
He pulls off something here and it will be the 1st big thing he will have pulled off.

If teams want to leave to rebuild the PAC into basically a peer conference, then Aresco needs to put the squeeze on those programs on their way out the door. It is one thing to leave for the Big12, and a completely different thing to leave for a PAC that is just a shell of its' former self.

Someone mentioned that programs leaving early should be hit with a $50 million early exit fee. I'd bump that figure to $62.5million, but I'd take it a step further. I'd like any early exit fee agreement to require the exiting programs to schedule two home & home OOC series with remaining AAC programs within the first 5 seasons after leaving the AAC (no overlapping). So if 4 programs leave, that would provide 8 of the remaining 10 programs with quality home & home OOC series in the near future and hopefully help retain some of the AAC's media value.

That along with $250million of the PAC's cash from the exit fees, would help the AAC as we begin competing with the PAC for the 5th best FBS conference designation. Because the PAC is in a time crunch, I think Aresco has the leverage to squeeze them and try to fortify our position as we move towards the 12-team playoff. Thoughts?

You’re stretching it here. You want the exiting schools to actually pay it and not fight it in court for years. My sense is you can have the games or the cash, but probably not both, and you’re not going to get that much cash. $20m per school seems about right, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

It's worth a shot. And, $20million isn't enough considering the damage that will be caused to our media payout due to the defections and the extremely short notice. I'd think if it were to get litigated in court for years, that would probably help provide more evidence to support why the high exit fee is justified. But we will see.

(08-21-2023 06:51 PM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:10 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This seems like a reputable source to me. But really, the whole concept of a "Reputable Source" is kind of vague. I think to some degree, they are all guessing.

Monday Up Date - Judgement Soon.

1. Stanford, Cal and SMU should know this week if they have a future in ACC. The trio have yet to get the 11 votes needed for membership they remain 1 vote shy. Multiple news outlets are reporting if the conference can't get either FSU, Clemson, UNC and NC. State to vote YES then there's no hope for Stanford, Cal or SMU to join the ACC despite their many concessions including a tiny media rights portion they're willing to accept

https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/169...116011%2F3

UNC, NCSU, FSU, and CU have said all there is to say on this by not saying anything. Stanford needs to come to terms with it and accept their fate

I thought they should know something by this past weekend. Keeps pushing back. They’re making a mistake. Chasing money in a conference with an uncertain future.

(08-21-2023 07:18 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:56 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:44 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:19 PM)seurat92 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 04:37 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I have no idea what’s going on. All I can do is guess. Admittedly, I can also be very ‘negative.’

If Stanford and Cal are rejected, I think they’ll do all they can to rebuild the PAC, no matter the challenge. The ‘optics’ of them joining or merging with a G5 conference would be too much for them to handle. They’ll want to show that they have enough value to rebuild. It also allows them to cherry pick the most desirable schools

I’m afraid The American is about to get raided of 4-6 members. Next year, the MWC will lose 4-6.

I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong.

__________________________________________________________
"I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong."

Hate to say this but....I hope you're not holding your breath.
Have already cited his track record. It ain't good.
He pulls off something here and it will be the 1st big thing he will have pulled off.

If teams want to leave to rebuild the PAC into basically a peer conference, then Aresco needs to put the squeeze on those programs on their way out the door. It is one thing to leave for the Big12, and a completely different thing to leave for a PAC that is just a shell of its' former self.

Someone mentioned that programs leaving early should be hit with a $50 million early exit fee. I'd bump that figure to $62.5million, but I'd take it a step further. I'd like any early exit fee agreement to require the exiting programs to schedule two home & home OOC series with remaining AAC programs within the first 5 seasons after leaving the AAC (no overlapping). So if 4 programs leave, that would provide 8 of the remaining 10 programs with quality home & home OOC series in the near future and hopefully help retain some of the AAC's media value.

That along with $250million of the PAC's cash from the exit fees, would help the AAC as we begin competing with the PAC for the 5th best FBS conference designation. Because the PAC is in a time crunch, I think Aresco has the leverage to squeeze them and try to fortify our position as we move towards the 12-team playoff. Thoughts?

You’re stretching it here. You want the exiting schools to actually pay it and not fight it in court for years. My sense is you can have the games or the cash, but probably not both, and you’re not going to get that much cash. $20m per school seems about right, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

It's worth a shot. And, $20million isn't enough considering the damage that will be caused to our media payout due to the defections and the extremely short notice. I'd think if it were to get litigated in court for years, that would probably help provide more evidence to support why the high exit fee is justified. But we will see.

What's "our" media payout. You had something to do with it?

Teams in the AAC can leave anytime they want to. Just a matter of how much they want to pay.

(08-21-2023 07:14 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:44 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:19 PM)seurat92 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 04:37 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 03:58 PM)msu35 Wrote:  If a vote to accept CalStan is happening tomorrow, why no smoke? Nobody credible has said anything. Surely there would be something.

I have no idea what’s going on. All I can do is guess. Admittedly, I can also be very ‘negative.’

If Stanford and Cal are rejected, I think they’ll do all they can to rebuild the PAC, no matter the challenge. The ‘optics’ of them joining or merging with a G5 conference would be too much for them to handle. They’ll want to show that they have enough value to rebuild. It also allows them to cherry pick the most desirable schools

I’m afraid The American is about to get raided of 4-6 members. Next year, the MWC will lose 4-6.

I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong.

__________________________________________________________
"I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong."

Hate to say this but....I hope you're not holding your breath.
Have already cited his track record. It ain't good.
He pulls off something here and it will be the 1st big thing he will have pulled off.

If teams want to leave to rebuild the PAC into basically a peer conference, then Aresco needs to put the squeeze on those programs on their way out the door. It is one thing to leave for the Big12, and a completely different thing to leave for a PAC that is just a shell of its' former self.

Someone mentioned that programs leaving early should be hit with a $50 million early exit fee. I'd bump that figure to $62.5million, but I'd take it a step further. I'd like any early exit fee agreement to require the exiting programs to schedule two home & home OOC series with remaining AAC programs within the first 5 seasons after leaving the AAC (no overlapping). So if 4 programs leave, that would provide 8 of the remaining 10 programs with quality home & home OOC series in the near future and hopefully help retain some of the AAC's media value.

That along with $250million of the PAC's cash from the exit fees, would help the AAC as we begin competing with the PAC for the 5th best FBS conference designation. Because the PAC is in a time crunch, I think Aresco has the leverage to squeeze them and try to fortify our position as we move towards the 12-team playoff. Thoughts?

Yeah, good plan. Let's hold teams hostage to stay in the American because you're angry. Great recipe for a healthy relationship going forward.

Now we've got teams who never played a game in the AAC trying to dictate the rules.

Think about what may have made so many teams want to leave the AAC. I'll give you a chance to answer first.

EDIT: What did you six traitors have to pay the CUSA? Don't throw stones in glass houses.

I'm not angry. Why would you think I'm angry? And, I'm not saying we should hold programs hostage. I'm just saying Aresco needs to do what he can to leverage the best deal he can for the programs that will remain. And, he might have the leverage to do that.

Personally, I'd prefer to merge the AAC with the PAC4. But if that is not an option, then I absolutely expect the AAC to do what they can to make sure the remaining AAC programs gets the most beneficial terms possible out of this deal.

I'm only giving my opinions. Sure we are still new to the AAC, but we are in the AAC.

I have no idea what UNT's exit fee for C-USA was. If it was north of $1million I'd be shocked. But, we stayed our full two years and paid whatever the amount was. We left on good terms. UNT has even scheduled OOC games with some of their programs. No hard feelings between the AAC6 and C-USA. Now the SB3 had an ugly exit.

(08-21-2023 07:34 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 07:18 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:56 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:44 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:19 PM)seurat92 Wrote:  __________________________________________________________
"I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong."

Hate to say this but....I hope you're not holding your breath.
Have already cited his track record. It ain't good.
He pulls off something here and it will be the 1st big thing he will have pulled off.

If teams want to leave to rebuild the PAC into basically a peer conference, then Aresco needs to put the squeeze on those programs on their way out the door. It is one thing to leave for the Big12, and a completely different thing to leave for a PAC that is just a shell of its' former self.

Someone mentioned that programs leaving early should be hit with a $50 million early exit fee. I'd bump that figure to $62.5million, but I'd take it a step further. I'd like any early exit fee agreement to require the exiting programs to schedule two home & home OOC series with remaining AAC programs within the first 5 seasons after leaving the AAC (no overlapping). So if 4 programs leave, that would provide 8 of the remaining 10 programs with quality home & home OOC series in the near future and hopefully help retain some of the AAC's media value.

That along with $250million of the PAC's cash from the exit fees, would help the AAC as we begin competing with the PAC for the 5th best FBS conference designation. Because the PAC is in a time crunch, I think Aresco has the leverage to squeeze them and try to fortify our position as we move towards the 12-team playoff. Thoughts?

You’re stretching it here. You want the exiting schools to actually pay it and not fight it in court for years. My sense is you can have the games or the cash, but probably not both, and you’re not going to get that much cash. $20m per school seems about right, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

It's worth a shot. And, $20million isn't enough considering the damage that will be caused to our media payout due to the defections and the extremely short notice. I'd think if it were to get litigated in court for years, that would probably help provide more evidence to support why the high exit fee is justified. But we will see.

What's "our" media payout. You had something to do with it?

Teams in the AAC can leave anytime they want to. Just a matter of how much they want to pay.

The AAC's media payout, which would certainly take a hit if 4 members left to join the PAC4. And I agree... AAC members can leave anytime. It is just a matter of how much they will have to pay.

(08-21-2023 06:52 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:25 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:10 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This seems like a reputable source to me. But really, the whole concept of a "Reputable Source" is kind of vague. I think to some degree, they are all guessing.

Monday Up Date - Judgement Soon.

1. Stanford, Cal and SMU should know this week if they have a future in ACC. The trio have yet to get the 11 votes needed for membership they remain 1 vote shy. Multiple news outlets are reporting if the conference can't get either FSU, Clemson, UNC and NC. State to vote YES then there's no hope for Stanford, Cal or SMU to join the ACC despite their many concessions including a tiny media rights portion they're willing to accept

https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/169...116011%2F3

Not sure what will change this week to sway the four hold outs.

The rumor mongers are spreading the idea that Cal and Stanford are proposing playing only football and basketball in the ACC and putting the non-revenue sports elsewhere. Too bad it’s not allowed under NCAA rules. If your primary multi-sport D1 conference offers a sport, you don’t have to play it, but you can’t play it in another league. Navy can do it because the Patriot League isn’t FBS for football.

Stanford can’t just put its sports in the WCC or Big West and play basketball in the ACC. They have to choose one or the other. But you still see this stuff thrown out there to give the illusion of progress in negotiations.

Football-only IS an option for them to join the ACC. But they’d have to join a league that doesn’t offer FBS football. And if you think they’d turn their noses up at joining the American, wait until you propose they link up with CSU-Bakersfield or Northridge. And the WCC are all small religious schools. I just don’t see it. You’d also have to think about whether these conferences want to give up their NCAA bids to Stanford in every sport.

I believe they should rebuild the PAC like the Big East model and either try to play their football elsewhere or go independent. They could build a solid west coast conference with great basketball, baseball, and Olympic sports. This allows them more flexibility in who they choose to invite. It would also be just as strong academically as they were before. It would save a ton on travel too.
For example these schools fill all the blocks, and they could add other schools later.
Gonzaga
UC Irvine
UC Santa Barbara
Pepperdine
Washington State
Oregon State
California
Stanford

(08-21-2023 06:44 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:19 PM)seurat92 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 04:37 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 03:58 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 03:41 PM)Ourland Wrote:  No. Just a gut feeling. There's too many schools in The American and MWC that Stanford/Cal won't associate with.

If a vote to accept CalStan is happening tomorrow, why no smoke? Nobody credible has said anything. Surely there would be something.

I have no idea what’s going on. All I can do is guess. Admittedly, I can also be very ‘negative.’

If Stanford and Cal are rejected, I think they’ll do all they can to rebuild the PAC, no matter the challenge. The ‘optics’ of them joining or merging with a G5 conference would be too much for them to handle. They’ll want to show that they have enough value to rebuild. It also allows them to cherry pick the most desirable schools

I’m afraid The American is about to get raided of 4-6 members. Next year, the MWC will lose 4-6.

I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong.

__________________________________________________________
"I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong."

Hate to say this but....I hope you're not holding your breath.
Have already cited his track record. It ain't good.
He pulls off something here and it will be the 1st big thing he will have pulled off.

If teams want to leave to rebuild the PAC into basically a peer conference, then Aresco needs to put the squeeze on those programs on their way out the door. It is one thing to leave for the Big12, and a completely different thing to leave for a PAC that is just a shell of its' former self.

Someone mentioned that programs leaving early should be hit with a $50 million early exit fee. I'd bump that figure to $62.5million, but I'd take it a step further. I'd like any early exit fee agreement to require the exiting programs to schedule two home & home OOC series with remaining AAC programs within the first 5 seasons after leaving the AAC (no overlapping). So if 4 programs leave, that would provide 8 of the remaining 10 programs with quality home & home OOC series in the near future and hopefully help retain some of the AAC's media value.

That along with $250million of the PAC's cash from the exit fees, would help the AAC as we begin competing with the PAC for the 5th best FBS conference designation. Because the PAC is in a time crunch, I think Aresco has the leverage to squeeze them and try to fortify our position as we move towards the 12-team playoff. Thoughts?

Regarding leaving the current AAC to join what will be a basically a peer conference, it won’t be much different than what happened when teams left the original Conference USA to join with the remnants of the Big East to form the original AAC. Back then the Big East/AAC lost the BCS/P5 designation but was consistently (along with the MWC) the strongest non-power conference. This will be even more important now that the top non power conference will still have a very good shot at the playoffs.

There is little doubt that the conference champion from a rebuilt PAC made up of the strongest AAC and MWC schools will take one of the top 6 automatic berths almost every season. They also should get a much better TV deal than the remaining MWC and AAC programs which perception-wise would fall even closer to the level of the MAC, SBC, and even the new CUSA. For these reasons it makes a lot of sense to leave the AAC or MWC to join the PAC, even if the PAC may not be looked at as strong as the power conferences.

(08-21-2023 07:39 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 07:14 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:44 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:19 PM)seurat92 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 04:37 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I have no idea what’s going on. All I can do is guess. Admittedly, I can also be very ‘negative.’

If Stanford and Cal are rejected, I think they’ll do all they can to rebuild the PAC, no matter the challenge. The ‘optics’ of them joining or merging with a G5 conference would be too much for them to handle. They’ll want to show that they have enough value to rebuild. It also allows them to cherry pick the most desirable schools

I’m afraid The American is about to get raided of 4-6 members. Next year, the MWC will lose 4-6.

I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong.

__________________________________________________________
"I hope Aresco has a trick or two up his sleeve. I’d love for him to prove me wrong."

Hate to say this but....I hope you're not holding your breath.
Have already cited his track record. It ain't good.
He pulls off something here and it will be the 1st big thing he will have pulled off.

If teams want to leave to rebuild the PAC into basically a peer conference, then Aresco needs to put the squeeze on those programs on their way out the door. It is one thing to leave for the Big12, and a completely different thing to leave for a PAC that is just a shell of its' former self.

Someone mentioned that programs leaving early should be hit with a $50 million early exit fee. I'd bump that figure to $62.5million, but I'd take it a step further. I'd like any early exit fee agreement to require the exiting programs to schedule two home & home OOC series with remaining AAC programs within the first 5 seasons after leaving the AAC (no overlapping). So if 4 programs leave, that would provide 8 of the remaining 10 programs with quality home & home OOC series in the near future and hopefully help retain some of the AAC's media value.

That along with $250million of the PAC's cash from the exit fees, would help the AAC as we begin competing with the PAC for the 5th best FBS conference designation. Because the PAC is in a time crunch, I think Aresco has the leverage to squeeze them and try to fortify our position as we move towards the 12-team playoff. Thoughts?

Yeah, good plan. Let's hold teams hostage to stay in the American because you're angry. Great recipe for a healthy relationship going forward.

Now we've got teams who never played a game in the AAC trying to dictate the rules.

Think about what may have made so many teams want to leave the AAC. I'll give you a chance to answer first.

EDIT: What did you six traitors have to pay the CUSA? Don't throw stones in glass houses.

I'm not angry. Why would you think I'm angry? And, I'm not saying we should hold programs hostage. I'm just saying Aresco needs to do what he can to leverage the best deal he can for the programs that will remain. And, he might have the leverage to do that.

Personally, I'd prefer to merge the AAC with the PAC4. But if that is not an option, then I absolutely expect the AAC to do what they can to make sure the remaining AAC programs gets the most beneficial terms possible out of this deal.

I'm only giving my opinions. Sure we are still new to the AAC, but we are in the AAC.

I have no idea what UNT's exit fee for C-USA was. If it was north of $1million I'd be shocked. But, we stayed our full two years and paid whatever the amount was. We left on good terms. UNT has even scheduled OOC games with some of their programs. No hard feelings between the AAC6 and C-USA. Now the SB3 had an ugly exit.

That opportunity was lost when Aresco decided to go to 14 teams. Why on earth would the PAC want to add 14 teams.

The PAC even told the MWC to cut it to 8 teams so they could end up at 12. Then they could go to 16, 20, or 24 down the road.

The AAC is carrying around a boat anchor. Aresco made it impossible for this conference to have any bargaining power. Now we're bloated.

The only possible option would be to have the AAC teams band together to dissolve the conference. 10-12 teams. Worst case for the PAC to make it 13-15 teams.

Then none of the AAC teams would have to pay a penny to exit. Don't be naive to think AAC teams haven't had those discussions.

(08-21-2023 07:28 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:51 PM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:10 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This seems like a reputable source to me. But really, the whole concept of a "Reputable Source" is kind of vague. I think to some degree, they are all guessing.

Monday Up Date - Judgement Soon.

1. Stanford, Cal and SMU should know this week if they have a future in ACC. The trio have yet to get the 11 votes needed for membership they remain 1 vote shy. Multiple news outlets are reporting if the conference can't get either FSU, Clemson, UNC and NC. State to vote YES then there's no hope for Stanford, Cal or SMU to join the ACC despite their many concessions including a tiny media rights portion they're willing to accept

https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/169...116011%2F3

UNC, NCSU, FSU, and CU have said all there is to say on this by not saying anything. Stanford needs to come to terms with it and accept their fate

I thought they should know something by this past weekend. Keeps pushing back. They’re making a mistake. Chasing money in a conference with an uncertain future.

Those four aren't changing their mind's and never gave it a second thought after the original decision for the ACC to not hold a vote. Stanford is acting like a spoiled kid that's never been told no. Something in me wants to feel embarrassed for their hubris but logic says otherwise

(08-21-2023 07:28 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:51 PM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:10 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This seems like a reputable source to me. But really, the whole concept of a "Reputable Source" is kind of vague. I think to some degree, they are all guessing.

Monday Up Date - Judgement Soon.

1. Stanford, Cal and SMU should know this week if they have a future in ACC. The trio have yet to get the 11 votes needed for membership they remain 1 vote shy. Multiple news outlets are reporting if the conference can't get either FSU, Clemson, UNC and NC. State to vote YES then there's no hope for Stanford, Cal or SMU to join the ACC despite their many concessions including a tiny media rights portion they're willing to accept

https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/169...116011%2F3

UNC, NCSU, FSU, and CU have said all there is to say on this by not saying anything. Stanford needs to come to terms with it and accept their fate

I thought they should know something by this past weekend. Keeps pushing back. They’re making a mistake. Chasing money in a conference with an uncertain future.

I agree. I think it is a mistake to drag this thing out even longer. But that has been an issue for the PAC.

(08-21-2023 07:42 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 07:34 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 07:18 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:56 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:44 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  If teams want to leave to rebuild the PAC into basically a peer conference, then Aresco needs to put the squeeze on those programs on their way out the door. It is one thing to leave for the Big12, and a completely different thing to leave for a PAC that is just a shell of its' former self.

Someone mentioned that programs leaving early should be hit with a $50 million early exit fee. I'd bump that figure to $62.5million, but I'd take it a step further. I'd like any early exit fee agreement to require the exiting programs to schedule two home & home OOC series with remaining AAC programs within the first 5 seasons after leaving the AAC (no overlapping). So if 4 programs leave, that would provide 8 of the remaining 10 programs with quality home & home OOC series in the near future and hopefully help retain some of the AAC's media value.

That along with $250million of the PAC's cash from the exit fees, would help the AAC as we begin competing with the PAC for the 5th best FBS conference designation. Because the PAC is in a time crunch, I think Aresco has the leverage to squeeze them and try to fortify our position as we move towards the 12-team playoff. Thoughts?

You’re stretching it here. You want the exiting schools to actually pay it and not fight it in court for years. My sense is you can have the games or the cash, but probably not both, and you’re not going to get that much cash. $20m per school seems about right, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

It's worth a shot. And, $20million isn't enough considering the damage that will be caused to our media payout due to the defections and the extremely short notice. I'd think if it were to get litigated in court for years, that would probably help provide more evidence to support why the high exit fee is justified. But we will see.

What's "our" media payout. You had something to do with it?

Teams in the AAC can leave anytime they want to. Just a matter of how much they want to pay.

The AAC's media payout, which would certainly take a hit if 4 members left to join the PAC4. And I agree... AAC members can leave anytime. It is just a matter of how much they will have to pay.

What did you have to pay CUSA?

If the 3 teams that left the AAC had to follow the MWCs' bylaws they would have had to pay around $48 million each. They also would have had to pay the full amount before they left the conference. Instead they were allowed to pay $10 million in four annual installments and the other $8 million over 10 years.

Why on earth did they get such a cupcake deal?

Speaking of which, is there a link to the AAC bylaws? I can't find it anywhere.

(08-21-2023 08:00 PM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 07:28 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:51 PM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 06:10 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This seems like a reputable source to me. But really, the whole concept of a "Reputable Source" is kind of vague. I think to some degree, they are all guessing.

Monday Up Date - Judgement Soon.

1. Stanford, Cal and SMU should know this week if they have a future in ACC. The trio have yet to get the 11 votes needed for membership they remain 1 vote shy. Multiple news outlets are reporting if the conference can't get either FSU, Clemson, UNC and NC. State to vote YES then there's no hope for Stanford, Cal or SMU to join the ACC despite their many concessions including a tiny media rights portion they're willing to accept

https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/169...116011%2F3

UNC, NCSU, FSU, and CU have said all there is to say on this by not saying anything. Stanford needs to come to terms with it and accept their fate

I thought they should know something by this past weekend. Keeps pushing back. They’re making a mistake. Chasing money in a conference with an uncertain future.

Those four aren't changing their mind's and never gave it a second thought after the original decision for the ACC to not hold a vote. Stanford is acting like a spoiled kid that's never been told no. Something in me wants to feel embarrassed for their hubris but logic says otherwise

In a way it would be better for AAC teams to get into the PAC if SMU goes to the ACC. AAC would be down to 13. Dissolving the league now means we'd only need 9-11 teams.

So if the newbs want to play hard ball. Prepare for the worst. You think the AAC would pay 34 million each to leave them?

They'll have more attractive options.