(04-22-2024 07:48 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(04-22-2024 07:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  This pretty much kills the concept.

That was already likely to happen. I doubt the ruling will change the Pac's expansion plans. What will matter more is network money. If the Pac can secure more than the AAC/MWC, they will be able to snag the best of either/both of those conferences.

But why would you assume that WSU and OSU are worth more than any schools they could add? Even if they just merge with the MWC they probably wouldn't improve the per school payout to those schools.

(04-22-2024 07:48 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  LMAO! (Many of) Y’all - followers of the old and tired ways - are following the path that gives Pac2+MW+AAC the LEAST revenue and hope…

…QUIT WITH THE old and tired…and GO with what i say/(propose)!

That conference would logically take the AAC name, as it would truly be a national conference which contains all three service academies. Four divisions (for scheduling purposes) of 7 schools each.

Pacific: Boise St, Washington St, Oregon St, Fresno St, SDSU, San Jose St, Hawaii*
Mountain: Air Force, Utah St, Wyoming, Nevada, UNLV, Colorado St, New Mexico
Central: Memphis, Tulane, Navy*, Tulsa, UTSA, North Texas, Rice
East: Army*, UAB, FAU, East Carolina, USF**, Temple, Charlotte

* football only
** If the ACC loses FSU and Clemson to the ACC, they backfill with USF. This new AAC backfills with James Madison.

The Pacific and Mountain could function as a conference for other sports, and the Central and East could do the same.

*************************************************************

The next step would be for the B12 and ACC to merge creating four 8-team divisions:

Utah, Arizona St, Cal, SMU, BYU, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado
Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston, Kansas
UCF, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, Boston College, USF*
NC State, Miami, Wake Forest, UNC, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Duke, Georgia Tech

The divisions could function as separate conferences for all other sports.

(04-23-2024 07:51 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-22-2024 07:48 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  LMAO! (Many of) Y’all - followers of the old and tired ways - are following the path that gives Pac2+MW+AAC the LEAST revenue and hope…

…QUIT WITH THE old and tired…and GO with what i say/(propose)!

That conference would logically take the AAC name, as it would truly be a national conference which contains all three service academies. Four divisions (for scheduling purposes) of 7 schools each.

Pacific: Boise St, Washington St, Oregon St, Fresno St, SDSU, San Jose St, Hawaii*
Mountain: Air Force, Utah St, Wyoming, Nevada, UNLV, Colorado St, New Mexico
Central: Memphis, Tulane, Navy*, Tulsa, UTSA, North Texas, Rice
East: Army*, UAB, FAU, East Carolina, USF**, Temple, Charlotte

* football only
** If the ACC loses FSU and Clemson to the ACC, they backfill with USF. This new AAC backfills with James Madison.

The Pacific and Mountain could function as a conference for other sports, and the Central and East could do the same.

*************************************************************

The next step would be for the B12 and ACC to merge creating four 8-team divisions:

Utah, Arizona St, Cal, SMU, BYU, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado
Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston, Kansas
UCF, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, Boston College, USF*
NC State, Miami, Wake Forest, UNC, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Duke, Georgia Tech

The divisions could function as separate conferences for all other sports.

The MTZ exclusive divisions will always be dilutive...even in the Big 12 with brands like Utah, BYU, and CU. That's the inherent problem with geographically balanced divisions. It's the same problem the B1G has had with the B1G West division.

The most optimal thing to do is poach the top half of the MWC while leaving the rest in the dust. This is the only move that is accretive. Unfortunately, this is reality, as pleasant as your reimagined AAC would look like (and Big 12/ACC merger).

The mountain (pacific to a lesser extent) and the greater NE are simply loaded with either unpopulated states or disinterested viewers. The networks can't and won't sustain the necessary payments for those schools to remain competitive.

Promotion relegation makes a lot of sense, but what makes more sense is to simply cut the dead weight, taking 3/4 of your schools from the midwest out to the east, and another 1/4 (no more than 1/3) of your schools in the MTZ/PTZ to balance out the viewership in any coast to coast setup (the Texas schools can play west to balance things as the NBA/NHL/MLB have it).

(04-23-2024 08:44 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 07:51 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-22-2024 07:48 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  LMAO! (Many of) Y’all - followers of the old and tired ways - are following the path that gives Pac2+MW+AAC the LEAST revenue and hope…

…QUIT WITH THE old and tired…and GO with what i say/(propose)!

That conference would logically take the AAC name, as it would truly be a national conference which contains all three service academies. Four divisions (for scheduling purposes) of 7 schools each.

Pacific: Boise St, Washington St, Oregon St, Fresno St, SDSU, San Jose St, Hawaii*
Mountain: Air Force, Utah St, Wyoming, Nevada, UNLV, Colorado St, New Mexico
Central: Memphis, Tulane, Navy*, Tulsa, UTSA, North Texas, Rice
East: Army*, UAB, FAU, East Carolina, USF**, Temple, Charlotte

* football only
** If the ACC loses FSU and Clemson to the ACC, they backfill with USF. This new AAC backfills with James Madison.

The Pacific and Mountain could function as a conference for other sports, and the Central and East could do the same.

*************************************************************

The next step would be for the B12 and ACC to merge creating four 8-team divisions:

Utah, Arizona St, Cal, SMU, BYU, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado
Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston, Kansas
UCF, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, Boston College, USF*
NC State, Miami, Wake Forest, UNC, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Duke, Georgia Tech

The divisions could function as separate conferences for all other sports.

The MTZ exclusive divisions will always be dilutive...even in the Big 12 with brands like Utah, BYU, and CU. That's the inherent problem with geographically balanced divisions. It's the same problem the B1G has had with the B1G West division.

The most optimal thing to do is poach the top half of the MWC while leaving the rest in the dust. This is the only move that is accretive. Unfortunately, this is reality, as pleasant as your reimagined AAC would look like (and Big 12/ACC merger).

The mountain (pacific to a lesser extent) and the greater NE are simply loaded with either unpopulated states or disinterested viewers. The networks can't and won't sustain the necessary payments for those schools to remain competitive.

Promotion relegation makes a lot of sense, but what makes more sense is to simply cut the dead weight, taking 3/4 of your schools from the midwest out to the east, and another 1/4 (no more than 1/3) of your schools in the MTZ/PTZ to balance out the viewership in any coast to coast setup (the Texas schools can play west to balance things as the NBA/NHL/MLB have it).

The problem with that is that cutting the dead weight is very expensive. The various exit/poaching penalties in place, coupled with the reality that no combination of G5 schools is going to produce a significant amount of media revenue after the penalties are paid, makes this unworkable. These schools all just need to recognize they are better off sticking together and putting their "best of the rest" fantasies aside.

(04-20-2024 07:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-20-2024 07:27 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  I know I'm in the minority here on this point, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a PAC rebuild, with the possible exception of a full PAC/MW reverse merger, is dead in the water and has been for some time.

It seems abundantly clear to me that both OSU and WSU are holding out hope for a M2 invite and that they see that option as preferable to a PAC rebuild, even if it means quasi-football independence in the short term.

I don't think you are in the minority on this. It would make the MWC, already the strongest G5 football conference, even stronger in both revenue sports. And it's the only thing that really makes geographic sense. It just won't be P5, and won't command much more per team revenue than the MWC already has.

In addition to what you point out, I can think of at least two reasons why a reverse merger with the MW is the only possible option for a PAC rebuild:

1. Exit fees. There are no exit fees if there is a full merger. But if Washington State and Oregon State wanted to cherry pick the best candidates from the AAC and the MW, exit fees would become an expensive undertaking, particularly given the number of schools that necessarily would be involved.

2. Travel. I'm not suggesting that travel is the be-all, end-all i⁵n realignment decisions, but I do think that it is much more important than the majority of this board thinks. And it applies across a school's t athletic department. It's one thing for Rice, UTSA, Tulane, Memphis or South Florida to get their football team to Pullman, Washington for a Saturday afternoon or evening game. It's quite another to get golf or women's volleyball team there for a Wednesday evening match. Then throw in the fact that those are the team you rely upon to raise your athletic department's overall GSR rate.

(04-17-2024 10:27 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  I feel like New Mexico is being undervalued in this alignment. They have a good history with the Colorado schools and provide decent basketball cachet and are a state flagship. They are in the middle of the footprint if the PAC is considering eastern outposts with Memphis.

West:
OrSt, WSU, BSU, FSU, SDSU, UNLV

East:
AFA, CSU, NM, UTSA, UNT (or Rice), Memphis, Tulane

Why in the world would Memphis do that when it's starting down the barrel of an ACC backfill? Pitt, Cuse, Louisville, WF, etc is a way better fit.

(04-17-2024 06:57 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  



Thought it was an interesting piece as we prep for the summer doldrums shortly (picks up at 50 minute mark), but I'll save you the time.

In: SDSU, FSU, BSU, UNLV, AFA, CSU
Outside looking in: Utah State, UNM, Wyoming, Hawaii, SJSU, Nevada
Poachable: Rice, UTSA, UNT, Memphis

Pie in the sky: Navy, Tulane

No mention of USF, as we all know they have a more ideal landing spot. Nothing surprising about the pecking order here (could just be informed speculation).

Brilliant job by Aresco to retire early and set up the former RU AD Tim Pernetti as the fall guy. Looking forward to the meltdown on the AAC boards.

With the exit fees, I think it is 10 million per school, plus a scaler for each additional team, so maybe 65-70 million coming back to the 6 or however many MWC members left behind. You could then be looking at MVFC schools moving up to FBS to join them, but first things first, PAC12 is going for the full rebuild.

Anyhow, I hate all of this and am hoping nobody gets left behind, as we don't need a Judy MacLeod of the West resurfacing in another western FBS conference.

Utah State, Nevada, UNM, and Hawaii will be the last four in. Wyoming, SJSU, are out. The only path forward for Air Force is football only. No way does it make sense to add their Olympics and the resulting RPI/NET drag to a new conference. They would fit perfect in the Summit.

(04-23-2024 08:38 PM)Shox Wrote:  Utah State, Nevada, UNM, and Hawaii will be the last four in. Wyoming, SJSU, are out. The only path forward for Air Force is football only. No way does it make sense to add their Olympics and the resulting RPI/NET drag to a new conference. They would fit perfect in the Summit.

No, that's just not how the exit fee is structured, at least in the near term. It would cost a hell of a lot more to drop only 2-3 schools versus 6-7 schools.

What makes more sense is Wazzou and OreSt just go independent for a few years. On top of that, SDSU and BSU decide to withdraw and also go independent, instead of renewing with the MWC. You could also see AFA, CSU, FSU, and UNLV just drop the MWC after '25-26 and play each other as independents.

I don't think there is anything prohibiting those schools from doing that, aside from the high exit fees.

(04-19-2024 04:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 04:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 04:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I really struggle with the idea that the PAC-12 can rebuild with 4-6 MWC schools and 2-6 AAC schools and that all will be well.

It’s just too expensive. It’s going to cost a fortune to raid the MWC. It’s also not cheap to leave the AAC either. Old guard members Tulsa, Tulane, and Memphis are all well compensated with what amounts to double shares compared to the new programs. Tulane and Memphis also have a sliver of hope at getting into an M2 league so they may be hesitant to make a short term move and would rather wait for a bigger ship to come in. Rice, UNT, and UTSA might be able to make more money in the PAC 12 but they are going to have to spend money to make money.

A 12-14 member league spanning the Central/Mountain/Pacific time zones that can play games in all 4 time slots sounds great in theory but executing it is going to be pricey and require a lot of diverse interests to align.

There's a reason every attempt at a coast to coast G league has failed, there's not enough money in it. There never has been. The AAC with 3 teams that are now members of the B12, UCONN, SMU, and the rest of the OG's didn't have enough value to get the MWC schools to join in on something like that, but the 2PAC plus a combination of schools not as valuable as those that left the AAC (as proven by the fact that they got invites) are going to get the well north of 10 million TV deal the AAC never could to get a coast to coast league to happen? Color me insanely skeptical.

This would only be banks of the Mississippi to the Pacific Coast. Conceivably, if you had a division of 6-8 West Coast Schools, 6-8 schools in a Texas-centric division, plus maybe Army and Navy for football it could be profitable and travel wouldn’t be horrific. It’s the paying to escape their existing leagues that complicates matters and makes it a losing proposal.

Sure, but the AAC/Big East has essentially been trying to build that type of thing for over a decade. Basically they had Boise and SDSU signed up and tentatively in the league to go along with UCONN, UCF, Cincy, Houston, SMU, Navy, Memphis, and the other OG's, and there wasn't close to enough money there to justify it. Lets be very clear here, the collections of schools above is stronger and better at basically every metric you can come up with than the top of the current MWC and the current AAC, as proven by the fact that 4 of those schools are in or joining P4 leagues and UCONN is a very big brand itself. There was no money in that attempt, in a better TV landscape. I'm supposed to seriously believe that the 2PAC, plus what would now be the middle tier of the original AAC value wise, plus the top of the MWC that wasn't paid all that close to the last AAC deal is going to land a TV deal in a very shaky landscape a deal that massively exceeds the current AAC TV deal? Paying the exit fees isn't a problem, to join a league that actually has a "power" TV deal or close to it. If I'm wrong and this collection of schools could get close to double the current AAC deal (which is what I think it would take to make it worth the exit fees plus the other financial and logistical hurdles of a coast to coast league work) then every AAC team will want to join and I'd want ECU to try to be involved if it were possible. There is absolutely a price at which this thing could happen, I just don't see the market paying that price.

(04-21-2024 01:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  What schools get from their current alignment isn't a true indicator of their value. In general I'd wager that in a 12 team league, 3 or 4 schools represent 50% of the TV value. With MWC, it might not be more than 2 or 3.

The initial list is basically a cut the smallest budgets list. Nevada hoops I'd think would have enough value to warrant a harder look and they are in a pretty sweet spot geography-wise. Wyoming and New Mexico small population states with big land mass. Utah State, well Utah sits between Connecticut and Iowa in population, being third in popularity doesn't help their cause. Like Nevada, hoops would be the value part of the equation. San Jose is in better shape than a few years back, but if you compare their budget to say Louisiana-Monroe and adjust for local cost of living, there's more similarity than the Spartans would want to contemplate.

Over in the AAC. Out of the potential targets, I feel very confident that Memphis would jump. Let's be real, everyone in AAC with ambition is looking at the seemingly inevitable raid of the ACC as the great hope at a silver ticket to the next notch up. Unless the Tigers think the ACC situation resolves quickly and they are well positioned, they will jump as a resume polish. What little interaction I have with a couple of Tiger fans, I don't sense they give a damn about playing anyone in the modern AAC other than UAB, ECU, and Tulsa.

The SMU bailout from AAC has to leave a bad taste. Wouldn't be shocked if any of UNT, UTSA, Rice, and Tulane jumped.

Old friend who is now retired but still stays in touch with some of the real movers and shakers says that what Pac-2 wants is 10 football schools but the consultants are telling them their best revenue model is 14 football and two basketball assuming one of the two is Gonzaga. The Zags have not been interested in other proposals but St Mary's or less likely Wichita State being the other hoops might change that.

The MWC after losing the stars is an interesting scenario.

You've got Southern Utah and Utah Tech in the aspirational to be FBS, United Athletic Football Conference but neither is going to be dream date for USU, who would rate them both as even worse options from within the state than Weber State. The only FCS who can transition easily are Montana, Montana State, North Dakota, North Dakota State, and South Dakota State. After that it's Sacramento State

In FBS already, it isn't far-fetched that UTEP and NMSU would be inclined to jump. After all that has happened, Louisiana Tech would likely be more than willing to try to break out of their recent funk. Would Sam Houston and Tarleton? Certainly more palatable if one or both of UTEP and NMSU is going an La Tech too. I don't picture New Mexico thrilled about NMSU.

I would expect CUSA would make run at absorbing whatever is left of MWC.

The MWC survival plan or terms of surrender could be very interesting.

I certainly get your point that a conference's TV value is largely driven by the top brands in it's league and then drug down by it's middle to bottom. However, the value of the AAC TV deal was driven by the top "brands" that are for the most part not there anymore. When the 7 million a year on average AAC TV deal was signed it had UCONN, UCF, Houston, Cincy, and SMU as a part of that deal. If the AAC today had to go to the pure free market I'm pretty willing to agree with the general consensus that the newly constructed AAC wouldn't do close to as good as their current deal, which is why IMO Aresco did a tremendous job to keep the payouts stable for the remaining members.

Maybe I'm wrong though and the current AAC would actually be worth more than the current AAC TV deal, if the collection of Texas schools you mentioned are actually valuable enough that their inclusion in the rebuilt PAC would make that league worth enough to get that league paid well north of 10 million a year then maybe Aresco did a horrible job with both the original negotiation of the AAC TV deal and got screwed on the additions and extension of the deal. It's possible, but this math doesn't seem to math anywhere, even granting your point that the top of leagues drive TV value. If the 2PAC was worth so much money they could buoy a TV deal that much they wouldn't have gotten stuck in this position. If the now middle tier of the AAC value wise was worth well north of the original TV deal then with current power conference schools and UCONN they should have gotten well north of 7 million a year (unless ECU has negative 50 million TV value). If the top of the MWC plus the middle tier of the AAC plus the 2PAC is worth well north of 10 million a year then the AAC's forever attempts with all the valuable brands that left to complete this coast to coast conference should have worked and had big $$. Yet all of those things never materialized and were pipe dreams.

What is the variable that I'm not getting that a reconstituted PAC with lets just say the 2PAC, Boise, SDSU, Fresno, Air Force, CSU, UNLV, Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, North Texas, Rice, and Navy would be worth substantially more than what the AAC tried and failed to do multiple times with UCONN, UCF, Houston, Cincy, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, Navy, USF, ECU, Temple, Tulsa, SDSU, Boise, Air Force, and CSU? Is anyone could to like actually argue group 1 has more valuable TV properties than group 2?

(04-23-2024 08:34 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 10:27 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  I feel like New Mexico is being undervalued in this alignment. They have a good history with the Colorado schools and provide decent basketball cachet and are a state flagship. They are in the middle of the footprint if the PAC is considering eastern outposts with Memphis.

West:
OrSt, WSU, BSU, FSU, SDSU, UNLV

East:
AFA, CSU, NM, UTSA, UNT (or Rice), Memphis, Tulane

Why in the world would Memphis do that when it's starting down the barrel of an ACC backfill? Pitt, Cuse, Louisville, WF, etc is a way better fit.

If there is an ACC backfill, Memphis would pay whatever the cost to join. The idea is to put your floor in the best position it can be. If your ceiling/pie in the sky option appears then you take it and don't blink at the bill.

The ACC might not be open for backfilling for another decade. So the question is what should Memphis do in the interim. Their current options are stay as is in the AAC or try to build up a conference of PAC/MWC/AAC components.

As posted in earlier in the thread, I may be underestimating the pull of a local conference and regional conference slate for Memphis fans. Playing UAB, Tulane, Tulsa, ECU and USF may be genuinely more appealing to that fanbase. To me, the proposed PAC/MWC/AAC would be more attractive from branding and competition mindset. My opinion is that conference would have a higher floor for hoops and football.

(04-24-2024 09:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I certainly get your point that a conference's TV value is largely driven by the top brands in it's league and then drug down by it's middle to bottom. However, the value of the AAC TV deal was driven by the top "brands" that are for the most part not there anymore. When the 7 million a year on average AAC TV deal was signed it had UCONN, UCF, Houston, Cincy, and SMU as a part of that deal. If the AAC today had to go to the pure free market I'm pretty willing to agree with the general consensus that the newly constructed AAC wouldn't do close to as good as their current deal, which is why IMO Aresco did a tremendous job to keep the payouts stable for the remaining members.

Maybe I'm wrong though and the current AAC would actually be worth more than the current AAC TV deal, if the collection of Texas schools you mentioned are actually valuable enough that their inclusion in the rebuilt PAC would make that league worth enough to get that league paid well north of 10 million a year then maybe Aresco did a horrible job with both the original negotiation of the AAC TV deal and got screwed on the additions and extension of the deal. It's possible, but this math doesn't seem to math anywhere, even granting your point that the top of leagues drive TV value. If the 2PAC was worth so much money they could buoy a TV deal that much they wouldn't have gotten stuck in this position. If the now middle tier of the AAC value wise was worth well north of the original TV deal then with current power conference schools and UCONN they should have gotten well north of 7 million a year (unless ECU has negative 50 million TV value). If the top of the MWC plus the middle tier of the AAC plus the 2PAC is worth well north of 10 million a year then the AAC's forever attempts with all the valuable brands that left to complete this coast to coast conference should have worked and had big $$. Yet all of those things never materialized and were pipe dreams.

What is the variable that I'm not getting that a reconstituted PAC with lets just say the 2PAC, Boise, SDSU, Fresno, Air Force, CSU, UNLV, Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, North Texas, Rice, and Navy would be worth substantially more than what the AAC tried and failed to do multiple times with UCONN, UCF, Houston, Cincy, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, Navy, USF, ECU, Temple, Tulsa, SDSU, Boise, Air Force, and CSU? Is anyone could to like actually argue group 1 has more valuable TV properties than group 2?

I agree with everything you are saying here, but it is also too zero-sum in its logic. There are additional revenue pools with the G5 playoff spot and the potential G5 post-season tournament. So nominally, all the numbers would surpass what it was then by 2.5-3x nonetheless. Has inflation really increased by that magnitude since? Maybe, but that's still the number ESPN or CW/CBS would be willing to pay.

I would get a long term scheduling agreement with UO and UW and then make another pitch to the Big 12. Yappy would have so much money coming back to his members and they wouldn't even have to give the PAC2 or SDSU full shares. Cal could be available later as well, and that's another partial share addition in your bag.

(04-24-2024 09:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-21-2024 01:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  What schools get from their current alignment isn't a true indicator of their value. In general I'd wager that in a 12 team league, 3 or 4 schools represent 50% of the TV value. With MWC, it might not be more than 2 or 3.

The initial list is basically a cut the smallest budgets list. Nevada hoops I'd think would have enough value to warrant a harder look and they are in a pretty sweet spot geography-wise. Wyoming and New Mexico small population states with big land mass. Utah State, well Utah sits between Connecticut and Iowa in population, being third in popularity doesn't help their cause. Like Nevada, hoops would be the value part of the equation. San Jose is in better shape than a few years back, but if you compare their budget to say Louisiana-Monroe and adjust for local cost of living, there's more similarity than the Spartans would want to contemplate.

Over in the AAC. Out of the potential targets, I feel very confident that Memphis would jump. Let's be real, everyone in AAC with ambition is looking at the seemingly inevitable raid of the ACC as the great hope at a silver ticket to the next notch up. Unless the Tigers think the ACC situation resolves quickly and they are well positioned, they will jump as a resume polish. What little interaction I have with a couple of Tiger fans, I don't sense they give a damn about playing anyone in the modern AAC other than UAB, ECU, and Tulsa.

The SMU bailout from AAC has to leave a bad taste. Wouldn't be shocked if any of UNT, UTSA, Rice, and Tulane jumped.

Old friend who is now retired but still stays in touch with some of the real movers and shakers says that what Pac-2 wants is 10 football schools but the consultants are telling them their best revenue model is 14 football and two basketball assuming one of the two is Gonzaga. The Zags have not been interested in other proposals but St Mary's or less likely Wichita State being the other hoops might change that.

The MWC after losing the stars is an interesting scenario.

You've got Southern Utah and Utah Tech in the aspirational to be FBS, United Athletic Football Conference but neither is going to be dream date for USU, who would rate them both as even worse options from within the state than Weber State. The only FCS who can transition easily are Montana, Montana State, North Dakota, North Dakota State, and South Dakota State. After that it's Sacramento State

In FBS already, it isn't far-fetched that UTEP and NMSU would be inclined to jump. After all that has happened, Louisiana Tech would likely be more than willing to try to break out of their recent funk. Would Sam Houston and Tarleton? Certainly more palatable if one or both of UTEP and NMSU is going an La Tech too. I don't picture New Mexico thrilled about NMSU.

I would expect CUSA would make run at absorbing whatever is left of MWC.

The MWC survival plan or terms of surrender could be very interesting.

I certainly get your point that a conference's TV value is largely driven by the top brands in it's league and then drug down by it's middle to bottom. However, the value of the AAC TV deal was driven by the top "brands" that are for the most part not there anymore. When the 7 million a year on average AAC TV deal was signed it had UCONN, UCF, Houston, Cincy, and SMU as a part of that deal. If the AAC today had to go to the pure free market I'm pretty willing to agree with the general consensus that the newly constructed AAC wouldn't do close to as good as their current deal, which is why IMO Aresco did a tremendous job to keep the payouts stable for the remaining members.

Maybe I'm wrong though and the current AAC would actually be worth more than the current AAC TV deal, if the collection of Texas schools you mentioned are actually valuable enough that their inclusion in the rebuilt PAC would make that league worth enough to get that league paid well north of 10 million a year then maybe Aresco did a horrible job with both the original negotiation of the AAC TV deal and got screwed on the additions and extension of the deal. It's possible, but this math doesn't seem to math anywhere, even granting your point that the top of leagues drive TV value. If the 2PAC was worth so much money they could buoy a TV deal that much they wouldn't have gotten stuck in this position. If the now middle tier of the AAC value wise was worth well north of the original TV deal then with current power conference schools and UCONN they should have gotten well north of 7 million a year (unless ECU has negative 50 million TV value). If the top of the MWC plus the middle tier of the AAC plus the 2PAC is worth well north of 10 million a year then the AAC's forever attempts with all the valuable brands that left to complete this coast to coast conference should have worked and had big $$. Yet all of those things never materialized and were pipe dreams.

What is the variable that I'm not getting that a reconstituted PAC with lets just say the 2PAC, Boise, SDSU, Fresno, Air Force, CSU, UNLV, Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, North Texas, Rice, and Navy would be worth substantially more than what the AAC tried and failed to do multiple times with UCONN, UCF, Houston, Cincy, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, Navy, USF, ECU, Temple, Tulsa, SDSU, Boise, Air Force, and CSU? Is anyone could to like actually argue group 1 has more valuable TV properties than group 2?

I am incredibly skeptical P-2 can lure people from beyond the Front Range.

At least that it can lure programs of equal or greater value than say Colorado State.

I get that is purportedly what P-2 wants but what they've wanted and received haven't matched up lately.

I've talked to the actual Sun Belt people who had to listen to the P-2 pitch about a two year scheduling alliance and their reaction was, "Why would I give up a game in Atlanta or hosting ODU to play Washington State or Oregon State. Neither helps our recruiting and neither sells any more tickets.

As to AAC contract after the raid, remember that ESPN ended gaining all of the existing CUSA except WKU/MTSU/FIU/LaTech/UTEP and while AAC kept its numbers, Sun Belt got a per team bump for taking USM/Marshall/ODU from CUSA and adding JMU. Paying more 14 enough more than they were paying 10 to give everyone a raise was a decent deal.

(04-24-2024 09:22 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 08:34 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 10:27 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  I feel like New Mexico is being undervalued in this alignment. They have a good history with the Colorado schools and provide decent basketball cachet and are a state flagship. They are in the middle of the footprint if the PAC is considering eastern outposts with Memphis.

West:
OrSt, WSU, BSU, FSU, SDSU, UNLV

East:
AFA, CSU, NM, UTSA, UNT (or Rice), Memphis, Tulane

Why in the world would Memphis do that when it's starting down the barrel of an ACC backfill? Pitt, Cuse, Louisville, WF, etc is a way better fit.

If there is an ACC backfill, Memphis would pay whatever the cost to join. The idea is to put your floor in the best position it can be. If your ceiling/pie in the sky option appears then you take it and don't blink at the bill.

The ACC might not be open for backfilling for another decade. So the question is what should Memphis do in the interim. Their current options are stay as is in the AAC or try to build up a conference of PAC/MWC/AAC components.

As posted in earlier in the thread, I may be underestimating the pull of a local conference and regional conference slate for Memphis fans. Playing UAB, Tulane, Tulsa, ECU and USF may be genuinely more appealing to that fanbase. To me, the proposed PAC/MWC/AAC would be more attractive from branding and competition mindset. My opinion is that conference would have a higher floor for hoops and football.

I don't know a single Memphis fan that has any connection at all to Tulsa, ECU or USF. We have a slight basketball connection to UAB, and a slight attraction to Tulane in both sports, but our hearts (at least for older fans) still lie with Louisville, and to some extent with Cincinnati and Houston.

I do think most Memphis fans would be okay with moving to a "best of" conference, certainly over remaining in the current AAC, assuming the revenue numbers would work.

The competition level would be raised, and a one or 2 hour difference in time zones wouldn't be a big deterrent. We had a one hour difference with the majority of the AAC when we first entered.

But the real goal would remain the same. A decent ACC after any raid, or the Big 12, although the latter seems unreachable now.