Jump to content
Did I hear a WOOSH?

Conference Realignment thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Aztec1984 said:

OK, but the money for travel to prohibited states must come from private sources, donors. Do not donors have a budget/limit they follow? If they have to donate to allow the sports teams to travel won't that have an affect somewhere else?  Say I give SDSU $10K per year for their athletics program and they say then have need for me to donate another $2K for travel expenses, am I obligated to give that to them if $10K is what works, economically, for me?

SDSU doesn't quite have the money in alumni as UCLA or Cal.

The travel to prohibited states can not be paid by state funds... anything else is fine... meaning any other revenues sources (including TV contract revenue, gate/season ticket revenue, or donations...admittedly I don't know where tuition fees fall in this).   

As I mentioned they don't go out and ask for extra donations for this type of travel they just separate the funds ahead of time (accounting).   They have travel budgets and can spend the budget however they like.  It's not extra travel (unless it's a bowl game I suppose) so they don't need extra money.

It just isn't a problem for the sports teams.. all of the UC and CSUs sports teams travel to these prohibited states all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2023 at 8:51 PM, SDSUfan said:

The travel prohibition applies to state agencies, departments, boards, authorities, and commissions, including an agency, department, board, authority, or commission of the University of California, the Board of Regents of the University of California, and the California State University. (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subd. (b).)

 

Doesn't apply to athletics.

https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887

However tuition paid by students is considered “state funds”. And SDSU students pay a good sum in “tuition” that is directly appropriated to the athletic department. It is a significant sum and that money is not allowed to be used to provide travel to the states implicated.

The entire policy is misguided, highly unlikely to produce the desired outcome, and could be better effectuated through different means but that is a debate better suited for the OT board, which I will not waste my time partaking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2023 at 10:11 AM, Aztec1984 said:

Again, that is what the PAC commissioner has said, more than once in fact. I am sure the parties involved have discussed what the value of adding SDSU, or any other schools being mentioned, would be. You have to remember, the PAC, via UCLA and USC, already claim the San Diego market - 1.1M TV households. When those schools leave they lose that market. PAC needs to stop the bleeding.

Yea but I just don’t believe what he is saying. I don’t believe the Pac-12 is going to sign a 6 year deal for its 10 schools then turn around and look at new schools, forcing a renegotiation of a relatively short TV deal. I don’t believe the Pac-12 is going to go through the trouble of negotiating a payout structure that includes SDSU without adding SDSU right as the deal is agreed to and made public. Either they add SDSU right before or right as the deal is announced, or it’s not happening in the immediate future.
 

If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. As I’ve said before, I think the Pac-12 is making a mistake if they don’t add SDSU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2023 at 3:57 PM, namssa said:

Nonsense.  The BIG10 doesn't have a pro rata clause for any school G5 or P5 except for Notre Dame.  But if Oregon and Washington were to be added they would enter into good faith negotiations as the contract stipulates.  The SEC didn't have a pro rata clause, but they added Texas and OU anyway.  Same goes with the BIG12 contract.  Now I don't know what those numbers would amount to and but again, if the PAC late night games disappear or are greatly reduced there will be a void in late night games that west coast school like SDSU, BYU and FSU could fill.  

When was the last time a power conference signed a new, comprehensive, TV deal and then within a year expanded? The last few realignment cycles have followed a predictable trend; conferences expand, they sign new deals, then the dust settles and there is stability until those deals get close to expiring.
 

Could conferences do something different? Uh, obviously. But, why? It’s clear now that the B1G isn’t poaching any other schools and that nobody is leaving for the Big 12 during this cycle, so it’s not like they have to sign a deal ASAP to prevent the conference from collapsing. So, what is the point of doing the deal first and then adding SDSU? Why not add them before or as they sign the deal? What is the benefit to the Pac-12 if they buck the trend power conferences (themselves included) have followed the last 15 or so years? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 8:20 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

When was the last time a power conference signed a new, comprehensive, TV deal and then within a year expanded? The last few realignment cycles have followed a predictable trend; conferences expand, they sign new deals, then the dust settles and there is stability until those deals get close to expiring.
 

Could conferences do something different? Uh, obviously. But, why? It’s clear now that the B1G isn’t poaching any other schools and that nobody is leaving for the Big 12 during this cycle, so it’s not like they have to sign a deal ASAP to prevent the conference from collapsing. So, what is the point of doing the deal first and then adding SDSU? Why not add them before or as they sign the deal? What is the benefit to the Pac-12 if they buck the trend power conferences (themselves included) have followed the last 15 or so years? 

The last time a power conference signed a new, comprehensive TV deal then expanded within a year was when SEC signed a deal then 6 months later expanded with Texas and OU.  That is less than 2 years ago.  As far as the PAC goes this time around, the media negotiations will include discussions and options for expansion.  It kind of goes hand in hand.  One may be announced first but the other will occur very shortly after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 9:20 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

When was the last time a power conference signed a new, comprehensive, TV deal and then within a year expanded? The last few realignment cycles have followed a predictable trend; conferences expand, they sign new deals, then the dust settles and there is stability until those deals get close to expiring.
 

Could conferences do something different? Uh, obviously. But, why? It’s clear now that the B1G isn’t poaching any other schools and that nobody is leaving for the Big 12 during this cycle, so it’s not like they have to sign a deal ASAP to prevent the conference from collapsing. So, what is the point of doing the deal first and then adding SDSU? Why not add them before or as they sign the deal? What is the benefit to the Pac-12 if they buck the trend power conferences (themselves included) have followed the last 15 or so years? 

So that Kliavkoff doesn't have to keep answering expansion questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wilner's new Q&A this afternoon:

 

It has long been held that the biggest impediment to Pac-12 success in the College Football Playoff is defensive line play. What options are out there for recruiting top talent at that position? Is opening new recruiting areas a consideration in Pac-12 expansion? — @jlahaye76

It is, and we can answer that question with three letters: S-M-U.

The conference is seriously considering adding the Mustangs for a variety of reasons that include access to the Dallas market for media dollars and recruiting.

With regard to defensive linemen in particular, the Pac-12 clearly needs help. It’s an essential position but in limited supply within the conference footprint.

That’s not the case in Texas.

The Hotline tallied the number of blue-chip defensive line prospects (four- or five-star ratings) in both Texas and California over the past three recruiting cycles, according to the 247 Sports database.

The Lone Star State has produced 33 blue chippers, the Golden State just 12.

(And that number, like California’s water supply, appears to be shrinking.)

Granted, there is more competition for prospects in Texas than California. But access to the marketplace through a campus in the heart of the DFW metroplex cannot hurt.

At least some university presidents are aware of the need to improve recruiting and — for that and other reasons — have become intrigued by the prospect of adding SMU.

 

You think Fresno State to the Big 12 is more likely than Fresno State to the Pac-12? — @lilcmac5

I do, indeed.

The Bulldogs are a better fit in the Big 12 institutionally and would help the conference gain a footprint in the Pacific Time Zone.

They bring access to a talent-rich region and a top-25 media market — if Sacramento is included in Fresno’s DMA — and they would create more Big 12 kickoff opportunities in the 7:30 p.m. (PT) window.

(Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark has made no secret of his desire for a West Coast campus.)

At the same time, the Hotline hasn’t sensed much momentum inside the Pac-12 for adding the Bulldogs. We see San Diego State as the priority among California schools.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/01/06/hotline-mailbag-smus-value-in-expansion-fresno-states-future-asus-revenue-edge-cals-woes-and-more/

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 2:47 PM, FresnoFacts said:

Wilner's new Q&A this afternoon:

 

It has long been held that the biggest impediment to Pac-12 success in the College Football Playoff is defensive line play. What options are out there for recruiting top talent at that position? Is opening new recruiting areas a consideration in Pac-12 expansion? — @jlahaye76

It is, and we can answer that question with three letters: S-M-U.

The conference is seriously considering adding the Mustangs for a variety of reasons that include access to the Dallas market for media dollars and recruiting.

With regard to defensive linemen in particular, the Pac-12 clearly needs help. It’s an essential position but in limited supply within the conference footprint.

That’s not the case in Texas.

The Hotline tallied the number of blue-chip defensive line prospects (four- or five-star ratings) in both Texas and California over the past three recruiting cycles, according to the 247 Sports database.

The Lone Star State has produced 33 blue chippers, the Golden State just 12.

(And that number, like California’s water supply, appears to be shrinking.)

Granted, there is more competition for prospects in Texas than California. But access to the marketplace through a campus in the heart of the DFW metroplex cannot hurt.

At least some university presidents are aware of the need to improve recruiting and — for that and other reasons — have become intrigued by the prospect of adding SMU.

 

You think Fresno State to the Big 12 is more likely than Fresno State to the Pac-12? — @lilcmac5

I do, indeed.

The Bulldogs are a better fit in the Big 12 institutionally and would help the conference gain a footprint in the Pacific Time Zone.

They bring access to a talent-rich region and a top-25 media market — if Sacramento is included in Fresno’s DMA — and they would create more Big 12 kickoff opportunities in the 7:30 p.m. (PT) window.

(Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark has made no secret of his desire for a West Coast campus.)

At the same time, the Hotline hasn’t sensed much momentum inside the Pac-12 for adding the Bulldogs. We see San Diego State as the priority among California schools.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/01/06/hotline-mailbag-smus-value-in-expansion-fresno-states-future-asus-revenue-edge-cals-woes-and-more/

There's a poster here who is the kind of person Kurt Cobain was referring to when he said "I wish I was like you, easily amused."

Props to you and me for providing him with cheap thrills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that SMU gives anybody access to DFW is pretty funny.  

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 3:47 PM, FresnoFacts said:

Wilner's new Q&A this afternoon:

 

It has long been held that the biggest impediment to Pac-12 success in the College Football Playoff is defensive line play. What options are out there for recruiting top talent at that position? Is opening new recruiting areas a consideration in Pac-12 expansion? — @jlahaye76

It is, and we can answer that question with three letters: S-M-U.

The conference is seriously considering adding the Mustangs for a variety of reasons that include access to the Dallas market for media dollars and recruiting.

With regard to defensive linemen in particular, the Pac-12 clearly needs help. It’s an essential position but in limited supply within the conference footprint.

That’s not the case in Texas.

The Hotline tallied the number of blue-chip defensive line prospects (four- or five-star ratings) in both Texas and California over the past three recruiting cycles, according to the 247 Sports database.

The Lone Star State has produced 33 blue chippers, the Golden State just 12.

(And that number, like California’s water supply, appears to be shrinking.)

Granted, there is more competition for prospects in Texas than California. But access to the marketplace through a campus in the heart of the DFW metroplex cannot hurt.

At least some university presidents are aware of the need to improve recruiting and — for that and other reasons — have become intrigued by the prospect of adding SMU.

 

You think Fresno State to the Big 12 is more likely than Fresno State to the Pac-12? — @lilcmac5

I do, indeed.

The Bulldogs are a better fit in the Big 12 institutionally and would help the conference gain a footprint in the Pacific Time Zone.

They bring access to a talent-rich region and a top-25 media market — if Sacramento is included in Fresno’s DMA — and they would create more Big 12 kickoff opportunities in the 7:30 p.m. (PT) window.

(Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark has made no secret of his desire for a West Coast campus.)

At the same time, the Hotline hasn’t sensed much momentum inside the Pac-12 for adding the Bulldogs. We see San Diego State as the priority among California schools.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/01/06/hotline-mailbag-smus-value-in-expansion-fresno-states-future-asus-revenue-edge-cals-woes-and-more/

Rice seems like a better cultural fit with the PAC than SMU and it’s also in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 7:24 PM, ph90702 said:

Bad news for Utah State.  Ryan Odom is high on Georgetown’s list as a replacement for Patrick Ewing once they fire him.

 

That would suck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 11:20 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

When was the last time a power conference signed a new, comprehensive, TV deal and then within a year expanded? The last few realignment cycles have followed a predictable trend; conferences expand, they sign new deals, then the dust settles and there is stability until those deals get close to expiring.
 

Could conferences do something different? Uh, obviously. But, why? It’s clear now that the B1G isn’t poaching any other schools and that nobody is leaving for the Big 12 during this cycle, so it’s not like they have to sign a deal ASAP to prevent the conference from collapsing. So, what is the point of doing the deal first and then adding SDSU? Why not add them before or as they sign the deal? What is the benefit to the Pac-12 if they buck the trend power conferences (themselves included) have followed the last 15 or so years? 

You have to do the deal first in this circumstance.  There is no conference to join for sdsu otherwise.  This has been explained already.  The PAC is a literal intramural league in 17 months until they secure their contract.  ‘Expanding’ is not their top priority nor should it be at this moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 5:35 PM, 818SUDSFan said:

There's a poster here who is the kind of person Kurt Cobain was referring to when he said "I wish I was like you, easily amused."

Props to you and me for providing him with cheap thrills.

Lots of expansion opinions out there, they are fun to follow. Who knows what will really happen.

Tony Altimore (who did the fanbase size study making the rounds last year) was saying this week about Fresno State to the Big 12:

I am not holding my breath waiting. But I could see epic meltdowns if SDSU went to the PAC and Fresno to the Big12. BYU might have to go independent again just to feel more special than those two. :rimshot1:

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2023 at 7:11 AM, ph90702 said:

Big 12 is not a G5 without Texas and Oklahoma.  They’re getting $50 million per year without them.

UNLV will be in either the Big 12 or PAC-12.

I’m not sure anyone is suggesting that, if they are that’s silly though.  I don’t see you guys in the Big12 but the PAC is a possibility if they expand by 4 or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 4:47 PM, FresnoFacts said:

Wilner's new Q&A this afternoon:

 

It has long been held that the biggest impediment to Pac-12 success in the College Football Playoff is defensive line play. What options are out there for recruiting top talent at that position? Is opening new recruiting areas a consideration in Pac-12 expansion? — @jlahaye76

It is, and we can answer that question with three letters: S-M-U.

The conference is seriously considering adding the Mustangs for a variety of reasons that include access to the Dallas market for media dollars and recruiting.

With regard to defensive linemen in particular, the Pac-12 clearly needs help. It’s an essential position but in limited supply within the conference footprint.

That’s not the case in Texas.

The Hotline tallied the number of blue-chip defensive line prospects (four- or five-star ratings) in both Texas and California over the past three recruiting cycles, according to the 247 Sports database.

The Lone Star State has produced 33 blue chippers, the Golden State just 12.

(And that number, like California’s water supply, appears to be shrinking.)

Granted, there is more competition for prospects in Texas than California. But access to the marketplace through a campus in the heart of the DFW metroplex cannot hurt.

At least some university presidents are aware of the need to improve recruiting and — for that and other reasons — have become intrigued by the prospect of adding SMU.

 

You think Fresno State to the Big 12 is more likely than Fresno State to the Pac-12? — @lilcmac5

I do, indeed.

The Bulldogs are a better fit in the Big 12 institutionally and would help the conference gain a footprint in the Pacific Time Zone.

They bring access to a talent-rich region and a top-25 media market — if Sacramento is included in Fresno’s DMA — and they would create more Big 12 kickoff opportunities in the 7:30 p.m. (PT) window.

(Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark has made no secret of his desire for a West Coast campus.)

At the same time, the Hotline hasn’t sensed much momentum inside the Pac-12 for adding the Bulldogs. We see San Diego State as the priority among California schools.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/01/06/hotline-mailbag-smus-value-in-expansion-fresno-states-future-asus-revenue-edge-cals-woes-and-more/

Pick up Fresno and SDSU. Good get for B12

The Masters 5k road race All American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.






×
×
  • Create New...