Jump to content
Did I hear a WOOSH?

Conference Realignment thread

Recommended Posts

On 11/14/2023 at 5:44 PM, SharkTanked said:

I don't know that it would even be 6 MWC schools. They would probably try to go after AAC/Sun Belt as well. Still, I don't think they can do it without at least 3 or 4 MWC schools, and I think even that price tag is too high, even with the reduced fee with an additional yrs notice. Plus they create a Frankenmonster that isn't really appealing to any of the invitees, with likely not enough revenue increase to really justify it.

But I do think that is what they are going to try to do, up until they realize it isn't gonna work.

I agree. I think they definitely explore doing some best of the rest conference, but will realize as they look at the numbers the value just isn’t there to justify using their windfall to cover exit fees. Better to take a little less tv money and keep their war chests.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the Pac-2 try to raid any other conference and pay exit fees where will the income for this new G5 conference come from. They will have to pay exit-fees and then guarantee income to substantially surpass what the school was leaving, then you have media rights and bowl tie-ins with nothing guaranteed that's a major risk for any school without deep pockets to gamble on.

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"IF" the pac 2 gets 4-5 schools from the MWC then  top schools from other conferences to get to 10 or so schools and it becomes the best G5 conference the TV money will be there. Definitely not like the Big 12 but better than the MWC or AAC. Especially since if this happens the networks have the clause to renegotiate the TV deal if changes like this happens with the MWC. Even if they only get $7-9million it will be allot better than what the new deal will be for the revamped MWC. Plus the bowl tie in's will come. The bowls will switch to affiliations they believe will bring the most viewerships. So if any team that gets an offer to join the PAC gets any type of feeling that other teams are leaving you better believe they are going to jump ship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 1:04 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

How much more TV money per year will they get to have a conference with “4-6 MW schools and some Texas schools” as opposed to just a Pac-14 with the MWC schools?

More than the current MW.

A Conference with Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, and five of the prime MW Schools would command a better TV number and Bowl slots than what the current MW can offer.

  • Facepalm 2
  • Downvote 1

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 2:18 PM, utenation said:

OU 2.17 mill

Kansas 1.45

OSU 1.21

K State 531K

WVU 409K

Cincy 264K

Baylor 340K

Kent State 317K

Boise 306K

 

Some of these games aren't like the others. I'm going with OU, Kansas and OSU fans carrying your ratings in 3 games. What are we left with? Terrible numbers across the board and a true reflection of your normal eyeballs.

 

Embarrassing. 

Throw Out the top three and you have a mere 361k per game

 

Ouch

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 7:42 PM, wolf from 73 said:

My guess is that at best the Pac-2 will get 100-150 mill of the 2023-2024 distribution and 60 mill in future credits depending on outstanding Pac-12 liabilities and school debt that probably total millions. Not a chance that the 2 will part  with any of that to pay exit-fees for new additions. There will be plenty of costs associated with running a conference with 2 members especially this late in the season and no future media revenue.

Cut the distribution number by half.  Last year's distribution was 37mil per school.  And the tourney credits are paid out over 6 years, so the conference would need to stay alive for 6 years to get it.

  • Like 2

It gives me a headache just trying to think down to your level

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 7:42 PM, Spaztecs said:

More than the current MW.

A Conference with Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, and five of the prime MW Schools would command a better TV number and Bowl slots than what the current MW can offer.

Sure, and it will come with a price tag of over $100 million. Yes, they will make more money that way over that new 6 year deal, but the question is HOW MUCH MORE? I am pretty confident that the exit fees will cost more money than the increase in money that comes with going from a Pac-14 with the MWC to a best of the rest Frankenstein conference. 
 

A MWC merger, on the other hand, is essentially “free”. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 7:46 PM, Billings said:

Only if the Conference allows it.

If it's in the best interest if the Membership, they will allow it. 

Wouldn't you as a fan want to see your School get an HnH with one of the two ? Or both?

Win - win

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 8:17 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

Sure, and it will come with a price tag of over $100 million. Yes, they will make more money that way over that new 6 year deal, but the question is HOW MUCH MORE? I am pretty confident that the exit fees will cost more money than the increase in money that comes with going from a Pac-14 with the MWC to a best of the rest Frankenstein conference. 
 

A MWC merger, on the other hand, is essentially “free”. 

The College Playoff Committee made it clear that the Pac-2 or whatever they become will be considered a G-5. Exit fees for a new 10 team conference will be closer to 150-200 mill. A conference with 3 AAC and 5 MWC teams would not generate much more per team if at all than a 14 team Pac. Add to that cross country travel would make this a total financial looser for the 2 schools.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 5:44 PM, SharkTanked said:

I don't know that it would even be 6 MWC schools. They would probably try to go after AAC/Sun Belt as well. Still, I don't think they can do it without at least 3 or 4 MWC schools, and I think even that price tag is too high, even with the reduced fee with an additional yrs notice. Plus they create a Frankenmonster that isn't really appealing to any of the invitees, with likely not enough revenue increase to really justify it.

But I do think that is what they are going to try to do, up until they realize it isn't gonna work.

Not a chance. You’re forgetting that very high on the Twins criteria list is schools that fit geographically. It would likely be 8 or 9 MWC schools, then maybe a Memphis and Tulane. That’s why they’re not interested in merging with the AAC and they are with the MWC. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever is retained is to be distributed according to the initial public trust's aims, a conflict of interest for it to be redistributed to former members with new public trust aims. The funds have to be used for the aims of the initial pac 12s charter. It is why the public puts funds in a public trust. 

People either don't understand the public part of this. Or the trust part of it. 

Not sure which is more unclear to people lol

It can't even be retained. It is there to be used. The funds are to be used in the public's interest. I feel like a parrot now. 

Anyway, OSU/WSU is legally obligated to extend invitations to the trust to fulfill the pac's initial mandate. 

It would be unfair, anyway, to limit that invitation to just one conference.

And so, I'm not sure if the MWC is prepared to stand pat. But if they have to, it isn't within the public's interest to not explore all options anyway. 

 

 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 7:42 PM, Spaztecs said:

More than the current MW.

A Conference with Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, and five of the prime MW Schools would command a better TV number and Bowl slots than what the current MW can offer.

Dude, getting a solid TV deal isn about markets, it’s about projected ratings. One of the best ways to get solid projected ratings for your TV deal is to offer the network solid school matchups.  Those usually come from regional existing rivalries, not opponents across the country that have no history.

  • Cheers 1

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 9:58 PM, OzzyOzz said:

Whatever is retained is to be distributed according to the initial public trusts aims, a conflict of interest for it to be redistributed to former members with new public trusts. The funds have to be used for the aims of the initial pac 12s charter. It is why the public puts funds in a public trust. 

People either don't understand the public part of this. Or the trust part of this. 

Not sure which is more unclear to people lol

It can't even be retained. It is there to be used. The funds are to be used in the publics interest. I feel like a parrot now. 

Anyway, OSU/WSU is legally obligated to extend invitations to the trust to fulfill the pac's initial mandate. 

It would be unfair, anyway, to limit that invitation to just one conference.

And so, I'm not sure if the MWC is prepared to stand pat. But if they have to, it isn't within the public's interest to not explore all options anyway. 

 

 

IMG_2664.jpeg.2acdb3dff2a6e789fbe640edbd5c892c.jpeg

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The process might all be decided in front of the last Pac 12 members, those without voting rights. Criteria of selection of potential invitees can definitely involve them, since they care so much about appropriate use of public money. 

That criteria should be along like 5 or so considerations imo, roughly in this order.

1. Their interest in joining.

2. Their value

3. Their own school's vision(s) and how that aligns with the original pac's aims.

4. Their achievements in those endeavours. 

5. How good their team throws a ball.

6. Whether or not they have a good medical school (lol I'm biased, but the first 5 are non negotiable)

There are thieves looking to steal money here and people are busy with external conflicts elsewhere beyond money so no time for the back and forth this time..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 8:55 PM, Spaztecs said:

Throw Out the top three and you have a mere 361k per game

 

Ouch

Woosh doesn’t realize how easy this would be.  Just say you’re terrible right now and hope to get better etc… People would understand that. 
 

Where he gets cross eyed is when he tries to make UCF out to be a big time legit program.  And feel the need to talk down to other schools and programs in terms of expansion worthiness. Acting like UCF is a shot caller and born for the B12.  As if everyone should come lick their boots in amazement. 
 

Comparing UCF to Utah in any capacity is just foolish. As the numbers suggest, they are light years behind our program in every metric. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, with this judgement, should it stand, wsu/OSU should now go to the NCAA and cfp and seek clarification as to what P5 status is,or will be, in an expanded college football playoffs, and whether wsu/OSU and will be able to retain that status, and/or whether 6 others+ might be granted that status. 

Because that's what the MWC needs to know, apparently. So ask them now lol, why wait?

Instead of beating around the bush and playing guessing games like before, wsu/OSU can now ask the questions as if they were the court, because they have been granted that power by the court. 

So enough of these guessing games. And like I said previously, the next questions posed might easily be directed towards those powers that hold all the money in all this, and as someone who is only just an interested third party, I would love to start that discussion..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably shouldn't ask this question because I didn't read exactly what the judge said but it seems to me that if the judge said OSU/WSU are the only voting members then they should be able to decide what to do with the money.... it would be the same as if only two schools left... if the P10 had stayed intact then USC & UCLA would have left any money they had coming to them behind... they wouldn't have had to be treated "fairly" since they left, right?

So why do OSU & WSU have to treat the 10 who left fairly... I don't get the reasoning.

The money should be left with the conference and whomever is in the conference should be able to control the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2023 at 10:26 PM, Someone Else said:

I probably shouldn't ask this question because I didn't read exactly what the judge said but it seems to me that if the judge said OSU/WSU are the only voting members then they should be able to decide what to do with the money.... it would be the same as if only two schools left... if the P10 had stayed intact then USC & UCLA would have left any money they had coming to them behind... they wouldn't have had to be treated "fairly" since they left, right?

So why do OSU & WSU have to treat the 10 who left fairly... I don't get the reasoning.

The money should be left with the conference and whomever is in the conference should be able to control the money.

I mean the real answer to this is that there is too much capital in sports across all levels. 

Fairly just means they get their deposit back if deserved and their last month's rent is paid. 

There is a real misunderstanding of private capital vs public capital all over society..not just here lol

People don't want to make the right decisions. They want to make selfish ones. 

And atlas shrugged is basically unwatchable so idk what that's about really lol

 

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.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...