(03-27-2024 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... It's a very strange and delicate dance between the 2PAC and the MW. I think we all know that the 2PAC would like to do what you have been talking about - cream off the top four or so MW schools and say four top AAC schools and form a 10-team league. I agree, that would boost payouts to AAC level, heck maybe beyond, it would definitely pay more than absorbing the entire MW.

But as we all know the MW knows this and has wisely - from the POV of the weaker schools - added some poison pills to their current deal to make that costly. ...

One part of the structure of the penalty is that it narrows down the rebuild scenario to raiding the MWC of Boise State and SDSU, and raiding the AAC of four or more schools.

The reason is, there is no second pair of MWC schools which can justify paying the increment to increase the raid from two to four. You have, intrinsically, diminishing returns as more schools are raided, because you pick the most valuable schools first, and you have contracted to steeply increasing costs with each school added to the raid, so the "raid two, and make the next four nervous enough about the MWC's future to stampede them into paying the MWC exit fee" strategy has been effectively taken off the table.

So the MWC has protected themselves from being "PACed". If they are raided of Boise State and SDSU, then it will hurt their revenues ... with the upcoming contract sure to have a realignment look-in from both partners ... but they can compete with 10, or if CBSSN prefers, they can add NMSU/UTEP to return to their inventory of 11 MTZ/PTZ school plus Hawaii (and CBSSN may well prefer that CUSA sheds it's far west Texas island and adds an FCS school to return to 10 schools).

And with several "rebuild" scenarios taken off the table, the risk of the raid of Boise State and SDSU is reduced. A four school AAC raid may be infeasible. And even if it is feasible under current conditions, just one western AAC school moving as a result of P2/M2 realignment could easily make a four school AAC raid infeasible.

Meanwhile, there is a contractual commitment effective for the coming three years (and extended a year if the scheduling agreement is extended by a year) to negotiate a reverse merger, so if, for example, one but not both of the PAC2 escape to the M2, the future of the MWC, rebadged as the PAC, is secure, including the PAC2 member that did not make good on its escape.

(03-27-2024 11:37 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... It's a very strange and delicate dance between the 2PAC and the MW. I think we all know that the 2PAC would like to do what you have been talking about - cream off the top four or so MW schools and say four top AAC schools and form a 10-team league. I agree, that would boost payouts to AAC level, heck maybe beyond, it would definitely pay more than absorbing the entire MW.

But as we all know the MW knows this and has wisely - from the POV of the weaker schools - added some poison pills to their current deal to make that costly. ...

One part of the structure of the penalty is that it narrows down the rebuild scenario to raiding the MWC of Boise State and SDSU, and raiding the AAC of four or more schools.

The reason is, there is no second pair of MWC schools which can justify paying the increment to increase the raid from two to four. You have, intrinsically, diminishing returns as more schools are raided, because you pick the most valuable schools first, and you have contracted to steeply increasing costs with each school added to the raid, so the "raid two, and make the next four nervous enough about the MWC's future to stampede them into paying the MWC exit fee" strategy has been effectively taken off the table.

So the MWC has protected themselves from being "PACed". If they are raided of Boise State and SDSU, then it will hurt their revenues ... with the upcoming contract sure to have a realignment look-in from both partners ... but they can compete with 10, or if CBSSN prefers, they can add NMSU/UTEP to return to their inventory of 11 MTZ/PTZ school plus Hawaii (and CBSSN may well prefer that CUSA sheds it's far west Texas island and adds an FCS school to return to 10 schools).

And with several "rebuild" scenarios taken off the table, the risk of the raid of Boise State and SDSU is reduced. A four school AAC raid may be infeasible. And even if it is feasible under current conditions, just one western AAC school moving as a result of P2/M2 realignment could easily make a four school AAC raid infeasible.

Meanwhile, there is a contractual commitment effective for the coming three years (and extended a year if the scheduling agreement is extended by a year) to negotiate a reverse merger, so if, for example, one but not both of the PAC2 escape to the M2, the future of the MWC, rebadged as the PAC, is secure, including the PAC2 member that did not make good on its escape.

Thanks for the explanation of that mechanism. The MW has been very smart in how they have protected themselves (well really, the lowest-value schools).

Still, like I believe "Attackcoog" has said, I don't think the 2PAC has given up on the idea of creaming off the top, and I am not sure that it is infeasible. It may be costly, but they might decide the costs are worth bearing.

We'll see.

(03-27-2024 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  What this shows its that you have Boise from the MWC and Army, Navy, USF, Memphis from the AAC and then a big dropoff. Maybe Temple, Tulsa and Rice from the AAC are in the next tier before you get below .7 million. The rest really aren't much different.

Now the MWC doesn't have great exposure, but that's true for the G5 in general. There's just no cream in the MWC to skim.

I think the key is to stay relatively small. OSU, WSU, Boise, Memphis. Thats your core value. Gonzaga will be an excellent basketball draw. SDSU, regardless of what these numbers show has been high up on P5 prospect lists during the last few rounds of realignment. You basically are looking at 3 more---to tie the thing together. Maybe Tulsa (whos ranting are better than I would have guessed), UTSA (I think they are good future bet), and one other (Air Force, Fresno, etc).

OSU
WSU
Boise
SDSU
Memphis
Tulsa
UTSA
(pick whoever for #8)
Gonzaga as a non-football addition---could look at Wichita or St Marys as another.

Thats a relatively small conference thats largely made up of schools that will pull their weight in the revenue sports at a high end G5 level. I suspect the per team payout there will be higher over the long run. The real question is it worth the up front financial investment to be in a better conference of their own choosing---or does the OSU/WSU tandem accept the existing MW as a home simply use that legacy money to support their own programs at a higher financial level over the next few years and hope the elevated performance (Im assuming the extra money gets reflected as superior field performance) draws a P4 invite sooner rather than later. Its a tough decision for those two schools---but at least they have some control over their future. My feeling is they panicked when they signed the MW scheduling deal. This would have been a no brainer rebuild that could have been accomplished by 2024 had they decided early on a course to reload the conference. Its still possible---but the costs are even higher than they would have been.

I honestly think they end up doing the latter. I suspect they probably will end up with a full merger with the MW---under the Pac12 name plate.

(03-27-2024 01:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  What this shows its that you have Boise from the MWC and Army, Navy, USF, Memphis from the AAC and then a big dropoff. Maybe Temple, Tulsa and Rice from the AAC are in the next tier before you get below .7 million. The rest really aren't much different.

Now the MWC doesn't have great exposure, but that's true for the G5 in general. There's just no cream in the MWC to skim.

I think the key is to stay relatively small. OSU, WSU, Boise, Memphis. Thats your core value. Gonzaga will be an excellent basketball draw. SDSU, regardless of what these numbers show has been high up on P5 prospect lists during the last few rounds of realignment. You basically are looking at 3 more---to tie the thing together. Maybe Tulsa (whos ranting are better than I would have guessed), UTSA (I think they are good future bet), and one other (Air Force, Fresno, etc).

OSU
WSU
Boise
SDSU
Memphis
Tulsa
UTSA
(pick whoever for #8)
Gonzaga as a non-football addition---could look at Wichita or St Marys as another.

Thats a relatively small conference thats largely made up of schools that will pull their weight in the revenue sports at a high end G5 level. I suspect the per team payout there will be higher over the long run. The real question is it worth the up front financial investment to be in a better conference of their own choosing---or does the OSU/WSU tandem accept the existing MW as a home simply use that legacy money to support their own programs at a higher financial level over the next few years and hope the elevated performance (Im assuming the extra money gets reflected as superior field performance) draws a P4 invite sooner rather than later.

Small isn't safe when two of your eight members are former power conference schools committed to doing everything in their power to regain a seat at the adults' table.

Also I can't see Memphis, Tulsa or UTSA being excited about sending all of their non-football sports on multiple-time-zone road trips to places like Pullman, Corvallis and Boise unless the money is really, really good.

(03-27-2024 01:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ... I think the key is to stay relatively small. OSU, WSU, Boise, Memphis. Thats your core value. Gonzaga will be an excellent basketball draw. SDSU, regardless of what these numbers show has been high up on P5 prospect lists during the last few rounds of realignment. You basically are looking at 3 more---to tie the thing together. Maybe Tulsa (whos ranting are better than I would have guessed), UTSA (I think they are good future bet), and one other (Air Force, Fresno, etc).

The thing is, add Memphis and Boise State and SDSU, so that you need a minimum of three more ... and the cost of adding Fresno is much more than the cost of adding Tulane or North Texas or Rice or UTSA or Tulsa.

Either Tulane or Tulsa are a six hour google drive time from Memphis, so for travel partner scheduling, I'd expect you'd want one or the other.

UTSA and UNT are five hours google drive time apart, and once you have UTSA, you may as well make the eighth school in a different Texas metro area.

So I'd think Oregon State, Wazzou, Boise State, SDSU, UTSA, Memphis, Tulane|Tulsa, UNT, the Zags non-FB.

Quote: Thats a relatively small conference thats largely made up of schools that will pull their weight in the revenue sports at a high end G5 level. I suspect the per team payout there will be higher over the long run.

I'm not looking at the long run so much as the medium run.

The short run is straightforward: kick the can down the road, wait and see if there is major P2/M2 realignment and whether that opens up any spots.

So we aren't in "choose between rebuild and reverse merger" choice unless we are in the scenario where 2024 has come and gone and the ACC has not collapsed, and we hit 2025 and ESPN renews its ACC contract and it looks like the ACC collapse has been postponed until the mid-2030's.

And then the question is, which structure puts the PAC2 in the best possible position to jump into the best possible conference home in the mid-2030's, and whether the PAC2 can afford that structure.

I reckon that conference would have more confidence of taking half or more of the "Go6" championship spots in the CFP12/CFP14 than the MWC+PAC2, just as the AAC was the best possible conference for UC, Houston and UCF to reside in while waiting for a P5 opportunity to open up.

Quote: ... My feeling is they panicked when they signed the MW scheduling deal. This would have been a no brainer rebuild that could have been accomplished by 2024 had they decided early on a course to reload the conference. ...

I don't think they were in a position to an expensive reload until they had the CFP terms and the Departing10 terms sorted, and the latter was down to the arrogance of the PAC-12 in not having the details of exiting the conference clearly laid out in the by laws and, indeed, in never bothering to house the PAC-12 in a corporate legal structure.

And, to be fair, the core of that arrogance is more down to to the other six members of the original eight member PAC than to the remaining PAC2.

And they couldn't wait until "whenever that all gets settled" to sort out their games, because the more urgent it was for them to reach a settlement, the more the Departing10 could squeeze them by slow-walking the negotiation. They likely needed to have their coming athletic season schedules taken care of to have the bargaining position to arrive at the $65m withholding/exit fee.

(03-27-2024 01:20 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 01:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  What this shows its that you have Boise from the MWC and Army, Navy, USF, Memphis from the AAC and then a big dropoff. Maybe Temple, Tulsa and Rice from the AAC are in the next tier before you get below .7 million. The rest really aren't much different.

Now the MWC doesn't have great exposure, but that's true for the G5 in general. There's just no cream in the MWC to skim.

I think the key is to stay relatively small. OSU, WSU, Boise, Memphis. Thats your core value. Gonzaga will be an excellent basketball draw. SDSU, regardless of what these numbers show has been high up on P5 prospect lists during the last few rounds of realignment. You basically are looking at 3 more---to tie the thing together. Maybe Tulsa (whos ranting are better than I would have guessed), UTSA (I think they are good future bet), and one other (Air Force, Fresno, etc).

OSU
WSU
Boise
SDSU
Memphis
Tulsa
UTSA
(pick whoever for #8)
Gonzaga as a non-football addition---could look at Wichita or St Marys as another.

Thats a relatively small conference thats largely made up of schools that will pull their weight in the revenue sports at a high end G5 level. I suspect the per team payout there will be higher over the long run. The real question is it worth the up front financial investment to be in a better conference of their own choosing---or does the OSU/WSU tandem accept the existing MW as a home simply use that legacy money to support their own programs at a higher financial level over the next few years and hope the elevated performance (Im assuming the extra money gets reflected as superior field performance) draws a P4 invite sooner rather than later.

Small isn't safe when two of your eight members are former power conference schools committed to doing everything in their power to regain a seat at the adults' table.

Also I can't see Memphis, Tulsa or UTSA being excited about sending all of their non-football sports on multiple-time-zone road trips to places like Pullman, Corvallis and Boise unless the money is really, really good.

I think that they'd all do it for the added prestige with a decent payout increase, but I'm not sure how much more that conference would bring in than the MWC. Probably not much.

(03-27-2024 02:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ... I think that they'd all do it for the added prestige with a decent payout increase, but I'm not sure how much more that conference would bring in than the MWC. Probably not much.

How much more money, or how much bigger a payout?

Because the same money spread around 8.3 schools rather than 14 schools is 70% more money per school. If the MWC+PAC would be on track to make $6m/school, that $84m/year is $10/school for an 8.3 conference.

I think the PAC poaching the MW is dead in the water. I think the best that the MW will be able to obtain is a reverse merger to optimize assets and then require a certain level of investment in football and basketball or members could be voted out of the conference. And I don't think they have any interest in that scenario either.

In reality, I see OSU and WSU using those assets as long as possible to over fund their programs. If they pick off Universities, they will need to pay the poaching fee and help out on the exit fee. If they look for a reverse merger, they will be expected to share that money. They don't want that, they want to use those funds to create seperation.

The risk to WSU and OSU is that they exhaust the funds and don't perform on the field. In that scenario, would the MW add WSU or OSU. Their value in that scenario is extremely diminished. It's a risk but I think WSU and OSU will make that short sighted decision and roll the die that they can maintain some Power Status so long as they can spend substantilly more than MW teams.

(03-27-2024 01:41 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 01:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ... I think the key is to stay relatively small. OSU, WSU, Boise, Memphis. Thats your core value. Gonzaga will be an excellent basketball draw. SDSU, regardless of what these numbers show has been high up on P5 prospect lists during the last few rounds of realignment. You basically are looking at 3 more---to tie the thing together. Maybe Tulsa (whos ranting are better than I would have guessed), UTSA (I think they are good future bet), and one other (Air Force, Fresno, etc).

The thing is, add Memphis and Boise State and SDSU, so that you need a minimum of three more ... and the cost of adding Fresno is much more than the cost of adding Tulane or North Texas or Rice or UTSA or Tulsa.

Either Tulane or Tulsa are a six hour google drive time from Memphis, so for travel partner scheduling, I'd expect you'd want one or the other.

UTSA and UNT are five hours google drive time apart, and once you have UTSA, you may as well make the eighth school in a different Texas metro area.

So I'd think Oregon State, Wazzou, Boise State, SDSU, UTSA, Memphis, Tulane|Tulsa, UNT, the Zags non-FB.

Quote: Thats a relatively small conference thats largely made up of schools that will pull their weight in the revenue sports at a high end G5 level. I suspect the per team payout there will be higher over the long run.

I'm not looking at the long run so much as the medium run.

The short run is straightforward: kick the can down the road, wait and see if there is major P2/M2 realignment and whether that opens up any spots.

So we aren't in "choose between rebuild and reverse merger" choice unless we are in the scenario where 2024 has come and gone and the ACC has not collapsed, and we hit 2025 and ESPN renews its ACC contract and it looks like the ACC collapse has been postponed until the mid-2030's.

And then the question is, which structure puts the PAC2 in the best possible position to jump into the best possible conference home in the mid-2030's, and whether the PAC2 can afford that structure.

I reckon that conference would have more confidence of taking half or more of the "Go6" championship spots in the CFP12/CFP14 than the MWC+PAC2, just as the AAC was the best possible conference for UC, Houston and UCF to reside in while waiting for a P5 opportunity to open up.

Quote: ... My feeling is they panicked when they signed the MW scheduling deal. This would have been a no brainer rebuild that could have been accomplished by 2024 had they decided early on a course to reload the conference. ...

I don't think they were in a position to an expensive reload until they had the CFP terms and the Departing10 terms sorted, and the latter was down to the arrogance of the PAC-12 in not having the details of exiting the conference clearly laid out in the by laws and, indeed, in never bothering to house the PAC-12 in a corporate legal structure.

And, to be fair, the core of that arrogance is more down to to the other six members of the original eight member PAC than to the remaining PAC2.

And they couldn't wait until "whenever that all gets settled" to sort out their games, because the more urgent it was for them to reach a settlement, the more the Departing10 could squeeze them by slow-walking the negotiation. They likely needed to have their coming athletic season schedules taken care of to have the bargaining position to arrive at the $65m withholding/exit fee.

Just would point out that once you dislodge SDSU and Boise---there will be a pretty strong desire on the part of any school left behind in the MW to get into the new Pac12---and that desire means the exiting schools will be far more willing to shoulder a larger portion of the exit fee burden. In other words, I think there is reason to believe that additional schools will actually cost OSU/WSU less than the first 2. I will say---its possible that SOME of this additional "shouldering of the exit fee cost" by later potential expansion targets payout may be less up front and more of the SMU style accepting reduced payouts for several years--but the money would be set up to flow directly back to OSU/WSU over a relatively short period of time. So, at least some of the short term costs by OSU/WSU to complete the conference would function more like a loan than a gift.

As for who to take---I dont think it really matters that much after you land Boise, SDSU, and Memphis. The remaining schools on the board are not that difference and are fairly interchangeable. Whoever OSU/WSU/SDSU/Boise/Memphis/Gonzaga agree on Im sure would be just fine for filling out the conference. I selected UTSA because they have performed well and have good upside and Tulsa simply due to location (ties the geography together somewhat with Memphis and Tulsa had surprisingly good TV ratings per Bullets chart). That should be a good G5 football league and pretty darn good basketball conference. Might even be worth adding another non-football school like Wichita or St Marys.

I can't speak for other Memphis fans, but this long-time Tiger fan wants Memphis to be a member of the best league possible/realistic. If that is a "new-look Pac" anchored by Oregon State, Washington State, Boise and San Diego State (and bolstered by, of course, some other MWC members), then Memphis should at least consider the possibility.

If OSU and WSU attempt to reinvent the Pac and if Memphis is invited and accepts (major "ifs"), I hope 1. USF will be included (for multiple reasons); 2. Tulane and a Texas school (Rice, North Texas or UTSA) will be given strong consideration; and 3. the three military academies and Gonzaga are in the mix.

In the end, I don't foresee this "best of" league materializing.

(03-27-2024 03:41 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I can't speak for other Memphis fans, but this long-time Tiger fan wants Memphis to be a member of the best league possible/realistic. If that is a "new-look Pac" anchored by Oregon State, Washington State, Boise and San Diego State (and bolstered by, of course, some other MWC members), then Memphis should at least consider the possibility.

If OSU and WSU attempt to reinvent the Pac and if Memphis is invited and accepts (major "ifs"), I hope 1. USF will be included (for multiple reasons); 2. Tulane and a Texas school (Rice, North Texas or UTSA) will be given strong consideration; and 3. the three military academies and Gonzaga are in the mix.

In the end, I don't foresee this "best of" league materializing.

IMO it is one thing to travel 1500 - 2000 miles across the country when you are getting P-money, or even M-money. But even if the 2PAC are able to create a "best of" conference, it will still be G-money. Probably less than $10m media and also the CFP pittance.

So I agree about the "ifs" of acceptance for the ACC schools east of the Mississippi, especially for my USF.

(03-27-2024 02:50 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 02:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ... I think that they'd all do it for the added prestige with a decent payout increase, but I'm not sure how much more that conference would bring in than the MWC. Probably not much.

How much more money, or how much bigger a payout?

Because the same money spread around 8.3 schools rather than 14 schools is 70% more money per school. If the MWC+PAC would be on track to make $6m/school, that $84m/year is $10/school for an 8.3 conference.

Assuming that the network will pay the exact same amount for fewer games and that all 6 others literally have 0 value. A more reasonable assumption would be more like $8m per school instead of $6m. I honestly don't know if a g5 would jump for that. They probably would if they expected that $8m to increase over time and that $6m to decrease over time, but if they were both very long term contracts and/or there was a significant buyout to get out of the $6m and into the $8m deal? I don't know.

(03-27-2024 06:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 02:50 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 02:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ... I think that they'd all do it for the added prestige with a decent payout increase, but I'm not sure how much more that conference would bring in than the MWC. Probably not much.

How much more money, or how much bigger a payout?

Because the same money spread around 8.3 schools rather than 14 schools is 70% more money per school. If the MWC+PAC would be on track to make $6m/school, that $84m/year is $10/school for an 8.3 conference.

Assuming that the network will pay the exact same amount for fewer games and that all 6 others literally have 0 value. A more reasonable assumption would be more like $8m per school instead of $6m. I honestly don't know if a g5 would jump for that. They probably would if they expected that $8m to increase over time and that $6m to decrease over time, but if they were both very long term contracts and/or there was a significant buyout to get out of the $6m and into the $8m deal? I don't know.

The assumption is 8 million vs 4 or 5 million. Once you take Boise, SDSU, and a couple more from the MW---that MW deal aint gunna stay at 4 to 5 million a team. Its probably falling to 2 or 3 million. That 2 or 3 vs 8 math adds up pretty fast over few years. In just 2 years its 10 to 12 million in lost dollars----over a decade its 50 or 60 million your program lost out on.

(03-27-2024 04:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 03:41 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I can't speak for other Memphis fans, but this long-time Tiger fan wants Memphis to be a member of the best league possible/realistic. If that is a "new-look Pac" anchored by Oregon State, Washington State, Boise and San Diego State (and bolstered by, of course, some other MWC members), then Memphis should at least consider the possibility.

If OSU and WSU attempt to reinvent the Pac and if Memphis is invited and accepts (major "ifs"), I hope 1. USF will be included (for multiple reasons); 2. Tulane and a Texas school (Rice, North Texas or UTSA) will be given strong consideration; and 3. the three military academies and Gonzaga are in the mix.

In the end, I don't foresee this "best of" league materializing.

IMO it is one thing to travel 1500 - 2000 miles across the country when you are getting P-money, or even M-money. But even if the 2PAC are able to create a "best of" conference, it will still be G-money. Probably less than $10m media and also the CFP pittance.

So I agree about the "ifs" of acceptance for the ACC schools east of the Mississippi, especially for my USF.

The money will be a key factor, QV. Likely the key factor.

I simply like the thought of Memphis being a member of what would very likely be the clear No. 5 all-sports league.

Because at this point — and with the looming P4 and energized MWC and Sun Belt — the AAC (one could argue) might end up being the year-in-and-out No. 7.

(03-27-2024 03:17 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  I think the PAC poaching the MW is dead in the water. I think the best that the MW will be able to obtain is a reverse merger to optimize assets and then require a certain level of investment in football and basketball or members could be voted out of the conference. And I don't think they have any interest in that scenario either.

In reality, I see OSU and WSU using those assets as long as possible to over fund their programs. If they pick off Universities, they will need to pay the poaching fee and help out on the exit fee. If they look for a reverse merger, they will be expected to share that money. They don't want that, they want to use those funds to create seperation.

If they are not members of the PAC, and the PAC with at least 7 Olympic sports members, the ~$27m in legacy PAC-12 units revert to the schools that appeared in the tournament game.

And as far as being "expected to share the funds" in a reverse merger, it's not uncommon for conferences with legacy revenue to give more or even all of the legacy income to the incumbents. That is certainly what the AAC has done ... they have, in fact, done that multiple times, the second when they set up differential media revenue between the schools left behind after the Big12 raid and the newly invited schools.

Quote: The risk to WSU and OSU is that they exhaust the funds and don't perform on the field. In that scenario, would the MW add WSU or OSU. Their value in that scenario is extremely diminished. It's a risk but I think WSU and OSU will make that short sighted decision and roll the die that they can maintain some Power Status so long as they can spend substantially more than MW teams.

They can't spend more than the MWC schools on an ongoing basis if they are paying the MWC $14m/year for a scheduling agreement for six OOC games with the MWC ... over four years that is $56m, and in the third year the CFP money ticks down, and in that scenario they have no legacy PAC units income once the two year grace period has been exhausted. So in your scenario, the NCAA units plus CFP income drops from ~$24m/year in the first and second year to $3.6m/year in the third year.

That cliff in revenues is why the current "two school conference" makeshift arrangements have a two-year use-by date. It's not practical to keep them up in the third year after the Departure of the Ten. If no M2 invite is on offer, it will be reverse merger or rebuild.

If they are negotiating a reverse merger, they might propose an unequal division of the PAC-12 legacy unit income -- say, half to the PAC2, half to the MWC12, since the unit income goes away if the reverse merger doesn't happen. They might propose that the CFP revenue be distributed according to the school that attracts it, so that for at least the first three years Oregon State and Wazzou would get $3.6m, and the rest $1m.

If they have followed the "spend all the money without regard for the morrow" strategy, those two revenue sources would be the only basis for an unequal distribution.

(03-27-2024 07:33 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 03:17 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  I think the PAC poaching the MW is dead in the water. I think the best that the MW will be able to obtain is a reverse merger to optimize assets and then require a certain level of investment in football and basketball or members could be voted out of the conference. And I don't think they have any interest in that scenario either.

In reality, I see OSU and WSU using those assets as long as possible to over fund their programs. If they pick off Universities, they will need to pay the poaching fee and help out on the exit fee. If they look for a reverse merger, they will be expected to share that money. They don't want that, they want to use those funds to create seperation.

If they are not members of the PAC, and the PAC with at least 7 Olympic sports members, the ~$27m in legacy PAC-12 units revert to the schools that appeared in the tournament game.

And as far as being "expected to share the funds" in a reverse merger, it's not uncommon for conferences with legacy revenue to give more or even all of the legacy income to the incumbents. That is certainly what the AAC has done ... they have, in fact, done that multiple times, the second when they set up differential media revenue between the schools left behind after the Big12 raid and the newly invited schools.

Quote: The risk to WSU and OSU is that they exhaust the funds and don't perform on the field. In that scenario, would the MW add WSU or OSU. Their value in that scenario is extremely diminished. It's a risk but I think WSU and OSU will make that short sighted decision and roll the die that they can maintain some Power Status so long as they can spend substantially more than MW teams.

They can't spend more than the MWC schools on an ongoing basis if they are paying the MWC $14m/year for a scheduling agreement for six OOC games with the MWC ... over four years that is $56m, and in the third year the CFP money ticks down, and in that scenario they have no legacy PAC units income once the two year grace period has been exhausted. So in your scenario, the NCAA units plus CFP income drops from ~$24m/year in the first and second year to $3.6m/year in the third year.

That cliff in revenues is why the current "two school conference" makeshift arrangements have a two-year use-by date. It's not practical to keep them up in the third year after the Departure of the Ten. If no M2 invite is on offer, it will be reverse merger or rebuild.

If they are negotiating a reverse merger, they might propose an unequal division of the PAC-12 legacy unit income -- say, half to the PAC2, half to the MWC12, since the unit income goes away if the reverse merger doesn't happen. They might propose that the CFP revenue be distributed according to the school that attracts it, so that for at least the first three years Oregon State and Wazzou would get $3.6m, and the rest $1m.

If they have followed the "spend all the money without regard for the morrow" strategy, those two revenue sources would be the only basis for an unequal distribution.

Just another reason that MW scheduling agreement was a poorly considered panic stricken decision. At most, that agreement should have been a one year thing. Both Liberty and UConn conjured schedules over less time without resorting to such one stop shopping convenience----and it cost each far less. I honestly think once Cal/USC bailed----WSU/OSU had decided it was a P2 or bust situation and the MW was their backup plan---a backup plan they hoped would never have to be used. Now, with the passage of time----they realize a rebuilt Pac12 where they assemble the peers of their choice was always a better option---but at the time---the financial outlook of the Pac12 collapse was difficult to assess----so they panicked and signed on to a MW backup plan hoping they would never have to use it (in other words they still hoped they would get rescued by a P5). Personally, I think Gloria outfoxed OSU/WSU with that agreement. The Pac12 rebuild option still exists---but that agreement made a tough but viable road into an extremely difficult route.

(03-27-2024 06:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 02:50 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 02:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ... I think that they'd all do it for the added prestige with a decent payout increase, but I'm not sure how much more that conference would bring in than the MWC. Probably not much.

How much more money, or how much bigger a payout?

Because the same money spread around 8.3 schools rather than 14 schools is 70% more money per school. If the MWC+PAC would be on track to make $6m/school, that $84m/year is $10/school for an 8.3 conference.

Assuming that the network will pay the exact same amount for fewer games and that all 6 others literally have 0 value.

Certainly not assuming the latter -- for one thing, it is all 10 others, since the MWC scheduling agreement has the escalator on the penalty per school raided with each additional school having a higher penalty than the one before, and would technically be saying that the 10 others added to the PAC2 + SDSU/Boise State aggregated to the same total value as the PAC2 + SDSU/Boise State + Memphis / 3 complementary western AAC schools (and, secondarily, +Zags on the boards).

So, arguing, primarily, that the eight in FB and, secondarily, nine in basketball can deliver an inventory with higher value at the top of the inventory that offsets a smaller tail end.

Quote: A more reasonable assumption would be more like $8m per school instead of $6m.

The argument is that while the schools are aiming for money per school, the media partners are paying per game they wish to put on linear TV. 4 PTZ/MTZ and 4 CTZ schools, of a higher average value than the 14 PTZ/MTZ schools in the PAC14, and selling a conference championship race on the inside track to the CFP spot, is a good media product.

So, as an economist, I'm not assuming $/school, I am looking at those two inventories, and they look to me like they are certainly close to equivalent media value, so if the PAC2+MWC is $84m, it is not implausible that a rebuilt PAC8+1 is $84m.

Quote: I honestly don't know if a g5 would jump for that. They probably would if they expected that $8m to increase over time and that $6m to decrease over time, but if they were both very long term contracts and/or there was a significant buyout to get out of the $6m and into the $8m deal? I don't know.

Sure, there is some payout gap where the game is not worth the candle. But our guesses as to the contract value are just guesses, and in terms of thinking about what is possible, if media partners can come up with $84m for the PAC-14, then that means they would be able to come up with $84m, so $10m/school for an 8+1 conference is certainly more plausible than $10m/school for a 12 school conference.

And even if we knew with 100% certainty what different partners would pay for right now, we still wouldn't know what different partners would sign onto at the time that the two year grace period is running out and it's decision time. So even if some plausible outcomes seem less likely to some of us at this point in time, things might shift in their favor over the coming year to year and a half.

(03-27-2024 07:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Just another reason that MW scheduling agreement was a poorly considered panic stricken decision. At most, that agreement should have been a one year thing. Both Liberty and UConn conjured schedules over less time without resorting to such one stop shopping convenience----and it cost each far less. ...

Oh, come on, that is a far from apples to apples comparison. Both Liberty and UConn had more independents to schedule with -- BYU, Army, NMSU, Liberty (for UConn), and now UMass are off the late season scheduling table.

Also, most people would figure that "more than a year" is not "over less time" than "less than a year" ... Liberty announced their transition in July 2017, so would have been starting to schedule earlier in 2017, for an independent schedule beginning late August 2018.

Obviously it's easier for one school to move to independence with less than a year's notice in a year than two to move to independence in a year, while it would also be harder for a Pacific Northwest school to find a game where the two sides would be willing to let your school to buy their way in as the opponent of each than a school on the East coast.

From rumors circulating at the time, it certainly seemed that the PAC2 was doing their due diligence as to where they could get the games, so even if we don't know definitively what process they went through, the claim that they struck a deal at far above the prevailing market rate would seem to be based on little but an inclination to reach that conclusion.

(03-27-2024 10:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  What this shows its that you have Boise from the MWC and Army, Navy, USF, Memphis from the AAC and then a big dropoff. Maybe Temple, Tulsa and Rice from the AAC are in the next tier before you get below .7 million. The rest really aren't much different.

Now the MWC doesn't have great exposure, but that's true for the G5 in general. There's just no cream in the MWC to skim.

Regardless of what TV numbers say, IMO schools like San Diego State and Fresno State and Air Force are like Boise a cut above other MW schools in terms of brand recognition. Maybe UNLV is emerging now as well.

So to me, a conference that consists of say OS, WS, SDST, Fresno, Air Force, Boise, USF, Navy, Army and Memphis would be a "cream" conference that would earn about $3m a year more than absorb-the-entire-MW route.

But I admit, I am not a media consultant with expertise.

If nobody watches, is it still a "brand?" That conference would also add about $3 million in travel expenses or more.

There's a difference between what this board recognizes and the general public who make the mass of TV viewers. How many casual viewers would know Appalachian St. isn't still FCS? Will Fresno St. or San Diego St. generate any more viewer interest than Northern Illinois or Western Michigan?

It’s not clear what will happen with college sports on the west coast at all. I know long time USC alums that aren’t happy about a USC Purdue season game. A road trip to Indiana is worlds different than a road trip to the Bay.

Will college sports viewing become regional? Will the MWC get adopted as the only Western Conference? Lots of unknowns going forward. My guess is the West Coast becomes like the Northeast where Pro Sports dominate.

(03-28-2024 12:32 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Just another reason that MW scheduling agreement was a poorly considered panic stricken decision. At most, that agreement should have been a one year thing. Both Liberty and UConn conjured schedules over less time without resorting to such one stop shopping convenience----and it cost each far less. ...

Oh, come on, that is a far from apples to apples comparison. Both Liberty and UConn had more independents to schedule with -- BYU, Army, NMSU, Liberty (for UConn), and now UMass are off the late season scheduling table.

Also, most people would figure that "more than a year" is not "over less time" than "less than a year" ... Liberty announced their transition in July 2017, so would have been starting to schedule earlier in 2017, for an independent schedule beginning late August 2018.

Obviously it's easier for one school to move to independence with less than a year's notice in a year than two to move to independence in a year, while it would also be harder for a Pacific Northwest school to find a game where the two sides would be willing to let your school to buy their way in as the opponent of each than a school on the East coast.

From rumors circulating at the time, it certainly seemed that the PAC2 was doing their due diligence as to where they could get the games, so even if we don't know definitively what process they went through, the claim that they struck a deal at far above the prevailing market rate would seem to be based on little but an inclination to reach that conclusion.

If your going to whine about apples to apples comparisons---I would point out that Liberty had to put together a full 12 game FBS schedule where as WSU and OSU already had a third of the 2024 schedule in place when the process began. The OSU/WSU combo also has far more attraction to the typical G5 and P5 AD's who are in charge of scheduling than Liberty did when Liberty began its quest to create a full 12 game schedule. Its work, but the easiest way to create a schedule for those two teams is to "step into" an already existing OOC game.

For instance---lets say N Texas vs UNLV are already scheduled to play on Oct 10 2024. The WSU/OSU tandem would pay those two teams a fee to "step into" that game slot. OSU then plays N Texas on Oct 10 and WSU plays UNLV on Oct 10. You'll of course have to pay each for their trouble---but thats how UConn and Liberty were able to build a schedule on short notice so quickly. I suspect more G5's would be willing to do that than P5s (though some of the former Pac12 teams might be willing to do the same for the left behinds for old times sakes).