(11-07-2025 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Given the lawsuit against the MW over their scheduling agreement, I think it possible that other conferences might be wary of doing an agreement with the nPAC.

Maybe include a clause saying the nPAC waives its right to sue over any aspect of the deal, and that full payment is made up front, before any games are played.

To be clear, IANAL, and I am not saying the nPAC is wrong about their lawsuit vs the MW. The courts may determine that some or all of their legal claims are valid, that they are in the right about that. But still, I'd be wary.

Obviously, the lawsuit against the MWC was about more than just scheduling some football games. Each future PAC team just needs to find the extra game and agree to whatever payment is to be made. For example, Troy recently agreed to play Utah State in Logan and Troy will receive a $550,000 dollar guarantee for the game. It is just a scheduling agreement.

This is not ideal for the PAC, and they really need to find a 9th football team for 2027. The PAC already has five OOC games with the AAC next season, so they probably need to find some games with the SBC, CUSA, or MAC. The five games with the AAC:
Memphis at Boise State
Colorado State at UTSA
Rice at Fresno State
UTSA at Texas State
North Texas at Texas State

The PAC will have two games with the MWC, with Wyoming playing at Colorado State next season and Fresno State at San Jose State. Those schools are continuing their rivalry games.

I think the Pac-12 needs to wake up to the fact they won't get a conference schedule partner. It doesn't make sense for any other conference unless the Pac-12 is throwing around a large amount of money. They probably already recognize this as they floated an internal rematch 8th game for everyone that was universally rejected.

Honestly, I think it'll have to be a bunch of one off deals with schools that have open slots, possibly with the option here and there to convert to a home and road series with the return game a few years down the road. The Pac-12 role would be to canvass and smooth with other G conferences allowing schools to have an October or November OOC game, and pair off their schools as best they can with opponents they find. The other option is for some schools to schedule a 2nd FCS game, knowing it won't count.

One possibility to help, would be for Pac-12 schools to reschedule their FCS opponents to October or November, to open up a Saturday in September when the schools who haven't completed their schedules still have openings. This is probably the best approach for several Pac-12 schools.

(11-08-2025 01:16 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I think the Pac-12 needs to wake up to the fact they won't get a conference schedule partner.

I generally agree, but in this specific case, with Louisiana Tech moving to the Sun Belt on short notice, the Sun Belt actually would benefit from an arrangement with the PAC.

Keep the two Louisiana Tech games in September, grease the skids for some October-November PAC games. At that point, you might as well fill the openings that Louisiana and Georgia State have.

Then you're 6/8 of the way to an 8-game slate with the PAC. Crack open one body-bag game and you're at an 8-game slate.

that's probably easier for the Sun Belt schools than finding 6 games.

Quote:One possibility to help, would be for Pac-12 schools to reschedule their FCS opponents to October or November, to open up a Saturday in September when the schools who haven't completed their schedules still have openings. This is probably the best approach for several Pac-12 schools.

That seems like a good option for the PAC, if they can't put a conference-to-conference deal together.

(11-08-2025 12:06 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Given the lawsuit against the MW over their scheduling agreement, I think it possible that other conferences might be wary of doing an agreement with the nPAC.

Maybe include a clause saying the nPAC waives its right to sue over any aspect of the deal, and that full payment is made up front, before any games are played.

To be clear, IANAL, and I am not saying the nPAC is wrong about their lawsuit vs the MW. The courts may determine that some or all of their legal claims are valid, that they are in the right about that. But still, I'd be wary.

Obviously, the lawsuit against the MWC was about more than just scheduling some football games. Each future PAC team just needs to find the extra game and agree to whatever payment is to be made. For example, Troy recently agreed to play Utah State in Logan and Troy will receive a $550,000 dollar guarantee for the game. It is just a scheduling agreement.

This is not ideal for the PAC, and they really need to find a 9th football team for 2027. The PAC already has five OOC games with the AAC next season, so they probably need to find some games with the SBC, CUSA, or MAC.

The five games with the AAC:
Memphis at Boise State
Colorado State at UTSA
Rice at Fresno State
UTSA at Texas State
North Texas at Texas State

The PAC will have two games with the MWC:
Wyoming playing at Colorado State
Fresno State at San Jose State.
Those schools are continuing their rivalry games.

LIKE ^^^

Once the MWC/PAC Lawsuit/Settlement runs its course then PAC FB #9 (2027) will become clearer...
- UNLV/AFA (FB-Only)/UNM

PAC vs AAC (2026) games are scheduled against some the teams that the PAC invited (Memphis/UTSA)...PAC (2026) could continue schedule games against AAC teams they invited before to keep up relations with teams who may be potential future invites (UTSA)...PAC could do the same with the MWC...

Keep the old MWC rivalry games...gets PAC (2026) teams two (2) OOC games...MWC continued to schedule games with BYU after they left the MWC...PAC (2026) could continue to schedule games against MWC teams they invited previously to keep up relations with teams they may invite in the future (UNLV/AFA/UNM)...

(11-08-2025 01:23 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 12:06 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Given the lawsuit against the MW over their scheduling agreement, I think it possible that other conferences might be wary of doing an agreement with the nPAC.

Maybe include a clause saying the nPAC waives its right to sue over any aspect of the deal, and that full payment is made up front, before any games are played.

To be clear, IANAL, and I am not saying the nPAC is wrong about their lawsuit vs the MW. The courts may determine that some or all of their legal claims are valid, that they are in the right about that. But still, I'd be wary.

Obviously, the lawsuit against the MWC was about more than just scheduling some football games. Each future PAC team just needs to find the extra game and agree to whatever payment is to be made. For example, Troy recently agreed to play Utah State in Logan and Troy will receive a $550,000 dollar guarantee for the game. It is just a scheduling agreement.

This is not ideal for the PAC, and they really need to find a 9th football team for 2027. The PAC already has five OOC games with the AAC next season, so they probably need to find some games with the SBC, CUSA, or MAC.

The five games with the AAC:
Memphis at Boise State
Colorado State at UTSA
Rice at Fresno State
UTSA at Texas State
North Texas at Texas State

The PAC will have two games with the MWC:
Wyoming playing at Colorado State
Fresno State at San Jose State.
Those schools are continuing their rivalry games.

LIKE ^^^

Once the MWC/PAC Lawsuit/Settlement runs its course then PAC FB #9 (2027) will become clearer...
- UNLV/AFA (FB-Only)/UNM

PAC vs AAC (2026) games are scheduled against some the teams that the PAC invited (Memphis/UTSA)...PAC (2026) could continue schedule games against AAC teams they invited before to keep up relations with teams who may be potential future invites (UTSA)...PAC could do the same with the MWC...

Keep the old MWC rivalry games...gets PAC (2026) teams two (2) OOC games...MWC continued to schedule games with BYU after they left the MWC...PAC (2026) could continue to schedule games against MWC teams they invited previously to keep up relations with teams they may invite in the future (UNLV/AFA/UNM)...

Well yeah. Of course the new pac schools will want to schedule AF, UNLV and UNM. Why would those 3 want to schedule the new pac schools?

(11-08-2025 01:32 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:23 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 12:06 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Given the lawsuit against the MW over their scheduling agreement, I think it possible that other conferences might be wary of doing an agreement with the nPAC.

Maybe include a clause saying the nPAC waives its right to sue over any aspect of the deal, and that full payment is made up front, before any games are played.

To be clear, IANAL, and I am not saying the nPAC is wrong about their lawsuit vs the MW. The courts may determine that some or all of their legal claims are valid, that they are in the right about that. But still, I'd be wary.

Obviously, the lawsuit against the MWC was about more than just scheduling some football games. Each future PAC team just needs to find the extra game and agree to whatever payment is to be made. For example, Troy recently agreed to play Utah State in Logan and Troy will receive a $550,000 dollar guarantee for the game. It is just a scheduling agreement.

This is not ideal for the PAC, and they really need to find a 9th football team for 2027. The PAC already has five OOC games with the AAC next season, so they probably need to find some games with the SBC, CUSA, or MAC.

The five games with the AAC:
Memphis at Boise State
Colorado State at UTSA
Rice at Fresno State
UTSA at Texas State
North Texas at Texas State

The PAC will have two games with the MWC:
Wyoming playing at Colorado State
Fresno State at San Jose State.
Those schools are continuing their rivalry games.

LIKE ^^^

Once the MWC/PAC Lawsuit/Settlement runs its course then PAC FB #9 (2027) will become clearer...
- UNLV/AFA (FB-Only)/UNM

PAC vs AAC (2026) games are scheduled against some the teams that the PAC invited (Memphis/UTSA)...PAC (2026) could continue schedule games against AAC teams they invited before to keep up relations with teams who may be potential future invites (UTSA)...PAC could do the same with the MWC...

Keep the old MWC rivalry games...gets PAC (2026) teams two (2) OOC games...MWC continued to schedule games with BYU after they left the MWC...PAC (2026) could continue to schedule games against MWC teams they invited previously to keep up relations with teams they may invite in the future (UNLV/AFA/UNM)...

Well yeah. Of course the new pac schools will want to schedule AF, UNLV and UNM. Why would those 3 want to schedule the new pac schools?

There is no reason not to continue to play each other, where it makes sense. SDSU has a home-and-home series in football recently scheduled with Hawaii for 2028 & 2029. SDSU also recently scheduled a home-and-home series for basketball with UNLV. UNM has a home-and-home series scheduled for 2027 & 2028 with Oregon State.

Air Force is more difficult to schedule for football because of their games with Army and Navy and no one really wants to deal with their triple option offense. With Colorado State continuing their rivalry with Wyoming and Fresno State continuing their rivalry with SJSU, there is plenty of evidence that the PAC and the MWC will continue to play each other where it makes sense.

(11-08-2025 04:08 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:32 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:23 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 12:06 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Given the lawsuit against the MW over their scheduling agreement, I think it possible that other conferences might be wary of doing an agreement with the nPAC.

Maybe include a clause saying the nPAC waives its right to sue over any aspect of the deal, and that full payment is made up front, before any games are played.

To be clear, IANAL, and I am not saying the nPAC is wrong about their lawsuit vs the MW. The courts may determine that some or all of their legal claims are valid, that they are in the right about that. But still, I'd be wary.

Obviously, the lawsuit against the MWC was about more than just scheduling some football games. Each future PAC team just needs to find the extra game and agree to whatever payment is to be made. For example, Troy recently agreed to play Utah State in Logan and Troy will receive a $550,000 dollar guarantee for the game. It is just a scheduling agreement.

This is not ideal for the PAC, and they really need to find a 9th football team for 2027. The PAC already has five OOC games with the AAC next season, so they probably need to find some games with the SBC, CUSA, or MAC.

The five games with the AAC:
Memphis at Boise State
Colorado State at UTSA
Rice at Fresno State
UTSA at Texas State
North Texas at Texas State

The PAC will have two games with the MWC:
Wyoming playing at Colorado State
Fresno State at San Jose State.
Those schools are continuing their rivalry games.

LIKE ^^^

Once the MWC/PAC Lawsuit/Settlement runs its course then PAC FB #9 (2027) will become clearer...
- UNLV/AFA (FB-Only)/UNM

PAC vs AAC (2026) games are scheduled against some the teams that the PAC invited (Memphis/UTSA)...PAC (2026) could continue schedule games against AAC teams they invited before to keep up relations with teams who may be potential future invites (UTSA)...PAC could do the same with the MWC...

Keep the old MWC rivalry games...gets PAC (2026) teams two (2) OOC games...MWC continued to schedule games with BYU after they left the MWC...PAC (2026) could continue to schedule games against MWC teams they invited previously to keep up relations with teams they may invite in the future (UNLV/AFA/UNM)...

Well yeah. Of course the new pac schools will want to schedule AF, UNLV and UNM. Why would those 3 want to schedule the new pac schools?

There is no reason not to continue to play each other, where it makes sense. SDSU has a home-and-home series in football recently scheduled with Hawaii for 2028 & 2029. SDSU also recently scheduled a home-and-home series for basketball with UNLV. UNM has a home-and-home series scheduled for 2027 & 2028 with Oregon State.

Air Force is more difficult to schedule for football because of their games with Army and Navy and no one really wants to deal with their triple option offense. With Colorado State continuing their rivalry with Wyoming and Fresno State continuing their rivalry with SJSU, there is plenty of evidence that the PAC and the MWC will continue to play each other where it makes sense.

So... ignore the lawsuit?

(11-08-2025 08:26 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 04:08 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:32 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:23 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 12:06 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Obviously, the lawsuit against the MWC was about more than just scheduling some football games. Each future PAC team just needs to find the extra game and agree to whatever payment is to be made. For example, Troy recently agreed to play Utah State in Logan and Troy will receive a $550,000 dollar guarantee for the game. It is just a scheduling agreement.

This is not ideal for the PAC, and they really need to find a 9th football team for 2027. The PAC already has five OOC games with the AAC next season, so they probably need to find some games with the SBC, CUSA, or MAC.

The five games with the AAC:
Memphis at Boise State
Colorado State at UTSA
Rice at Fresno State
UTSA at Texas State
North Texas at Texas State

The PAC will have two games with the MWC:
Wyoming playing at Colorado State
Fresno State at San Jose State.
Those schools are continuing their rivalry games.

LIKE ^^^

Once the MWC/PAC Lawsuit/Settlement runs its course then PAC FB #9 (2027) will become clearer...
- UNLV/AFA (FB-Only)/UNM

PAC vs AAC (2026) games are scheduled against some the teams that the PAC invited (Memphis/UTSA)...PAC (2026) could continue schedule games against AAC teams they invited before to keep up relations with teams who may be potential future invites (UTSA)...PAC could do the same with the MWC...

Keep the old MWC rivalry games...gets PAC (2026) teams two (2) OOC games...MWC continued to schedule games with BYU after they left the MWC...PAC (2026) could continue to schedule games against MWC teams they invited previously to keep up relations with teams they may invite in the future (UNLV/AFA/UNM)...

Well yeah. Of course the new pac schools will want to schedule AF, UNLV and UNM. Why would those 3 want to schedule the new pac schools?

There is no reason not to continue to play each other, where it makes sense. SDSU has a home-and-home series in football recently scheduled with Hawaii for 2028 & 2029. SDSU also recently scheduled a home-and-home series for basketball with UNLV. UNM has a home-and-home series scheduled for 2027 & 2028 with Oregon State.

Air Force is more difficult to schedule for football because of their games with Army and Navy and no one really wants to deal with their triple option offense. With Colorado State continuing their rivalry with Wyoming and Fresno State continuing their rivalry with SJSU, there is plenty of evidence that the PAC and the MWC will continue to play each other where it makes sense.

So... ignore the lawsuit?

Ok I follow future schedules pretty well and what was the timing of the game’s scheduled? Was this before the recent dirt being kicked around?

End of the day $$ will win out in the end in terms of scheduling and it will be beneficial for both MWC and PAC teams to play each other to save $$ and to generate as much as possible with more regional teams coming to play vs an east coast team.

I do agree however that the PAC needs to get a 9th member for 2027, if I'm the PAC I'd focus on the following teams:

TEAMS THEY SHOULD TARGET BUT UNLIKELY TO GET:

HAWAII (FB Only): I understand that this is pretty unlikely but with their recent resurgence in Football (3-1 vs the NPAC this season) I think the PAC should avoid UNLV and Air Force (as the MWC seems desperate to keep them) and put alot more effort and $$ into convincing the Bows to join as Football only and leave their Olys in the easier to travel to Big West. I know there was some discussion and a push by the Honolulu Mayor to join the PAC, and once the TV deal gets finalized the PAC should go all in on Hawaii Football to offset Gonzaga. Also since they're currently Football only I think they'd be cheaper/easier to aquire? And been some rumblings of Hawaii fans not wanting their Olys in the MWC and wanting to stay in the Big West, any truth to that?

NORTH TEXAS: The PAC offered a bunch of AC schools a pretty bad deal initially so for 2027 or even 2028 if they have to they should pool all the money they can and focus on getting 1 American school, in this case one team they didn't offer before and that is North Texas. Would add a program on the rise in both Football and Basketball and give you a 2nd Texas school, granted this is also an unlikely scenario IMO, but maybe if the TV deal and $$ offered was good enough.

RICE: Similar scenario to the one listed above, the Owls being a Private University would definitely not fit the mold of the rest of the Conference but they'd definitely have the $$ to compete, it's the fact that they don't seem to give a damn about Atheltics is the biggest issue.

TEAMS THEY HAVE A BETTER SHOT TO GET, UNLIKELY TO INVITE:

NMSU: Has a history of being decent at Basketball (arguably the best PAC sport) but overall woeful at Football. Coach Kill did prove however you could win there so theyre not a complete lost cause. Lack of $$ commitment is also an issue, the school would have to step up Big time and that seems unlikely, but best geographic fit.

LOUISIANA: Another school that was mentioned early in the expansion process the Cajuns could be the 2nd backup option with TXST (instead of Memphis and Tulane). They've recently renovated their stadium and overall have been pretty successful at Football, would add another CTZ Team and a "travel partner" for TXST.

BAND-AID OPTION:

Sac State: If they're able to be an FBS Independent and move up they could literally play every single PAC team in a scheduling agreement which would be cheaper for the PAC instead of trying to set up one with a Conference. The PAC would all get 1 more FBS game against a team that is regional to most of the Conference, IF they reach certain milestones by 2030 and have success you could invite them then, but if not you still have a regional opponent to fill a slot for every team in your Conference.

(11-08-2025 01:32 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:23 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 12:06 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Given the lawsuit against the MW over their scheduling agreement, I think it possible that other conferences might be wary of doing an agreement with the nPAC.

Maybe include a clause saying the nPAC waives its right to sue over any aspect of the deal, and that full payment is made up front, before any games are played.

To be clear, IANAL, and I am not saying the nPAC is wrong about their lawsuit vs the MW. The courts may determine that some or all of their legal claims are valid, that they are in the right about that. But still, I'd be wary.

Obviously, the lawsuit against the MWC was about more than just scheduling some football games. Each future PAC team just needs to find the extra game and agree to whatever payment is to be made. For example, Troy recently agreed to play Utah State in Logan and Troy will receive a $550,000 dollar guarantee for the game. It is just a scheduling agreement.

This is not ideal for the PAC, and they really need to find a 9th football team for 2027. The PAC already has five OOC games with the AAC next season, so they probably need to find some games with the SBC, CUSA, or MAC.

The five games with the AAC:
Memphis at Boise State
Colorado State at UTSA
Rice at Fresno State
UTSA at Texas State
North Texas at Texas State

The PAC will have two games with the MWC:
Wyoming playing at Colorado State
Fresno State at San Jose State.
Those schools are continuing their rivalry games.

LIKE ^^^

Once the MWC/PAC Lawsuit/Settlement runs its course then PAC FB #9 (2027) will become clearer...
- UNLV/AFA (FB-Only)/UNM

PAC vs AAC (2026) games are scheduled against some the teams that the PAC invited (Memphis/UTSA)...PAC (2026) could continue schedule games against AAC teams they invited before to keep up relations with teams who may be potential future invites (UTSA)...PAC could do the same with the MWC...

Keep the old MWC rivalry games...gets PAC (2026) teams two (2) OOC games...MWC continued to schedule games with BYU after they left the MWC...PAC (2026) could continue to schedule games against MWC teams they invited previously to keep up relations with teams they may invite in the future (UNLV/AFA/UNM)...

Well yeah. Of course the new pac schools will want to schedule AF, UNLV and UNM. Why would those 3 want to schedule the new pac schools?

THIS ^^^

to get to the other side...in this case...the PAC...

those 3 schools (UNLV/AFA/UNM) would want to schedule with the nPAC schools to keep up good relations and potentially receive a get out of the MWC card in the form of a nPAC invite...

also $$$ is $$$...those 3 schools will get paid to play nPAC schools...

(11-08-2025 11:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 08:26 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 04:08 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:32 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:23 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  LIKE ^^^

Once the MWC/PAC Lawsuit/Settlement runs its course then PAC FB #9 (2027) will become clearer...
- UNLV/AFA (FB-Only)/UNM

PAC vs AAC (2026) games are scheduled against some the teams that the PAC invited (Memphis/UTSA)...PAC (2026) could continue schedule games against AAC teams they invited before to keep up relations with teams who may be potential future invites (UTSA)...PAC could do the same with the MWC...

Keep the old MWC rivalry games...gets PAC (2026) teams two (2) OOC games...MWC continued to schedule games with BYU after they left the MWC...PAC (2026) could continue to schedule games against MWC teams they invited previously to keep up relations with teams they may invite in the future (UNLV/AFA/UNM)...

Well yeah. Of course the new pac schools will want to schedule AF, UNLV and UNM. Why would those 3 want to schedule the new pac schools?

There is no reason not to continue to play each other, where it makes sense. SDSU has a home-and-home series in football recently scheduled with Hawaii for 2028 & 2029. SDSU also recently scheduled a home-and-home series for basketball with UNLV. UNM has a home-and-home series scheduled for 2027 & 2028 with Oregon State.

Air Force is more difficult to schedule for football because of their games with Army and Navy and no one really wants to deal with their triple option offense. With Colorado State continuing their rivalry with Wyoming and Fresno State continuing their rivalry with SJSU, there is plenty of evidence that the PAC and the MWC will continue to play each other where it makes sense.

So... ignore the lawsuit?

Ok I follow future schedules pretty well and what was the timing of the game’s scheduled? Was this before the recent dirt being kicked around?

All of these games were scheduled after the Pac-12 lawsuit was filed against the MWC. There is no reason for these schools to not play each other. The dispute over the poaching fees is a separate issue. There is no reason that San Jose State cannot continue their rivalry game in football each season with Fresno State.

(11-09-2025 02:31 AM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  TEAMS THEY SHOULD TARGET BUT UNLIKELY TO GET:

HAWAII (FB Only): I understand that this is pretty unlikely but with their recent resurgence in Football (3-1 vs the NPAC this season) I think the PAC should avoid UNLV and Air Force (as the MWC seems desperate to keep them) and put alot more effort and $$ into convincing the Bows to join as Football only and leave their Olys in the easier to travel to Big West. I know there was some discussion and a push by the Honolulu Mayor to join the PAC, and once the TV deal gets finalized the PAC should go all in on Hawaii Football to offset Gonzaga. Also since they're currently Football only I think they'd be cheaper/easier to aquire? And been some rumblings of Hawaii fans not wanting their Olys in the MWC and wanting to stay in the Big West, any truth to that?

Hawaii signed the MWC GOR agreement. Our broadcast rights belong to that conference until 2032. We aren’t a realistic target for the Pac.

Having said that, if the Pac-MWC litigation resulted in a settlement that for some reason included giving Hawaii the option to be released from its grant of rights to the MWC (which I consider to be extraordinary unlikely), I don’t think Hawaii would choose to do so to join the Pac for football only. The Pac would have to take us for all sports. We don’t want to be a second class citizen in whatever conference we play football in. To secure our football program’s future we want to be a full member, which ensures we’re just as hard to kick out as any other full member.

In response to your question, I think it’s true that many Hawaii fans think that with the exception of men’s basketball, Hawaii’s non-football sports would probably be better off staying in the Big West than moving to the future MWC. Travel will be more difficult and expensive in the MWC, and the level of competition in those non-revenue sports won’t be significantly better. But that was a secondary consideration compared to securing our football program’s future, so we bit the bullet. The same logic would apply with respect to the Pac.

They’ll take option 4

Some of the schools will schedule a fifth OOC…
and some of them will just play 11 games.

It’s not that far-fetched. Several of these schools have had opportunities to play 13 games the last two years and instead chose to have two open dates. Next year eleven games would also equal two open dates.

I think closing their eyes and picking New Mexico State should happen. PAC isn't going to get MWC schools due to the court cases and AAC are to expensive to get. I'd also look at a FCS to get back to 10. Then look at a Olympic sports add. They have to stop dreaming their a top G6 conference. Get a decent basketball school who plays FCS football out west. 10/12 would be a good place to be until you can determine whose the best to Get back to 12 in football.

(11-10-2025 12:35 AM)46566 Wrote:  I think closing their eyes and picking New Mexico State should happen. PAC isn't going to get MWC schools due to the court cases and AAC are to expensive to get. I'd also look at a FCS to get back to 10. Then look at a Olympic sports add. They have to stop dreaming their a top G6 conference. Get a decent basketball school who plays FCS football out west. 10/12 would be a good place to be until you can determine whose the best to Get back to 12 in football.

The to be NuPac conference has been an abject disaster on the field this season. WSU and OSU are particularly concerning. Dreams of pulling additional schools from the MWC or American is out the window. New Mexico State is probably their best option at this point.

(11-08-2025 12:06 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Given the lawsuit against the MW over their scheduling agreement, I think it possible that other conferences might be wary of doing an agreement with the nPAC.

Maybe include a clause saying the nPAC waives its right to sue over any aspect of the deal, and that full payment is made up front, before any games are played.

To be clear, IANAL, and I am not saying the nPAC is wrong about their lawsuit vs the MW. The courts may determine that some or all of their legal claims are valid, that they are in the right about that. But still, I'd be wary.

Obviously, the lawsuit against the MWC was about more than just scheduling some football games. Each future PAC team just needs to find the extra game and agree to whatever payment is to be made. For example, Troy recently agreed to play Utah State in Logan and Troy will receive a $550,000 dollar guarantee for the game. It is just a scheduling agreement.

This is not ideal for the PAC, and they really need to find a 9th football team for 2027. The PAC already has five OOC games with the AAC next season, so they probably need to find some games with the SBC, CUSA, or MAC. The five games with the AAC:
Memphis at Boise State
Colorado State at UTSA
Rice at Fresno State
UTSA at Texas State
North Texas at Texas State

The PAC will have two games with the MWC, with Wyoming playing at Colorado State next season and Fresno State at San Jose State. Those schools are continuing their rivalry games.

Yeah, if it's just individual teams doing deals, I don't think there is an issue to be wary about. If Fresno State wants to pay USF $500,000 to travel to California for a game, then if we have the opening, sure.

(11-07-2025 10:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Canzano and Wilner discussed PAC-12 football scheduling for next year, sketching out three options for an 8th conference-provided game.

1. Everybody plays a home-and-home, like WSU and OSU are doing this year. That might mean a third meeting in the CCG, feelings were negative

2. Scheduling agreement with another conference. I've been skeptical, because what's in it for the other confernece? I'm shifting my position here somewhat.

3. Set aside one week for flex matchups. 4 schools know they have a home game, 4 schools know they have a road game, matchups determined in season. That is an idea that the PAC has.

And of course 4. you're on your own, figure it out.

I was listening to @CollegiateAthleticsAdvocates' video, and he sketched out a whole fanciful 10 minute thing, after he combed through the FBSchedules of every FBS school West of the Eastern time zone, got everyone a P5 game, balanced home and home, etc etc.

Way too many moving parts in my opinion. "If everyone would just..." They won't. They will not "just."

But he dropped a nugget. Louisiana TEch's move from CUSA to the Sun Belt has left them in an awkward spot -- their September OOC games with Southern Miss and Louisiana are now conference games.

That's four openings right there. LT @ USM, ULL @ LT become confernece games. With the cooperation of the Sun Belt conference office, in October and November you could send 2 PAC-12 schools to USM and LT, and LT and Louisiana could play @ 2 PAC-12 schools.

On top of that, Louisiana was already down one OOC road game. You don't want to give them two transcontinental trips, so go ahead and send them to San Marcos to play Texas State. (5 out of 8)

Georgia State has an opening for a home game. (6 out of 8)

@ USM, @ LT, @ Georgia State. 2 x ULL, LT. So we need one home game, one road game.

Sam Houston (CUSA) has a game @ Troy. PAC-12 team plays @ Troy, see if Sam Houston State will take a payment to play @ PAC 12 in November instead of @ Troy on 9/5. (8 out of 8)

Or see if any of the P4's hosting Sun Belt squads in payday games are amenable to hosting a PAC-12 squad, while the Sun Belt school plays out West in a more winnable game.

This would have benefits for both the PAC-12 *and* the Sun Belt, solving a number of scheduling issues at once (if you can pull off the 7th and 8th games.)

Scheduling is the problem. Everyone is booked up in September.

(11-07-2025 03:34 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 10:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  2. Scheduling agreement with another conference. I've been skeptical, because what's in it for the other confernece? I'm shifting my position here somewhat.

CFP expands to 16 teams. AC and PAC form a consortium with a guaranteed berth. Football only.

AC divides into two divisions, with Army and Navy alternating between divisions.

AC East: Round robin (6 games), One game against PAC (1), Two games against AC Central (2).
AC Central: Round robin (6 games), one game against PAC (1), Two games against AC East (2).
PAC: Round robin (7 games), One game against AC East (1), One game against AC West (1).

To balance the games, one team in the AC East and one team in the AC Central play an extra game against the PAC, and one less against the opposite AC division. The two schools are Army and Navy. They continue to play each other as OOC game.

AC schools other than Army/Navy play one PAC team each year, with a western trip every other year. PAC schools play two AC schools each year, with a trip out east each year.

Consortium playoffs: Division winner plus one wild card. Semifinal and championship.

Nobody is going to give them a guaranteed berth.

Logically, they probably should try to do their next TV deal together. Before, the American was ahead of everybody else. Now, there's a good chance their values are similar.

(11-09-2025 02:59 AM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:32 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:23 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 12:06 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Given the lawsuit against the MW over their scheduling agreement, I think it possible that other conferences might be wary of doing an agreement with the nPAC.

Maybe include a clause saying the nPAC waives its right to sue over any aspect of the deal, and that full payment is made up front, before any games are played.

To be clear, IANAL, and I am not saying the nPAC is wrong about their lawsuit vs the MW. The courts may determine that some or all of their legal claims are valid, that they are in the right about that. But still, I'd be wary.

Obviously, the lawsuit against the MWC was about more than just scheduling some football games. Each future PAC team just needs to find the extra game and agree to whatever payment is to be made. For example, Troy recently agreed to play Utah State in Logan and Troy will receive a $550,000 dollar guarantee for the game. It is just a scheduling agreement.

This is not ideal for the PAC, and they really need to find a 9th football team for 2027. The PAC already has five OOC games with the AAC next season, so they probably need to find some games with the SBC, CUSA, or MAC.

The five games with the AAC:
Memphis at Boise State
Colorado State at UTSA
Rice at Fresno State
UTSA at Texas State
North Texas at Texas State

The PAC will have two games with the MWC:
Wyoming playing at Colorado State
Fresno State at San Jose State.
Those schools are continuing their rivalry games.

LIKE ^^^

Once the MWC/PAC Lawsuit/Settlement runs its course then PAC FB #9 (2027) will become clearer...
- UNLV/AFA (FB-Only)/UNM

PAC vs AAC (2026) games are scheduled against some the teams that the PAC invited (Memphis/UTSA)...PAC (2026) could continue schedule games against AAC teams they invited before to keep up relations with teams who may be potential future invites (UTSA)...PAC could do the same with the MWC...

Keep the old MWC rivalry games...gets PAC (2026) teams two (2) OOC games...MWC continued to schedule games with BYU after they left the MWC...PAC (2026) could continue to schedule games against MWC teams they invited previously to keep up relations with teams they may invite in the future (UNLV/AFA/UNM)...

Well yeah. Of course the new pac schools will want to schedule AF, UNLV and UNM. Why would those 3 want to schedule the new pac schools?

THIS ^^^

to get to the other side...in this case...the PAC...

those 3 schools (UNLV/AFA/UNM) would want to schedule with the nPAC schools to keep up good relations and potentially receive a get out of the MWC card in the form of a nPAC invite...

also $$$ is $$$...those 3 schools will get paid to play nPAC schools...

Does the PAC even make a significant revenue from its TV deal? What are they going to pay MWC schools with? More promises they will sue over?

Troy has already added Utah State to next year's schedule. It's an away game but we know that either Missouri or Mississippi State will buy out their Troy game because both need to rid themselves of 1 non-conference game for 2026 and beyond.