The unofficial online home for fans of the Pac-12 Conference. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(08-20-2026 10:05 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Why would any American team drop to nPAC? American is the top G6 conference.
Then who in the MAC, SBC or CUSA is going to generate any interest from west coast fans?
Then who in the nPAC is going to generate interest from MAC, SBC or CUSA fans?
NMSU is the only team in these three who should be consider or should consider either the nPAC or MWC. Geography would be a big winner in a move.
MAC could have a few teams wanting to jump ship but no other good reason to move. CUSA, other than NMSU dont see a mover with only Sam as an outside potential mover.
SBC, dont see anyone who would leave with the current setup.

MWC, why move to an equal western conference? nPAC doesnt offer anything more than MWC.

Only G6 moves which make sense unless there is a big shake up would be MAC, SBC or CUSA members moving to the American. This may soon change as media money will become more equal.

I can't tell if you're trolling or really that dense.

(08-20-2026 10:53 AM)HouCat Wrote:  

(08-20-2026 10:05 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Why would any American team drop to nPAC? American is the top G6 conference.
Then who in the MAC, SBC or CUSA is going to generate any interest from west coast fans?
Then who in the nPAC is going to generate interest from MAC, SBC or CUSA fans?
NMSU is the only team in these three who should be consider or should consider either the nPAC or MWC. Geography would be a big winner in a move.
MAC could have a few teams wanting to jump ship but no other good reason to move. CUSA, other than NMSU dont see a mover with only Sam as an outside potential mover.
SBC, dont see anyone who would leave with the current setup.

MWC, why move to an equal western conference? nPAC doesnt offer anything more than MWC.

Only G6 moves which make sense unless there is a big shake up would be MAC, SBC or CUSA members moving to the American. This may soon change as media money will become more equal.

I can't tell if you're trolling or really that dense.

What are you questioning about what he said??? I agree Gem can be a little over the top sometimes, including when he has stated that CUSA is better than the SBC, but I kind of agree with everything he said here. TxSt was on an island in the SBC, you’re still on an island in the PAC, hopefully it works out for you guys. But the other schools currently in the the AAC, SBC and CUSA, except NMSU, are not on that same island. Maybe if the PAC or MW were to add the other Texas schools, I could see them making a move, possibly, but I would think they would want it as a package deal.

Tell me, other than Boise, what other school in the current PAC will excite your fan base when they come to San Marcos??? Are any of those better than the history you had built with the teams in the SBC??? Again, I hope it works out for you guys, but I don’t think it will be as big a financial boom you would have hoped for when the move was announced.

(08-20-2026 10:03 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(08-20-2026 10:53 AM)HouCat Wrote:  

(08-20-2026 10:05 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Why would any American team drop to nPAC? American is the top G6 conference.
Then who in the MAC, SBC or CUSA is going to generate any interest from west coast fans?
Then who in the nPAC is going to generate interest from MAC, SBC or CUSA fans?
NMSU is the only team in these three who should be consider or should consider either the nPAC or MWC. Geography would be a big winner in a move.
MAC could have a few teams wanting to jump ship but no other good reason to move. CUSA, other than NMSU dont see a mover with only Sam as an outside potential mover.
SBC, dont see anyone who would leave with the current setup.

MWC, why move to an equal western conference? nPAC doesnt offer anything more than MWC.

Only G6 moves which make sense unless there is a big shake up would be MAC, SBC or CUSA members moving to the American. This may soon change as media money will become more equal.

I can't tell if you're trolling or really that dense.

What are you questioning about what he said??? I agree Gem can be a little over the top sometimes, including when he has stated that CUSA is better than the SBC, but I kind of agree with everything he said here. TxSt was on an island in the SBC, you’re still on an island in the PAC, hopefully it works out for you guys. But the other schools currently in the the AAC, SBC and CUSA, except NMSU, are not on that same island. Maybe if the PAC or MW were to add the other Texas schools, I could see them making a move, possibly, but I would think they would want it as a package deal.

Tell me, other than Boise, what other school in the current PAC will excite your fan base when they come to San Marcos??? Are any of those better than the history you had built with the teams in the SBC??? Again, I hope it works out for you guys, but I don’t think it will be as big a financial boom you would have hoped for when the move was announced.

Yup, the SBC had us on an island, and we’re still on one. So for us, NP there. But for as long as we were in the SBC, did the Powers that be ever consider helping us off that island? picking up another TX school? Could they have, even if they wanted to? NOPE. Instead we got years of bitching from “Poor” Sun Belt programs like App St, Marshall, JMwho, ect. About having to come play a game in Texas.

You can speculate to your heart’s content “the wisdom” of the move we made. We don’t care. We’re not looking back, just forward.

Hell, The National Attention we’ve received this off season (since July 1) alone is already better than All the attention we received while in the Belt.

Appreciate Benson’s throwing us a lifeline when we need one, but Karl’s long gone, and so are we . . .

And I’d take the current PAC lineup over the Belt every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Ain’t lookin’ back, just up.

(08-20-2026 10:03 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(08-20-2026 10:53 AM)HouCat Wrote:  

(08-20-2026 10:05 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Why would any American team drop to nPAC? American is the top G6 conference.
Then who in the MAC, SBC or CUSA is going to generate any interest from west coast fans?
Then who in the nPAC is going to generate interest from MAC, SBC or CUSA fans?
NMSU is the only team in these three who should be consider or should consider either the nPAC or MWC. Geography would be a big winner in a move.
MAC could have a few teams wanting to jump ship but no other good reason to move. CUSA, other than NMSU dont see a mover with only Sam as an outside potential mover.
SBC, dont see anyone who would leave with the current setup.

MWC, why move to an equal western conference? nPAC doesnt offer anything more than MWC.

Only G6 moves which make sense unless there is a big shake up would be MAC, SBC or CUSA members moving to the American. This may soon change as media money will become more equal.

I can't tell if you're trolling or really that dense.

What are you questioning about what he said??? I agree Gem can be a little over the top sometimes, including when he has stated that CUSA is better than the SBC, but I kind of agree with everything he said here. TxSt was on an island in the SBC, you’re still on an island in the PAC, hopefully it works out for you guys. But the other schools currently in the the AAC, SBC and CUSA, except NMSU, are not on that same island. Maybe if the PAC or MW were to add the other Texas schools, I could see them making a move, possibly, but I would think they would want it as a package deal.

Tell me, other than Boise, what other school in the current PAC will excite your fan base when they come to San Marcos??? Are any of those better than the history you had built with the teams in the SBC??? Again, I hope it works out for you guys, but I don’t think it will be as big a financial boom you would have hoped for when the move was announced.

For starters, he opens with an incorrect premise.

"American is the top G6 conference"
Based on what? The average FPI/SP+/NET of the nPac is higher than the American.

"MWC is equal to the PAC"
In terms of what? Literally nothing supports this.

I quit reading after that.

It all comes down to what the future holds for conference re-realignment. If the AAC and even the SBC lose a few schools in the eastern time zone to a picked apart ACC, the PAC and MW could be sitting perfect to pull in those western schools out of the AAC and CUSA that would get you guys in a very friendly, Texas rich conference. We need to allow a conference to die, or we just keep making the FBS bigger, and I’m not sure that is a good thing for the future of the FBS football product. The move described above should kill off a conference, much like the last move probably should have killed the PAC and the move before that should have killed off CUSA. Unfortunately that didn’t happen, and for the schools that got the call from FCS, good for you guys, enjoy the new house, added money and TV exposure.

If the eastern AAC gets swallowed but a depleted ACC, I could see UTSA, Rice and North Texas all join you guys in the PAC, and for you guys, I believe that would be an absolute home run.

I’d like to believe that somewhere someone knows what the hell is going on in conference alignment, and they aren’t all just guessing their way through the way that it looks from the outside.

(08-15-2026 03:37 PM)slycat Wrote:  Oly costs would probably be cheaper than teams like Washington State. Flights to Atlanta are abundant and on the lower end. GSU is pretty close to the airport

If we lived up to our number, as in, PAC *12*…

Gonzaga*
Washington St
Oregon St
Boise St
San Francisco*
Fresno St
San Diego St
Utah St
Colorado St
Texas St
Saint Louis*
Georgia St

That’s the >>>12<<< we should ride with the rest of this decade before we can start plucking the best of the G5 in the 2030’s.

Again, only IF we wanted to get to 12 now.

I see the pac as a national brand. A couple more key east-of-the-Rockies will do very well. And I do NOT want St Mary’s. USF gets games in the Chase Center (where GS Warriors play).

I Think the obvious play for the PAC is to focus on Texas schools (or what'a left of the options).

Pac 12 was in a different position back in 2010 but back then they could have added TCU, Houston, SMU for pennies on the dollar along with BYU in addition to UTAH, COLORADO for a PAC 16 and locked in the Texas market. Unfortunately, they. only extended invites to Utah and Colorado because they were averse to adding religious based schools (i.e. TCU, SMU, BYU) and didn't pursue at least a foothold in the Texas market (Houston).

Today the PAC needs to think strategically and 100% pursue the Texas strategy to ensure long term growth and relevance. Naturally North Texas, UTSA and RICE would be ideal (but probably not plausible to amount of American Conference exit fee cost).

One obvious easy next case candidate in Texas is Tarleton State.

The PAC cannot afford to not act on whatever Texas school that they can get now to stay ahead of the realignment cannibalisms that continue to happen by all the conferences. The PAC has Texas State so now get at the very least Tarleton State to compliment their existing lone foothold in Texas.

Be proactively strategic and not desperately reactive.

(10-14-2026 10:54 PM)farmfanucdgrad Wrote:  I Think the obvious play for the PAC is to focus on Texas schools (or what'a left of the options).

Pac 12 was in a different position back in 2010 but back then they could have added TCU, Houston, SMU for pennies on the dollar along with BYU in addition to UTAH, COLORADO for a PAC 16 and locked in the Texas market. Unfortunately, they. only extended invites to Utah and Colorado because they were averse to adding religious based schools (i.e. TCU, SMU, BYU) and didn't pursue at least a foothold in the Texas market (Houston).

Today the PAC needs to think strategically and 100% pursue the Texas strategy to ensure long term growth and relevance. Naturally North Texas, UTSA and RICE would be ideal (but probably not plausible to amount of American Conference exit fee cost).

One obvious easy next case candidate in Texas is Tarleton State.

The PAC cannot afford to not act on whatever Texas school that they can get now to stay ahead of the realignment cannibalisms that continue to happen by all the conferences. The PAC has Texas State so now get at the very least Tarleton State to compliment their existing lone foothold in Texas.

Be proactively strategic and not desperately reactive.

How would adding a regional FCS transitional with no national brand, budget, fanbase, or market help the PAC-12's mission of being the preeminent G5 conference?

A: It wouldn't.

Anyone can see the tremendous amount of investment that Tarleton State has put in their athletic programs and facilities (especially football). They already surpass many G5 programs in terms of annual athletic spending budget.
The PAC is not in a position to ignore the Texas opportunity yet again. The PAC needs to prioritize the best available options for growth/Revenue since they already have Texas State. Need to add at least one more in Texas to be strategically sound. I would take Tarleton State over Sam Houston State as an example because it brings much more to the conference table in terms of of potential revenue.

The PAC needs another Texas school yesterday...It would be an absolute shame if the PAC somehow lost Texas State and/or others to the American because of a lack of foresight or proactivity or continuing to display this feux 'holier than thou" attitude in the current realignment domino effect situation.

James Madison leaving the Sun Belt for the American is just another step in the latest round of Realignment Russian Roulette. It's honestly a continued "Kill or be killed" Modis Operandi that the conference needs to operate under. Get another Texas school to help the current Texas school (plus bring more viewers) or predictably miss yet another Texas opportunity while acting unreasonably smug in the present while inevitably losing the current Texas school (Texas State) to the American or whatever in the near future. Don't keep the one Texas school currently in the conference on a lone island. Do whatever it takes to get more Texas eyeballs (inclusive of Tarleton State if the other American Conference Teams are not possible. Get it done...one way or another. Wining Ugly is always sexier than Losing pretty.
Standing pat is losing pretty...pretty stupid that is. Do not repeat the mistakes of the past....get more Texas eyeballs for more lucrative TV contracts in the future.

(10-15-2026 04:15 PM)farmfanucdgrad Wrote:  Anyone can see the tremendous amount of investment that Tarleton State has put in their athletic programs and facilities (especially football). They already surpass many G5 programs in terms of annual athletic spending budget.
The PAC is not in a position to ignore the Texas opportunity yet again. The PAC needs to prioritize the best available options for growth/Revenue since they already have Texas State. Need to add at least one more in Texas to be strategically sound. I would take Tarleton State over Sam Houston State as an example because it brings much more to the conference table in terms of of potential revenue.

The PAC needs another Texas school yesterday...It would be an absolute shame if the PAC somehow lost Texas State and/or others to the American because of a lack of foresight or proactivity or continuing to display this feux 'holier than thou" attitude in the current realignment domino effect situation.

James Madison leaving the Sun Belt for the American is just another step in the latest round of Realignment Russian Roulette. It's honestly a continued "Kill or be killed" Modis Operandi that the conference needs to operate under. Get another Texas school to help the current Texas school (plus bring more viewers) or predictably miss yet another Texas opportunity while acting unreasonably smug in the present while inevitably losing the current Texas school (Texas State) to the American or whatever in the near future. Don't keep the one Texas school currently in the conference on a lone island. Do whatever it takes to get more Texas eyeballs (inclusive of Tarleton State if the other American Conference Teams are not possible. Get it done...one way or another. Wining Ugly is always sexier than Losing pretty.
Standing pat is losing pretty...pretty stupid that is. Do not repeat the mistakes of the past....get more Texas eyeballs for more lucrative TV contracts in the future.

Your fixation on Tarleton St. even Texas is curious, and puts you in a clear minority as far as your fellow PAC posters go.
The message I get from the majority of them is that they don’t want another team in Texas. Hell, they probably don’t really want us as part of their little cozy West Coast Conference.

Kinda has you beating a dead horse there amigo.

Personally, I find their point of view short cited, though not surprising. Ego(s) killed the last rendition of the PAC . . . wouldn’t be surprised if Egos burn this rendition too.

(08-20-2026 10:03 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(08-20-2026 10:53 AM)HouCat Wrote:  

(08-20-2026 10:05 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Why would any American team drop to nPAC? American is the top G6 conference.
Then who in the MAC, SBC or CUSA is going to generate any interest from west coast fans?
Then who in the nPAC is going to generate interest from MAC, SBC or CUSA fans?
NMSU is the only team in these three who should be consider or should consider either the nPAC or MWC. Geography would be a big winner in a move.
MAC could have a few teams wanting to jump ship but no other good reason to move. CUSA, other than NMSU dont see a mover with only Sam as an outside potential mover.
SBC, dont see anyone who would leave with the current setup.

MWC, why move to an equal western conference? nPAC doesnt offer anything more than MWC.

Only G6 moves which make sense unless there is a big shake up would be MAC, SBC or CUSA members moving to the American. This may soon change as media money will become more equal.

I can't tell if you're trolling or really that dense.

What are you questioning about what he said??? I agree Gem can be a little over the top sometimes, including when he has stated that CUSA is better than the SBC, but I kind of agree with everything he said here. TxSt was on an island in the SBC, you’re still on an island in the PAC, hopefully it works out for you guys. But the other schools currently in the the AAC, SBC and CUSA, except NMSU, are not on that same island. Maybe if the PAC or MW were to add the other Texas schools, I could see them making a move, possibly, but I would think they would want it as a package deal.

Tell me, other than Boise, what other school in the current PAC will excite your fan base when they come to San Marcos??? Are any of those better than the history you had built with the teams in the SBC??? Again, I hope it works out for you guys, but I don’t think it will be as big a financial boom you would have hoped for when the move was announced.

Yes, all of them are.....

(10-14-2026 10:54 PM)farmfanucdgrad Wrote:  I Think the obvious play for the PAC is to focus on Texas schools (or what'a left of the options).

Pac 12 was in a different position back in 2010 but back then they could have added TCU, Houston, SMU for pennies on the dollar along with BYU in addition to UTAH, COLORADO for a PAC 16 and locked in the Texas market. Unfortunately, they. only extended invites to Utah and Colorado because they were averse to adding religious based schools (i.e. TCU, SMU, BYU) and didn't pursue at least a foothold in the Texas market (Houston).

Today the PAC needs to think strategically and 100% pursue the Texas strategy to ensure long term growth and relevance. Naturally North Texas, UTSA and RICE would be ideal (but probably not plausible to amount of American Conference exit fee cost).

One obvious easy next case candidate in Texas is Tarleton State.

The PAC cannot afford to not act on whatever Texas school that they can get now to stay ahead of the realignment cannibalisms that continue to happen by all the conferences. The PAC has Texas State so now get at the very least Tarleton State to compliment their existing lone foothold in Texas.

Be proactively strategic and not desperately reactive.

Nope, adding another FBS team to Texas hurts TXST, and the rest of the TX G6 programs, more than it helps the PAC. I see no benefit at all. Would love to see SHSU go back down to FCS too.

(10-16-2026 10:11 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-14-2026 10:54 PM)farmfanucdgrad Wrote:  I Think the obvious play for the PAC is to focus on Texas schools (or what'a left of the options).

Pac 12 was in a different position back in 2010 but back then they could have added TCU, Houston, SMU for pennies on the dollar along with BYU in addition to UTAH, COLORADO for a PAC 16 and locked in the Texas market. Unfortunately, they. only extended invites to Utah and Colorado because they were averse to adding religious based schools (i.e. TCU, SMU, BYU) and didn't pursue at least a foothold in the Texas market (Houston).

Today the PAC needs to think strategically and 100% pursue the Texas strategy to ensure long term growth and relevance. Naturally North Texas, UTSA and RICE would be ideal (but probably not plausible to amount of American Conference exit fee cost).

One obvious easy next case candidate in Texas is Tarleton State.

The PAC cannot afford to not act on whatever Texas school that they can get now to stay ahead of the realignment cannibalisms that continue to happen by all the conferences. The PAC has Texas State so now get at the very least Tarleton State to compliment their existing lone foothold in Texas.

Be proactively strategic and not desperately reactive.

Nope, adding another FBS team to Texas hurts TXST, and the rest of the TX G6 programs, more than it helps the PAC. I see no benefit at all. Would love to see SHSU go back down to FCS too.

Actually, adding another Texas Program to the PAC does provide benefit, particularly a program within easy driving distance of SM.

It saves travel costs for teams coming East to TX if they can get 2 in instead of 1.

We could be rid of the current ridiculous scheduling of a flex game in FB.

It kinda takes us off the island we’re currently on. Yeah, we were on one in the SBC too, and how’d that work out in the long run.

It would show a commitment to our program beyond: “We only took you to be a viable conference.”

(10-16-2026 11:04 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 10:11 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-14-2026 10:54 PM)farmfanucdgrad Wrote:  I Think the obvious play for the PAC is to focus on Texas schools (or what'a left of the options).

Pac 12 was in a different position back in 2010 but back then they could have added TCU, Houston, SMU for pennies on the dollar along with BYU in addition to UTAH, COLORADO for a PAC 16 and locked in the Texas market. Unfortunately, they. only extended invites to Utah and Colorado because they were averse to adding religious based schools (i.e. TCU, SMU, BYU) and didn't pursue at least a foothold in the Texas market (Houston).

Today the PAC needs to think strategically and 100% pursue the Texas strategy to ensure long term growth and relevance. Naturally North Texas, UTSA and RICE would be ideal (but probably not plausible to amount of American Conference exit fee cost).

One obvious easy next case candidate in Texas is Tarleton State.

The PAC cannot afford to not act on whatever Texas school that they can get now to stay ahead of the realignment cannibalisms that continue to happen by all the conferences. The PAC has Texas State so now get at the very least Tarleton State to compliment their existing lone foothold in Texas.

Be proactively strategic and not desperately reactive.

Nope, adding another FBS team to Texas hurts TXST, and the rest of the TX G6 programs, more than it helps the PAC. I see no benefit at all. Would love to see SHSU go back down to FCS too.

Actually, adding another Texas Program to the PAC does provide benefit, particularly a program within easy driving distance of SM.

It saves travel costs for teams coming East to TX if they can get 2 in instead of 1.

We could be rid of the current ridiculous scheduling of a flex game in FB.

It kinda takes us off the island we’re currently on. Yeah, we were on one in the SBC too, and how’d that work out in the long run.

It would show a commitment to our program beyond: “We only took you to be a viable conference.”

That's fair, it would help the PAC, but elevating ANOTHER Texas school to FBS still hurts TXST more than it helps TXST. I don't think the pros of having a school within 3 hours would outweigh the cons of legitimizing a school that has been begging for FBS for almost a decade now.

Will we have to wait awhile for UTSA or UNT to want to join? Probably, but I think the AAC is about to lose some members, hence the JMU add, so maybe UTSA and UNT will want to rethink their situation here shortly.

(10-16-2026 11:57 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 11:04 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 10:11 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-14-2026 10:54 PM)farmfanucdgrad Wrote:  I Think the obvious play for the PAC is to focus on Texas schools (or what'a left of the options).

Pac 12 was in a different position back in 2010 but back then they could have added TCU, Houston, SMU for pennies on the dollar along with BYU in addition to UTAH, COLORADO for a PAC 16 and locked in the Texas market. Unfortunately, they. only extended invites to Utah and Colorado because they were averse to adding religious based schools (i.e. TCU, SMU, BYU) and didn't pursue at least a foothold in the Texas market (Houston).

Today the PAC needs to think strategically and 100% pursue the Texas strategy to ensure long term growth and relevance. Naturally North Texas, UTSA and RICE would be ideal (but probably not plausible to amount of American Conference exit fee cost).

One obvious easy next case candidate in Texas is Tarleton State.

The PAC cannot afford to not act on whatever Texas school that they can get now to stay ahead of the realignment cannibalisms that continue to happen by all the conferences. The PAC has Texas State so now get at the very least Tarleton State to compliment their existing lone foothold in Texas.

Be proactively strategic and not desperately reactive.

Nope, adding another FBS team to Texas hurts TXST, and the rest of the TX G6 programs, more than it helps the PAC. I see no benefit at all. Would love to see SHSU go back down to FCS too.

Actually, adding another Texas Program to the PAC does provide benefit, particularly a program within easy driving distance of SM.

It saves travel costs for teams coming East to TX if they can get 2 in instead of 1.

We could be rid of the current ridiculous scheduling of a flex game in FB.

It kinda takes us off the island we’re currently on. Yeah, we were on one in the SBC too, and how’d that work out in the long run.

It would show a commitment to our program beyond: “We only took you to be a viable conference.”

That's fair, it would help the PAC, but elevating ANOTHER Texas school to FBS still hurts TXST more than it helps TXST. I don't think the pros of having a school within 3 hours would outweigh the cons of legitimizing a school that has been begging for FBS for almost a decade now.

Will we have to wait awhile for UTSA or UNT to want to join? Probably, but I think the AAC is about to lose some members, hence the JMU add, so maybe UTSA and UNT will want to rethink their situation here shortly.

Don’t misunderstand me friend. I’m not advocating the addition of an FCS program to the PAC. I want them to add an existing FBS program from TX to the conference. Helps us, helps the pac, IMO.

My prior statements regarding establishing a Texas pod of Pac 12 teams (4 would be optimal with 2 the minimum) is based on the reality of the current situation and mathematics in general facing the Pac 12. The Pac needs a few more football playing schools (eventually like at least 2) who bring value for a multitude of reasons. What they also need are more potential eyeballs (TV viewership) for lucrative future TV revenue contracts (which is what holds or breaks apart conferences). And they are not at scale going to get that from Idaho, Utah, Colorado (they all do help) like you will from Texas (where the present and future is). Getting the California markets of San Diego and to a lesser extent Fresno helped tremendously but the Pac needs more potential growth opportunity for TV viewership and that resides in Texas markets. An intriguing get however outside of Texas in 5 years will be the Sacramento (rest of Central Valley market) by adding Sacramento State (that's using a series of sets of assumptions like new FBS stadium, etc. which don't quite exist as of today). In 5 years that debate can be revisited but for now we need another Texas school.

This is only about thinking big picture wise for the Pac 12's viability and potential growth opportunities and not about individual school fiefdoms. What's good for the conference will benefit every school.

Now I mentioned Tarleton State as the last option of possible Texas schools (Sam Houston today is closer to Sac State today...not ideal in almost any sense). Noteworthy is that Tarleton State's athletic budget exceeds most of the MWC, all of MAC schools and all of Conference USA (except Liberty). Those are numbers hard to ignore.

(10-16-2026 02:28 PM)farmfanucdgrad Wrote:  My prior statements regarding establishing a Texas pod of Pac 12 teams (4 would be optimal with 2 the minimum) is based on the reality of the current situation and mathematics in general facing the Pac 12. The Pac needs a few more football playing schools (eventually like at least 2) who bring value for a multitude of reasons. What they also need are more potential eyeballs (TV viewership) for lucrative future TV revenue contracts (which is what holds or breaks apart conferences). And they are not at scale going to get that from Idaho, Utah, Colorado (they all do help) like you will from Texas (where the present and future is). Getting the California markets of San Diego and to a lesser extent Fresno helped tremendously but the Pac needs more potential growth opportunity for TV viewership and that resides in Texas markets. An intriguing get however outside of Texas in 5 years will be the Sacramento (rest of Central Valley market) by adding Sacramento State (that's using a series of sets of assumptions like new FBS stadium, etc. which don't quite exist as of today). In 5 years that debate can be revisited but for now we need another Texas school.

This is only about thinking big picture wise for the Pac 12's viability and potential growth opportunities and not about individual school fiefdoms. What's good for the conference will benefit every school.

Now I mentioned Tarleton State as the last option of possible Texas schools (Sam Houston today is closer to Sac State today...not ideal in almost any sense). Noteworthy is that Tarleton State's athletic budget exceeds most of the MWC, all of MAC schools and all of Conference USA (except Liberty). Those are numbers hard to ignore.

34 million isnt that impressive

(10-16-2026 03:19 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 02:28 PM)farmfanucdgrad Wrote:  My prior statements regarding establishing a Texas pod of Pac 12 teams (4 would be optimal with 2 the minimum) is based on the reality of the current situation and mathematics in general facing the Pac 12. The Pac needs a few more football playing schools (eventually like at least 2) who bring value for a multitude of reasons. What they also need are more potential eyeballs (TV viewership) for lucrative future TV revenue contracts (which is what holds or breaks apart conferences). And they are not at scale going to get that from Idaho, Utah, Colorado (they all do help) like you will from Texas (where the present and future is). Getting the California markets of San Diego and to a lesser extent Fresno helped tremendously but the Pac needs more potential growth opportunity for TV viewership and that resides in Texas markets. An intriguing get however outside of Texas in 5 years will be the Sacramento (rest of Central Valley market) by adding Sacramento State (that's using a series of sets of assumptions like new FBS stadium, etc. which don't quite exist as of today). In 5 years that debate can be revisited but for now we need another Texas school.

This is only about thinking big picture wise for the Pac 12's viability and potential growth opportunities and not about individual school fiefdoms. What's good for the conference will benefit every school.

Now I mentioned Tarleton State as the last option of possible Texas schools (Sam Houston today is closer to Sac State today...not ideal in almost any sense). Noteworthy is that Tarleton State's athletic budget exceeds most of the MWC, all of MAC schools and all of Conference USA (except Liberty). Those are numbers hard to ignore.

34 million isnt that impressive

Tarleton State University's annual athletic budget is $45 million
Impressive for an FCS. They are most likely headed to Conference USA in the near future.

Source? Knight Newhouse says 34 for 2025. That would be quite a jump. No doubt that 34 is still impressive for an FCS, but again, not so much for an FBS.

(10-16-2026 07:56 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  Source? Knight Newhouse says 34 for 2025. That would be quite a jump. No doubt that 34 is still impressive for an FCS, but again, not so much for an FBS.

I’ve got no dog in this fight, but based on the “little research” I did, Seems you’re both correct.

34.6 Milly was Tarleton’s 2025 Athletics budget.

They’ve kicked that up to 45 Milly for the 2026-27 academic yr.in an effort to position themselves for a jump to FBS.

As TX is pretty saturated at the FBS level, I kinda hope they stay where they are. Don’t blame ‘em for wanting to make the move though.

I really don’t like the PAC’s overall number of members. Personally, I’d like to see 12 at a minimum. But I don’t see where these additional members would come from, the cost of jumping conference to conference is starting to become cost prohibitive. Even the Belt has raised the cost of its exit fees.