(04-19-2023 11:42 AM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:51 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 03:59 PM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:58 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Just sign a deal, that's all they have to do? I'm pretty sure the PAC ADs and presidents would prefer to sign the best deal they can get and really don't worry about what people on twitter are saying.

As I understand it, the B1G deal isn't signed, they just have an agreement. And the B1G is dealing with FOX, CBS and NBC which have done the dance before and have templates in place. The PAC is dealing with people like Apple and Amazon who have never done a contract for collegiate sports so every move has to go through their lawyers.

I absolutely agree that the "best" deal is more important than the "soonest" deal. However, in this particular situation, it's looking more and more like they're the same thing. They already missed out on a deal similar to the big 12's, now they're stuck trying to decide between Ion TV and Apple+ for what looks to be the same money and less exposure. The random excuses (networks don't donate in the last 2 wks of the year) and obviously false leaks haven't helped Kliavkoff. His greatest allies are openly starting to question if more teams will leave soon. I wonder how that affects media rights negotiations?

When the big 12 lost Nebraska, CU, A&M and Missouri, they decided to stick together, brought on TCU and WV, and signed a new media rights deal. When they lost OUT, they brought on 4 more schools, decided to stick together (or were forced to, whatever), and signed a new media rights deal that was an improvement on the last one. The Pac seems to be stuck in a no-man's man in which they want to continue forward but some of their schools are still aggressively working to leave. Dragging out media rights negotiations only serves to enhance the perception, internally as well as externally, that all is not well.

They need to invite you guys and SMU, work out a media rights deal, and move forward, and they need to do it ASAP.

Southern Methodist is a non starter for the PAC. The two words “Southern “ and “Methodist “ equals poor cultural fit for the PAC. ( my opinion). If they do invite SMU then I will be proven wrong but I am not wrong( my opinion)

SMU is no longer associated with the Methodist church.

Then change the name because until you do you are still “associated “ with the Methodists .

You are my favorite person of of all time

(04-19-2023 12:52 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 11:42 AM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:51 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  SMU is no longer associated with the Methodist church.

Then change the name because until you do you are still “associated “ with the Methodists .

Sorry, John Adams, but New England is still associated with England.

Cincinnati still belongs the Roman Empire.



Sorry, but them's the rules

(04-19-2023 12:52 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 11:42 AM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:51 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  SMU is no longer associated with the Methodist church.

Then change the name because until you do you are still “associated “ with the Methodists .

Sorry, John Adams, but New England is still associated with England.

(04-19-2023 11:42 AM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:51 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 03:59 PM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:58 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Just sign a deal, that's all they have to do? I'm pretty sure the PAC ADs and presidents would prefer to sign the best deal they can get and really don't worry about what people on twitter are saying.

As I understand it, the B1G deal isn't signed, they just have an agreement. And the B1G is dealing with FOX, CBS and NBC which have done the dance before and have templates in place. The PAC is dealing with people like Apple and Amazon who have never done a contract for collegiate sports so every move has to go through their lawyers.

I absolutely agree that the "best" deal is more important than the "soonest" deal. However, in this particular situation, it's looking more and more like they're the same thing. They already missed out on a deal similar to the big 12's, now they're stuck trying to decide between Ion TV and Apple+ for what looks to be the same money and less exposure. The random excuses (networks don't donate in the last 2 wks of the year) and obviously false leaks haven't helped Kliavkoff. His greatest allies are openly starting to question if more teams will leave soon. I wonder how that affects media rights negotiations?

When the big 12 lost Nebraska, CU, A&M and Missouri, they decided to stick together, brought on TCU and WV, and signed a new media rights deal. When they lost OUT, they brought on 4 more schools, decided to stick together (or were forced to, whatever), and signed a new media rights deal that was an improvement on the last one. The Pac seems to be stuck in a no-man's man in which they want to continue forward but some of their schools are still aggressively working to leave. Dragging out media rights negotiations only serves to enhance the perception, internally as well as externally, that all is not well.

They need to invite you guys and SMU, work out a media rights deal, and move forward, and they need to do it ASAP.

Southern Methodist is a non starter for the PAC. The two words “Southern “ and “Methodist “ equals poor cultural fit for the PAC. ( my opinion). If they do invite SMU then I will be proven wrong but I am not wrong( my opinion)

SMU is no longer associated with the Methodist church.

Then change the name because until you do you are still “associated “ with the Methodists .

You better not look into the history of Leyland Stanford or Bishop George Berkeley if you are concerned about associations then.

(04-19-2023 12:52 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 11:42 AM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:51 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  SMU is no longer associated with the Methodist church.

Then change the name because until you do you are still “associated “ with the Methodists .

Sorry, John Adams, but New England is still associated with England.

Thank you for pointing out his absurdity. (Sorry, bearcat1970, but you're wrong on this one and you know it.)

(04-19-2023 08:01 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 12:52 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 11:42 AM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:51 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  SMU is no longer associated with the Methodist church.

Then change the name because until you do you are still “associated “ with the Methodists .

Sorry, John Adams, but New England is still associated with England.

Thank you for pointing out his absurdity. (Sorry, bearcat1970, but you're wrong on this one and you know it.)

I am not a history professor but NEW England is not England. It’s New England Southern Methodist is Southern Methodist not OLD southern Methodist

(04-18-2023 02:40 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:58 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:51 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 08:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  And we shouldn't either.

I have no sympathy for what’s happening to the PAC in the media. They caused all of this. They could end it all by just signing a deal. The longer they hold off, the more things look like the breakup of the old BE. I’m starting to wonder if Kliavkoff is paid by the click.

Just sign a deal, that's all they have to do? I'm pretty sure the PAC ADs and presidents would prefer to sign the best deal they can get and really don't worry about what people on twitter are saying.

As I understand it, the B1G deal isn't signed, they just have an agreement. And the B1G is dealing with FOX, CBS and NBC which have done the dance before and have templates in place. The PAC is dealing with people like Apple and Amazon who have never done a contract for collegiate sports so every move has to go through their lawyers.

I absolutely agree that the "best" deal is more important than the "soonest" deal. However, in this particular situation, it's looking more and more like they're the same thing. They already missed out on a deal similar to the big 12's, now they're stuck trying to decide between Ion TV and Apple+ for what looks to be the same money and less exposure. The random excuses (networks don't donate in the last 2 wks of the year) and obviously false leaks haven't helped Kliavkoff. His greatest allies are openly starting to question if more teams will leave soon. I wonder how that affects media rights negotiations?

When the big 12 lost Nebraska, CU, A&M and Missouri, they decided to stick together, brought on TCU and WV, and signed a new media rights deal. When they lost OUT, they brought on 4 more schools, decided to stick together (or were forced to, whatever), and signed a new media rights deal that was an improvement on the last one. The Pac seems to be stuck in a no-man's man in which they want to continue forward but some of their schools are still aggressively working to leave. Dragging out media rights negotiations only serves to enhance the perception, internally as well as externally, that all is not well.

They need to invite you guys and SMU, work out a media rights deal, and move forward, and they need to do it ASAP.

Your entire first paragraph is just speculation. The fact that the Presidents are being silent and working through the details of a new tv deal instead of bailing is a statement in and of itself.

But the Presidents have not been silent. UArizona's President predicted a deal by April 15. Others have made optimistic statements about a deal coming soon, etc etc, and they've all been wrong. Clearly, nobody wants to leave the Pac, and I don't blame them. The Conference has a great history and a whole bunch of quality schools, but we are rapidly approaching a point where the calculus will change and there will impetus to go rather than stay.

(04-18-2023 03:59 PM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:58 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:51 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 08:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  And we shouldn't either.

I have no sympathy for what’s happening to the PAC in the media. They caused all of this. They could end it all by just signing a deal. The longer they hold off, the more things look like the breakup of the old BE. I’m starting to wonder if Kliavkoff is paid by the click.

Just sign a deal, that's all they have to do? I'm pretty sure the PAC ADs and presidents would prefer to sign the best deal they can get and really don't worry about what people on twitter are saying.

As I understand it, the B1G deal isn't signed, they just have an agreement. And the B1G is dealing with FOX, CBS and NBC which have done the dance before and have templates in place. The PAC is dealing with people like Apple and Amazon who have never done a contract for collegiate sports so every move has to go through their lawyers.

I absolutely agree that the "best" deal is more important than the "soonest" deal. However, in this particular situation, it's looking more and more like they're the same thing. They already missed out on a deal similar to the big 12's, now they're stuck trying to decide between Ion TV and Apple+ for what looks to be the same money and less exposure. The random excuses (networks don't donate in the last 2 wks of the year) and obviously false leaks haven't helped Kliavkoff. His greatest allies are openly starting to question if more teams will leave soon. I wonder how that affects media rights negotiations?

When the big 12 lost Nebraska, CU, A&M and Missouri, they decided to stick together, brought on TCU and WV, and signed a new media rights deal. When they lost OUT, they brought on 4 more schools, decided to stick together (or were forced to, whatever), and signed a new media rights deal that was an improvement on the last one. The Pac seems to be stuck in a no-man's man in which they want to continue forward but some of their schools are still aggressively working to leave. Dragging out media rights negotiations only serves to enhance the perception, internally as well as externally, that all is not well.

They need to invite you guys and SMU, work out a media rights deal, and move forward, and they need to do it ASAP.

Southern Methodist is a non starter for the PAC. The two words “Southern “ and “Methodist “ equals poor cultural fit for the PAC. ( my opinion). If they do invite SMU then I will be proven wrong but I am not wrong( my opinion)

It's cool to hate on SMU, no need to put (my opinion) every time you do it, it just carries more weight if you can explain "why" you think the Pac won't invite SMU. I can think of a bunch of reasons:

1. Too far of a drop from the days of "we're too good for UT", no way they're now taking the 7th best school in Texas.
2. SMU doesn't even carry their neighborhood, much less DFW or all of Texas.
3. Small stadium
4. Lukewarm fan support
5. Death penalty stigma will never go away

However, there's nothing about being "Southern" or formerly a Religious school (I went to Columbia to visit a few months ago, they were founded as a Religious school and there's a big church in the middle of the main campus) that would preclude the Pac from inviting them. USC was originally a Methodist school in fact. Also, there are many reasons so many of us think that SMU will get invited DESPITE the marks against them that I listed above (and any others you want to throw in):

1. great academics - sure, not much of a graduate program but avg SAT is 1390, which is higher the average SAT of any conference including the new B1G and the ACC. $2b endowment. Best academics of any of the likely candidates, with only Tulane a tick ahead of them if the Pac ends up bringing on more than 2 and prioritizes academics aggressively.
2. great location - the Pac Presidents, or least Kliavkoff, have finally woken up to the fact that Pacific time zone in fact sucks for TV. Additionally, they've also recently become aware that Texans really like football a lot. Location is 2nd only to SDSU for obvious reasons.
3. great program - SMU spends about $75m a year on Athletics. They'll hit the ground running in a major conference. Contrast this with any other school being considered, including SDSU, and SMU is the clear favorite.
4. Reasonable expectation that they'll be able to compete with anybody in the age of NIL. They were doing it back before most people knew you were supposed to be doing it, and they almost did it well enough to win a National Title. MUCH more likely to be competitive in this new era than other Pac candidates, including SDSU.

So, SMU is #1 in 2 of 4 important categories, and #2 in 2 others. The only reason SDSU is ahead of them is their geography is overwhelmingly in their favor, but SMU blows away any other potential #2 school.

I certainly believe that it's possible that the Pac only adds 1 (or 0) schools and sticks together as a 10 team conference long-term. However, I'm curious if you think that they will add 2 teams, and, if so, who will the 2nd team be?

(04-19-2023 10:47 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:58 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:51 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 08:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  And we shouldn't either.

I have no sympathy for what’s happening to the PAC in the media. They caused all of this. They could end it all by just signing a deal. The longer they hold off, the more things look like the breakup of the old BE. I’m starting to wonder if Kliavkoff is paid by the click.

Just sign a deal, that's all they have to do? I'm pretty sure the PAC ADs and presidents would prefer to sign the best deal they can get and really don't worry about what people on twitter are saying.

As I understand it, the B1G deal isn't signed, they just have an agreement. And the B1G is dealing with FOX, CBS and NBC which have done the dance before and have templates in place. The PAC is dealing with people like Apple and Amazon who have never done a contract for collegiate sports so every move has to go through their lawyers.

I absolutely agree that the "best" deal is more important than the "soonest" deal. However, in this particular situation, it's looking more and more like they're the same thing. They already missed out on a deal similar to the big 12's, now they're stuck trying to decide between Ion TV and Apple+ for what looks to be the same money and less exposure. The random excuses (networks don't donate in the last 2 wks of the year) and obviously false leaks haven't helped Kliavkoff. His greatest allies are openly starting to question if more teams will leave soon. I wonder how that affects media rights negotiations?

When the big 12 lost Nebraska, CU, A&M and Missouri, they decided to stick together, brought on TCU and WV, and signed a new media rights deal. When they lost OUT, they brought on 4 more schools, decided to stick together (or were forced to, whatever), and signed a new media rights deal that was an improvement on the last one. The Pac seems to be stuck in a no-man's man in which they want to continue forward but some of their schools are still aggressively working to leave. Dragging out media rights negotiations only serves to enhance the perception, internally as well as externally, that all is not well.

They need to invite you guys and SMU, work out a media rights deal, and move forward, and they need to do it ASAP.

How do you know SDSU hasn't already received an invitation?

The PAC deal doesn't expire for another 14 months though I expect the PAC will want their agreement in place before entering their final year of the contract. From what I have read, ESPN is still the main component for linear broadcasts but I really hope AppleTV+ is a major part of the deal, Apple is the most capitalized company in the world and streaming is the future. ESPN has lost 25% of its cable subscribers in the last decade. What the PAC has that the B12 didn't is the PAC12 Network which is a valuable commodity for both Apple and Amazon. Also, Apple and Amazon are new to collegiate athletics so negotiations with them take longer than with the likes of ESPN, FOX, CBS etc.

Which schools are aggressively looking to leave the PAC? Yeah, UW and UO would love a B1G invitation (so would many, including ACC schools), but that isn't happening until the end of the decade, if ever. If any PAC school were to want to go to the B12 they surely can, but that isn't happening. So I question your use of the word "aggressively." The only PAC school that was "aggressive" about leaving was Cal, who had the UCBOR beg the B1G to take them. The answer was a solid "no."

Funny, the "leaks" don't appear to be coming from the PAC and certainly not from Klavikoff. Many of the rumors are coming from supporters of the B12, a conference I think must add PAC schools now to stay "stable" in the future. The only reason the PAC appears unstable is because some of their schools may be attractive to the B1G. The B12 isn't in danger of being poached by either the B1G or SEC. If no PAC schools go, who is the B12 going to add to get into the Pacific time zone, Fresno? I see that happening only if the B12 also gets SDSU, and SDSU's first preference is the PAC. Both conferences know that to be the case.

When all is said and done, the PAC will stick together through this round of realignment for money commensurate with the B12 deal.

Dan Patrick said back in October that SDSU was getting an invite as soon as that week, so it wouldn't surprise me if you guys had gotten a contingent offer already. However, if nobody knows about it, then it doesn't help the Pac. If they have invited SDSU then they should strategically leak it. Though, perhaps they did just that last fall.

I got this _uckers!

(04-19-2023 11:42 AM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:51 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 03:59 PM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:58 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Just sign a deal, that's all they have to do? I'm pretty sure the PAC ADs and presidents would prefer to sign the best deal they can get and really don't worry about what people on twitter are saying.

As I understand it, the B1G deal isn't signed, they just have an agreement. And the B1G is dealing with FOX, CBS and NBC which have done the dance before and have templates in place. The PAC is dealing with people like Apple and Amazon who have never done a contract for collegiate sports so every move has to go through their lawyers.

I absolutely agree that the "best" deal is more important than the "soonest" deal. However, in this particular situation, it's looking more and more like they're the same thing. They already missed out on a deal similar to the big 12's, now they're stuck trying to decide between Ion TV and Apple+ for what looks to be the same money and less exposure. The random excuses (networks don't donate in the last 2 wks of the year) and obviously false leaks haven't helped Kliavkoff. His greatest allies are openly starting to question if more teams will leave soon. I wonder how that affects media rights negotiations?

When the big 12 lost Nebraska, CU, A&M and Missouri, they decided to stick together, brought on TCU and WV, and signed a new media rights deal. When they lost OUT, they brought on 4 more schools, decided to stick together (or were forced to, whatever), and signed a new media rights deal that was an improvement on the last one. The Pac seems to be stuck in a no-man's man in which they want to continue forward but some of their schools are still aggressively working to leave. Dragging out media rights negotiations only serves to enhance the perception, internally as well as externally, that all is not well.

They need to invite you guys and SMU, work out a media rights deal, and move forward, and they need to do it ASAP.

Southern Methodist is a non starter for the PAC. The two words “Southern “ and “Methodist “ equals poor cultural fit for the PAC. ( my opinion). If they do invite SMU then I will be proven wrong but I am not wrong( my opinion)

SMU is no longer associated with the Methodist church.

Then change the name because until you do you are still “associated “ with the Methodists .

It's not up to you to decide what name a College has, and it's ridiculous to act as if it is. I've known them as "SMU" rather than "Southern Methodist" since at least the 1980s, and I went to the Methodist Church in my town!

(04-19-2023 08:32 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:40 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:58 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:51 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I have no sympathy for what’s happening to the PAC in the media. They caused all of this. They could end it all by just signing a deal. The longer they hold off, the more things look like the breakup of the old BE. I’m starting to wonder if Kliavkoff is paid by the click.

Just sign a deal, that's all they have to do? I'm pretty sure the PAC ADs and presidents would prefer to sign the best deal they can get and really don't worry about what people on twitter are saying.

As I understand it, the B1G deal isn't signed, they just have an agreement. And the B1G is dealing with FOX, CBS and NBC which have done the dance before and have templates in place. The PAC is dealing with people like Apple and Amazon who have never done a contract for collegiate sports so every move has to go through their lawyers.

I absolutely agree that the "best" deal is more important than the "soonest" deal. However, in this particular situation, it's looking more and more like they're the same thing. They already missed out on a deal similar to the big 12's, now they're stuck trying to decide between Ion TV and Apple+ for what looks to be the same money and less exposure. The random excuses (networks don't donate in the last 2 wks of the year) and obviously false leaks haven't helped Kliavkoff. His greatest allies are openly starting to question if more teams will leave soon. I wonder how that affects media rights negotiations?

When the big 12 lost Nebraska, CU, A&M and Missouri, they decided to stick together, brought on TCU and WV, and signed a new media rights deal. When they lost OUT, they brought on 4 more schools, decided to stick together (or were forced to, whatever), and signed a new media rights deal that was an improvement on the last one. The Pac seems to be stuck in a no-man's man in which they want to continue forward but some of their schools are still aggressively working to leave. Dragging out media rights negotiations only serves to enhance the perception, internally as well as externally, that all is not well.

They need to invite you guys and SMU, work out a media rights deal, and move forward, and they need to do it ASAP.

Your entire first paragraph is just speculation. The fact that the Presidents are being silent and working through the details of a new tv deal instead of bailing is a statement in and of itself.

But the Presidents have not been silent. UArizona's President predicted a deal by April 15. Others have made optimistic statements about a deal coming soon, etc etc, and they've all been wrong. Clearly, nobody wants to leave the Pac, and I don't blame them. The Conference has a great history and a whole bunch of quality schools, but we are rapidly approaching a point where the calculus will change and there will impetus to go rather than stay.

The Zona president gave his opinion that a deal would be done in "a couple of weeks" about 3 or 4 weeks ago. Not once did he mention a specific date nor did he say it was anything but his opinion. Oh, if someone tells me to head "a couple of miles" down the street and turn right to reach my destination, does that mean I turn at exactly 2 miles even if it means driving off a cliff?

(04-19-2023 08:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:47 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:58 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:51 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I have no sympathy for what’s happening to the PAC in the media. They caused all of this. They could end it all by just signing a deal. The longer they hold off, the more things look like the breakup of the old BE. I’m starting to wonder if Kliavkoff is paid by the click.

Just sign a deal, that's all they have to do? I'm pretty sure the PAC ADs and presidents would prefer to sign the best deal they can get and really don't worry about what people on twitter are saying.

As I understand it, the B1G deal isn't signed, they just have an agreement. And the B1G is dealing with FOX, CBS and NBC which have done the dance before and have templates in place. The PAC is dealing with people like Apple and Amazon who have never done a contract for collegiate sports so every move has to go through their lawyers.

I absolutely agree that the "best" deal is more important than the "soonest" deal. However, in this particular situation, it's looking more and more like they're the same thing. They already missed out on a deal similar to the big 12's, now they're stuck trying to decide between Ion TV and Apple+ for what looks to be the same money and less exposure. The random excuses (networks don't donate in the last 2 wks of the year) and obviously false leaks haven't helped Kliavkoff. His greatest allies are openly starting to question if more teams will leave soon. I wonder how that affects media rights negotiations?

When the big 12 lost Nebraska, CU, A&M and Missouri, they decided to stick together, brought on TCU and WV, and signed a new media rights deal. When they lost OUT, they brought on 4 more schools, decided to stick together (or were forced to, whatever), and signed a new media rights deal that was an improvement on the last one. The Pac seems to be stuck in a no-man's man in which they want to continue forward but some of their schools are still aggressively working to leave. Dragging out media rights negotiations only serves to enhance the perception, internally as well as externally, that all is not well.

They need to invite you guys and SMU, work out a media rights deal, and move forward, and they need to do it ASAP.

How do you know SDSU hasn't already received an invitation?

The PAC deal doesn't expire for another 14 months though I expect the PAC will want their agreement in place before entering their final year of the contract. From what I have read, ESPN is still the main component for linear broadcasts but I really hope AppleTV+ is a major part of the deal, Apple is the most capitalized company in the world and streaming is the future. ESPN has lost 25% of its cable subscribers in the last decade. What the PAC has that the B12 didn't is the PAC12 Network which is a valuable commodity for both Apple and Amazon. Also, Apple and Amazon are new to collegiate athletics so negotiations with them take longer than with the likes of ESPN, FOX, CBS etc.

Which schools are aggressively looking to leave the PAC? Yeah, UW and UO would love a B1G invitation (so would many, including ACC schools), but that isn't happening until the end of the decade, if ever. If any PAC school were to want to go to the B12 they surely can, but that isn't happening. So I question your use of the word "aggressively." The only PAC school that was "aggressive" about leaving was Cal, who had the UCBOR beg the B1G to take them. The answer was a solid "no."

Funny, the "leaks" don't appear to be coming from the PAC and certainly not from Klavikoff. Many of the rumors are coming from supporters of the B12, a conference I think must add PAC schools now to stay "stable" in the future. The only reason the PAC appears unstable is because some of their schools may be attractive to the B1G. The B12 isn't in danger of being poached by either the B1G or SEC. If no PAC schools go, who is the B12 going to add to get into the Pacific time zone, Fresno? I see that happening only if the B12 also gets SDSU, and SDSU's first preference is the PAC. Both conferences know that to be the case.

When all is said and done, the PAC will stick together through this round of realignment for money commensurate with the B12 deal.

Dan Patrick said back in October that SDSU was getting an invite as soon as that week, so it wouldn't surprise me if you guys had gotten a contingent offer already. However, if nobody knows about it, then it doesn't help the Pac. If they have invited SDSU then they should strategically leak it. Though, perhaps they did just that last fall.

We received the offer, which is binding to the PAC, in early November. Whether or not it is made public would not have any effect on the media negotiations, which are supposed to be private as well, whatsoever. Oh, it isn't the only offer SDSU has.

When the PAC lost SoCal to the B1G things changed to the benefit of SDSU.

(04-19-2023 08:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 03:59 PM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:58 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:51 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I have no sympathy for what’s happening to the PAC in the media. They caused all of this. They could end it all by just signing a deal. The longer they hold off, the more things look like the breakup of the old BE. I’m starting to wonder if Kliavkoff is paid by the click.

Just sign a deal, that's all they have to do? I'm pretty sure the PAC ADs and presidents would prefer to sign the best deal they can get and really don't worry about what people on twitter are saying.

As I understand it, the B1G deal isn't signed, they just have an agreement. And the B1G is dealing with FOX, CBS and NBC which have done the dance before and have templates in place. The PAC is dealing with people like Apple and Amazon who have never done a contract for collegiate sports so every move has to go through their lawyers.

I absolutely agree that the "best" deal is more important than the "soonest" deal. However, in this particular situation, it's looking more and more like they're the same thing. They already missed out on a deal similar to the big 12's, now they're stuck trying to decide between Ion TV and Apple+ for what looks to be the same money and less exposure. The random excuses (networks don't donate in the last 2 wks of the year) and obviously false leaks haven't helped Kliavkoff. His greatest allies are openly starting to question if more teams will leave soon. I wonder how that affects media rights negotiations?

When the big 12 lost Nebraska, CU, A&M and Missouri, they decided to stick together, brought on TCU and WV, and signed a new media rights deal. When they lost OUT, they brought on 4 more schools, decided to stick together (or were forced to, whatever), and signed a new media rights deal that was an improvement on the last one. The Pac seems to be stuck in a no-man's man in which they want to continue forward but some of their schools are still aggressively working to leave. Dragging out media rights negotiations only serves to enhance the perception, internally as well as externally, that all is not well.

They need to invite you guys and SMU, work out a media rights deal, and move forward, and they need to do it ASAP.

Southern Methodist is a non starter for the PAC. The two words “Southern “ and “Methodist “ equals poor cultural fit for the PAC. ( my opinion). If they do invite SMU then I will be proven wrong but I am not wrong( my opinion)

It's cool to hate on SMU, no need to put (my opinion) every time you do it, it just carries more weight if you can explain "why" you think the Pac won't invite SMU. I can think of a bunch of reasons:

1. Too far of a drop from the days of "we're too good for UT", no way they're now taking the 7th best school in Texas.
2. SMU doesn't even carry their neighborhood, much less DFW or all of Texas.
3. Small stadium
4. Lukewarm fan support
5. Death penalty stigma will never go away

However, there's nothing about being "Southern" or formerly a Religious school (I went to Columbia to visit a few months ago, they were founded as a Religious school and there's a big church in the middle of the main campus) that would preclude the Pac from inviting them. USC was originally a Methodist school in fact. Also, there are many reasons so many of us think that SMU will get invited DESPITE the marks against them that I listed above (and any others you want to throw in):

1. great academics - sure, not much of a graduate program but avg SAT is 1390, which is higher the average SAT of any conference including the new B1G and the ACC. $2b endowment. Best academics of any of the likely candidates, with only Tulane a tick ahead of them if the Pac ends up bringing on more than 2 and prioritizes academics aggressively.
2. great location - the Pac Presidents, or least Kliavkoff, have finally woken up to the fact that Pacific time zone in fact sucks for TV. Additionally, they've also recently become aware that Texans really like football a lot. Location is 2nd only to SDSU for obvious reasons.
3. great program - SMU spends about $75m a year on Athletics. They'll hit the ground running in a major conference. Contrast this with any other school being considered, including SDSU, and SMU is the clear favorite.
4. Reasonable expectation that they'll be able to compete with anybody in the age of NIL. They were doing it back before most people knew you were supposed to be doing it, and they almost did it well enough to win a National Title. MUCH more likely to be competitive in this new era than other Pac candidates, including SDSU.

So, SMU is #1 in 2 of 4 important categories, and #2 in 2 others. The only reason SDSU is ahead of them is their geography is overwhelmingly in their favor, but SMU blows away any other potential #2 school.

I certainly believe that it's possible that the Pac only adds 1 (or 0) schools and sticks together as a 10 team conference long-term. However, I'm curious if you think that they will add 2 teams, and, if so, who will the 2nd team be?

Sorry, SDSU has always been the PAC's first choice based on the criteria given by Klavikoff early on:

1. Academics: Already meets the criteria for a R1 classification. SDSU would trail only Stanford and Cal in the PAC when it comes to selectivity. SMU is not much when it comes to research, trails BYU in that respect.
2. Geography: Name another FBS school in SoCal.
3. Culture. Nothing against Texas, but SMU is a bit of an outlier here.
4. Athletics. Much success in both FB and BB; over the last 20 years or so for BB and 12 or so years for football. The combined winning percentage of both programs is better than any other FBS school (you can look that up). Our budget this past year was a bit over $67M.

From where I sit, we lead SMU in all 4 categories listed by Klavikoff. Not saying that adding SMU wouldn't be a good thing, only that SDSU has been target #1 from day one.

Then you can add there is no other significant competition in FB or BB in the 5th largest county in the US and you get yet another reason for SDSU's admission.

(04-19-2023 11:57 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 08:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 03:59 PM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 02:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2023 10:58 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Just sign a deal, that's all they have to do? I'm pretty sure the PAC ADs and presidents would prefer to sign the best deal they can get and really don't worry about what people on twitter are saying.

As I understand it, the B1G deal isn't signed, they just have an agreement. And the B1G is dealing with FOX, CBS and NBC which have done the dance before and have templates in place. The PAC is dealing with people like Apple and Amazon who have never done a contract for collegiate sports so every move has to go through their lawyers.

I absolutely agree that the "best" deal is more important than the "soonest" deal. However, in this particular situation, it's looking more and more like they're the same thing. They already missed out on a deal similar to the big 12's, now they're stuck trying to decide between Ion TV and Apple+ for what looks to be the same money and less exposure. The random excuses (networks don't donate in the last 2 wks of the year) and obviously false leaks haven't helped Kliavkoff. His greatest allies are openly starting to question if more teams will leave soon. I wonder how that affects media rights negotiations?

When the big 12 lost Nebraska, CU, A&M and Missouri, they decided to stick together, brought on TCU and WV, and signed a new media rights deal. When they lost OUT, they brought on 4 more schools, decided to stick together (or were forced to, whatever), and signed a new media rights deal that was an improvement on the last one. The Pac seems to be stuck in a no-man's man in which they want to continue forward but some of their schools are still aggressively working to leave. Dragging out media rights negotiations only serves to enhance the perception, internally as well as externally, that all is not well.

They need to invite you guys and SMU, work out a media rights deal, and move forward, and they need to do it ASAP.

Southern Methodist is a non starter for the PAC. The two words “Southern “ and “Methodist “ equals poor cultural fit for the PAC. ( my opinion). If they do invite SMU then I will be proven wrong but I am not wrong( my opinion)

It's cool to hate on SMU, no need to put (my opinion) every time you do it, it just carries more weight if you can explain "why" you think the Pac won't invite SMU. I can think of a bunch of reasons:

1. Too far of a drop from the days of "we're too good for UT", no way they're now taking the 7th best school in Texas.
2. SMU doesn't even carry their neighborhood, much less DFW or all of Texas.
3. Small stadium
4. Lukewarm fan support
5. Death penalty stigma will never go away

However, there's nothing about being "Southern" or formerly a Religious school (I went to Columbia to visit a few months ago, they were founded as a Religious school and there's a big church in the middle of the main campus) that would preclude the Pac from inviting them. USC was originally a Methodist school in fact. Also, there are many reasons so many of us think that SMU will get invited DESPITE the marks against them that I listed above (and any others you want to throw in):

1. great academics - sure, not much of a graduate program but avg SAT is 1390, which is higher the average SAT of any conference including the new B1G and the ACC. $2b endowment. Best academics of any of the likely candidates, with only Tulane a tick ahead of them if the Pac ends up bringing on more than 2 and prioritizes academics aggressively.
2. great location - the Pac Presidents, or least Kliavkoff, have finally woken up to the fact that Pacific time zone in fact sucks for TV. Additionally, they've also recently become aware that Texans really like football a lot. Location is 2nd only to SDSU for obvious reasons.
3. great program - SMU spends about $75m a year on Athletics. They'll hit the ground running in a major conference. Contrast this with any other school being considered, including SDSU, and SMU is the clear favorite.
4. Reasonable expectation that they'll be able to compete with anybody in the age of NIL. They were doing it back before most people knew you were supposed to be doing it, and they almost did it well enough to win a National Title. MUCH more likely to be competitive in this new era than other Pac candidates, including SDSU.

So, SMU is #1 in 2 of 4 important categories, and #2 in 2 others. The only reason SDSU is ahead of them is their geography is overwhelmingly in their favor, but SMU blows away any other potential #2 school.

I certainly believe that it's possible that the Pac only adds 1 (or 0) schools and sticks together as a 10 team conference long-term. However, I'm curious if you think that they will add 2 teams, and, if so, who will the 2nd team be?

Sorry, SDSU has always been the PAC's first choice based on the criteria given by Klavikoff early on:

1. Academics: Already meets the criteria for a R1 classification. SDSU would trail only Stanford and Cal in the PAC when it comes to selectivity. SMU is not much when it comes to research, trails BYU in that respect.
2. Geography: Name another FBS school in SoCal.
3. Culture. Nothing against Texas, but SMU is a bit of an outlier here.
4. Athletics. Much success in both FB and BB; over the last 20 years or so for BB and 12 or so years for football. The combined winning percentage of both programs is better than any other FBS school (you can look that up). Our budget this past year was a bit over $67M.

From where I sit, we lead SMU in all 4 categories listed by Klavikoff. Not saying that adding SMU wouldn't be a good thing, only that SDSU has been target #1 from day one.

Then you can add there is no other significant competition in FB or BB in the 5th largest county in the US and you get yet another reason for SDSU's admission.

SMU is also behind Boise State as well for research, Boise State is 212 while SMU is like 219. They don't invest enough to offer more research for academics. I don't know why SMU is ahead of Boise State in that regards? The endowments does not mean anything towards research it seems.

(04-19-2023 08:24 PM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 08:01 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 12:52 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 11:42 AM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-19-2023 10:51 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  SMU is no longer associated with the Methodist church.

Then change the name because until you do you are still “associated “ with the Methodists .

Sorry, John Adams, but New England is still associated with England.

Thank you for pointing out his absurdity. (Sorry, bearcat1970, but you're wrong on this one and you know it.)

I am not a history professor but NEW England is not England. It’s New England Southern Methodist is Southern Methodist not OLD southern Methodist