(08-22-2023 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 12:02 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 05:40 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  SDSU would not be paying anything close to $34M to leave the MWC. Nor would any other school in conference.

Under my proposal, SDSU would get 9 million min exit fee help. They could go in 2024---and roll the dice in court---hope they get out for less than 34 million---but the worst case at that point would be they are out 25 million due to the Pac4 subsidy--or 8 million more than the base 17 million exit fee for 1 year. Or---they wait a year and just pay a net exit fee of 8 million. Coming in 2024 is only about a 5 million dollar difference if you consider that SDSU would probably make something like 13 million more in the new Pac10 in 2024 than they would in the MW (and thats assuming they dont go to court and get the 34 million dollar fee lowered).

No one is going to court. These things are always settled outside of court.

But the settlements are shaped by what would (likely) happen if they did go to court.

Yes. And there is precedence for what a fair fee would be, and it would be less than that of the AAC based on the relative value of their media rights deal.

(08-22-2023 03:48 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 03:27 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 07:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 07:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 07:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  There isn't really a deadline for AAC schools who are leaving.

I mean technically, they're supposed to give 27 months notice, but that has never ever happened.

I used $17M because that's about what Houston, UCF and Cincinnati paid, with 12-24 months notice. Also what UConn paid, with 11 months notice.

But the Aresco League doesn't have to agree, and doesn't have to agree on the PAC's timeline. Aresco could ask for $25M, justified by less-than-12 month's notice, the damage to the league by going from 14 back down to 9 or 10 teams.

The fees for those 3 were 18 million, but Aresco and company were nice about allowing them to spread out the additional 8 million over 12 years. UCONN was allowed to leave for 17 million, my assumption for that is it actually caused no harm at all (and arguably improved the FB product). If 4 or more teams left now with less than 1 years notice that would be far and away the most harmful losses and yes there's no real choice to not allow them to leave but I'm certain the price tag will be higher and there will be far less incentive to be nice about the terms.

https://theathletic.com/4175508/2022/06/...-in-2023/#

That's a good point, I didn't even wargame it from the Aresco League point of view. Hang tough for a few weeks, and the whole Pac-10 project is liable to fall apart and then it's Cal and Stanford picking between the Mountain West with Fresno and San Jose State and Boise (and Air Force), and the American with Rice and SMU and Tulane and Navy (and FAU and ECU etc).

No. The rebuild would not be in danger, if the AAC wants to turn screws they can but they won't be able to force them to be there next year.

Hell, I think SMU would just pay it, tip Aresco and tell him to take their luggage to the car.

SMU can afford to pay it, yes.

But the PAC-10 project has a bunch of failure points.
They don't have a media deal, and it's not at all clear that they can get one that justifies moving.
They don't have 8-10 members lined up. Yes they can use the NCAA's grace period provisions, but schools are going to be hesitant to jump if they're not confident that a critical mass of other schools are going to jump.
Stanford and Cal might get an ACC invite. Unlikely, but it's on the list.
If the process drags too far into September, WSU and OSU might decide to abandon ship and join the Mountain West.

So if I'm advising Aresco, I'd argue against signing exit fee settlements quickly. Ask for a big number. Kick the can down the road. The American Athletic Conference is going to be an NCAA Division I conference and and FBS conference next year barring any event short of a nuclear holocaust. The PAC-12 can't make the same claim.

They don't have a media deal because they are waiting on Stanford and Cal. I am sure they are having discussions based on what the conference makeup would be with those two schools and without. They aren't sitting around doing nothing.

(08-23-2023 11:48 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 12:02 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 05:40 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  SDSU would not be paying anything close to $34M to leave the MWC. Nor would any other school in conference.

Under my proposal, SDSU would get 9 million min exit fee help. They could go in 2024---and roll the dice in court---hope they get out for less than 34 million---but the worst case at that point would be they are out 25 million due to the Pac4 subsidy--or 8 million more than the base 17 million exit fee for 1 year. Or---they wait a year and just pay a net exit fee of 8 million. Coming in 2024 is only about a 5 million dollar difference if you consider that SDSU would probably make something like 13 million more in the new Pac10 in 2024 than they would in the MW (and thats assuming they dont go to court and get the 34 million dollar fee lowered).

No one is going to court. These things are always settled outside of court.

But the settlements are shaped by what would (likely) happen if they did go to court.

Yes. And there is precedence for what a fair fee would be, and it would be less than that of the AAC based on the relative value of their media rights deal.

I feel like we keep saying the same things, but -- it's not going to court because that takes years. From what the WSU president said, the PAC has until October 1 to figure it all out or it's game over.

Yes, the Pac-10 presidents threw out plenty of "next few weeks" deadlines that came and went without result, but eventually a real deadline happens. They're out of time to delay and hope -- they need to secure 6 home football games for next season and 6 road games, and know who the opponents are.

You may favor SDSU taking a risk-tolerant course, exiting the MW without an agreement and letting it go to court. But you need a bunch of AAC schools, you probably need other Mountain West schools, and not everyone is going to be that risk-tolerant. And the PAC isn't going to have the money to reimburse you after this year--if the money isn't spent, it gets distributed.

I think you're in the Mountain West, and so are WSU and OSU. Who knows what Stanford and Cal are going to do.

(08-23-2023 11:52 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 11:48 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 12:02 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Under my proposal, SDSU would get 9 million min exit fee help. They could go in 2024---and roll the dice in court---hope they get out for less than 34 million---but the worst case at that point would be they are out 25 million due to the Pac4 subsidy--or 8 million more than the base 17 million exit fee for 1 year. Or---they wait a year and just pay a net exit fee of 8 million. Coming in 2024 is only about a 5 million dollar difference if you consider that SDSU would probably make something like 13 million more in the new Pac10 in 2024 than they would in the MW (and thats assuming they dont go to court and get the 34 million dollar fee lowered).

No one is going to court. These things are always settled outside of court.

But the settlements are shaped by what would (likely) happen if they did go to court.

Yes. And there is precedence for what a fair fee would be, and it would be less than that of the AAC based on the relative value of their media rights deal.

I feel like we keep saying the same things, but -- it's not going to court because that takes years. From what the WSU president said, the PAC has until October 1 to figure it all out or it's game over.

Yes, the Pac-10 presidents threw out plenty of "next few weeks" deadlines that came and went without result, but eventually a real deadline happens. They're out of time to delay and hope -- they need to secure 6 home football games for next season and 6 road games, and know who the opponents are.

You may favor SDSU taking a risk-tolerant course, exiting the MW without an agreement and letting it go to court. But you need a bunch of AAC schools, you probably need other Mountain West schools, and not everyone is going to be that risk-tolerant. And the PAC isn't going to have the money to reimburse you after this year--if the money isn't spent, it gets distributed.

I think you're in the Mountain West, and so are WSU and OSU. Who knows what Stanford and Cal are going to do.

One thing I think is different here is the Pac4 have the ability to talk to any realistic expansion prospects quickly---without the slow normal back door process necessary to avoid torturous interference suits. This is because most every school the Pac4 would be interested in adding has already sent an application to the Pac12 during the last year or so--and has already been vetted over the last year. So---the "would you be interested if" conversations will have already happened and the various combinations have likely already been shopped to the the leagues current partners (ESPN/FOX) as well as the networks that Kliavkoff had been talking to prior to the Pac10 implosion (remember, the conference is currently still in the open negotiations period and can talk to any network any time). All those discussions are likely going on behind the scenes right now. Point being, once the league knows whether or not Stanford and Cal are staying----it should not take very long at all to put a rebuilt Pac10 together. My guess is the base plan and the schools ready and willing to accept Pac10 invites are already largely in place....as are some rough media deal outlines with ballpark values from multiple potential media partners. If these details are not already being handled---then Kliavkoff and Luck are not earning their money.

(08-22-2023 04:10 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 05:01 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I wouldn’t assume the AAC would be 17 million either. They allowed that for UCONN, but they caused no actually financial harm to the league by leaving. This would be a real harm and depending on the number who left might cause the AAC to have to try to add schools on even less notice. Aresco and company were pretty friendly on most of the previous exits. They wouldn’t have to be on this one, and time would be on the AACs side in this battle if they wanted to fight about it.

I could be wrong, but I thought it was $25 million for UConn (left two years early), $18 million each for UCF/Cincinnati/Houston (all left one year early.) Any AAC school joining this year would be leaving two years early. Or they could take advantage of the waiver (up to two years) and cut down on exit fees considerably.

With that said, I don't think this happens unless Stanford agrees, and I'm hearing that they might not. In any event, the odds against it grow greater with each passing day.

UConn's exit cost = $17 million. AAC’s exit fee is $10 million and UConn paid an additional $7 million to depart early. The cost was to be spread through the end of the 2026 fiscal year.

(08-22-2023 02:03 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 01:52 PM)indydoug Wrote:  Doesn't Pac 12 get a 1/13th share?

I don't believe there is a set amount for this.

Here's the handbook: https://pac-12compliance.org/wp-content/...ook.V1.pdf


It doesn't say how much is split between the universities, just that they receive equal shares. The budget is set yearly and says:

The equal shares are "what's left after conference expenses." Paying for staff, paying for travel, paying for championships.

Instead of every school and conference constantly writing hundreds or thousands of checks all season long, schools pay for what they need to pay for, the conference pays for what it needs to pay for, and at the end of the year they settle up. The Distributions are the combined total of what gets sent out.

Us sports business nerds look at average totals as the sign of conference revenues, but that's not really a pure case of just revenue. It's a lot of reimbursements.

(08-23-2023 11:52 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 11:48 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 12:02 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Under my proposal, SDSU would get 9 million min exit fee help. They could go in 2024---and roll the dice in court---hope they get out for less than 34 million---but the worst case at that point would be they are out 25 million due to the Pac4 subsidy--or 8 million more than the base 17 million exit fee for 1 year. Or---they wait a year and just pay a net exit fee of 8 million. Coming in 2024 is only about a 5 million dollar difference if you consider that SDSU would probably make something like 13 million more in the new Pac10 in 2024 than they would in the MW (and thats assuming they dont go to court and get the 34 million dollar fee lowered).

No one is going to court. These things are always settled outside of court.

But the settlements are shaped by what would (likely) happen if they did go to court.

Yes. And there is precedence for what a fair fee would be, and it would be less than that of the AAC based on the relative value of their media rights deal.

I feel like we keep saying the same things, but -- it's not going to court because that takes years. From what the WSU president said, the PAC has until October 1 to figure it all out or it's game over.

Yes, the Pac-10 presidents threw out plenty of "next few weeks" deadlines that came and went without result, but eventually a real deadline happens. They're out of time to delay and hope -- they need to secure 6 home football games for next season and 6 road games, and know who the opponents are.

You may favor SDSU taking a risk-tolerant course, exiting the MW without an agreement and letting it go to court. But you need a bunch of AAC schools, you probably need other Mountain West schools, and not everyone is going to be that risk-tolerant. And the PAC isn't going to have the money to reimburse you after this year--if the money isn't spent, it gets distributed.

I think you're in the Mountain West, and so are WSU and OSU. Who knows what Stanford and Cal are going to do.

I am sure SDSU and other MWC schools are negotiating exit fees right now.

Texas and Oklahoma are paying $50M each to exit the B12. Big money. However, the B12 media deal is just under $32M/school/year, which is 1.6 times the B12 annual payment from their media rights deal. UC, UH and UCF paid an exit fee of $10M which is about 1.4 times the value of their media deal. To exit early they are asked to pay another 8 million over 12 years ($667/year). Aresco had initially asked for a $35M late exit penalty.

Now explain to me why SDSU or any other MWC school would pay 3 times their media rights deal, much less nearly 7 times, when others have paid less than half that? The MWC knows these numbers aren't justifiable, and so do any schools who may be looking to leave.

For SDSU, the exit fee at 1.6 times their media value would be $7.6M. For the late fee, SDSU's media rights deal is $4.75M then 4.75/7 x $8M = $5.43M. Total payment would be $13.03 with $5.42M over 10 years or so.

If I use the AAC's numbers, which track better with the MWC, then it would be $6.65M up front for a total of $12.08M.

Either would be my starting point. SDSU would then argue that they are leaving the MWC with $10M in NCAA tournament credits, which is $1.67M over 6 years.

Both sides would likely have a good idea how a trial would go. MWC would come in and say their Bylaws say $17M and $34M to leave the conference. SDSU would counter by asking where those numbers come from. Judge would require the MWC to justify their numbers with actual data (which doesn't currently exist because the numbers are arbitrary and onerous) and SDSU would request that an independent auditor be appointed to perform the study. If the MWC numbers are way off, and they are, then SDSU may request attorney fees and court costs.

(08-23-2023 12:59 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  I am sure SDSU and other MWC schools are negotiating exit fees right now.

How'd that work out for you last time?

(08-23-2023 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 11:52 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 11:48 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 12:02 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  No one is going to court. These things are always settled outside of court.

But the settlements are shaped by what would (likely) happen if they did go to court.

Yes. And there is precedence for what a fair fee would be, and it would be less than that of the AAC based on the relative value of their media rights deal.

I feel like we keep saying the same things, but -- it's not going to court because that takes years. From what the WSU president said, the PAC has until October 1 to figure it all out or it's game over.

Yes, the Pac-10 presidents threw out plenty of "next few weeks" deadlines that came and went without result, but eventually a real deadline happens. They're out of time to delay and hope -- they need to secure 6 home football games for next season and 6 road games, and know who the opponents are.

You may favor SDSU taking a risk-tolerant course, exiting the MW without an agreement and letting it go to court. But you need a bunch of AAC schools, you probably need other Mountain West schools, and not everyone is going to be that risk-tolerant. And the PAC isn't going to have the money to reimburse you after this year--if the money isn't spent, it gets distributed.

I think you're in the Mountain West, and so are WSU and OSU. Who knows what Stanford and Cal are going to do.

One thing I think is different here is the Pac4 have the ability to talk to any realistic expansion prospects quickly---without the slow normal back door process necessary to avoid torturous interference suits. This is because most every school the Pac4 would be interested in adding has already sent an application to the Pac12 during the last year or so--and has already been vetted over the last year. So---the "would you be interested if" conversations will have already happened and the various combinations have likely already been shopped to the the leagues current partners (ESPN/FOX) as well as the networks that Kliavkoff had been talking to prior to the Pac10 implosion (remember, the conference is currently still in the open negotiations period and can talk to any network any time). All those discussions are likely going on behind the scenes right now. Point being, once the league knows whether or not Stanford and Cal are staying----it should not take very long at all to put a rebuilt Pac10 together. My guess is the base plan and the schools ready and willing to accept Pac10 invites are already largely in place....as are some rough media deal outlines with ballpark values from multiple potential media partners. If these details are not already being handled---then Kliavkoff and Luck are not earning their money.

My guess is the base plan and the schools ready and willing to accept Pac10 invites are already largely in place
Given how expeditiously the PAC-10 schools have been doing things, I doubt very much that they have a list of 10 schools (4+6) ready to go, or a ranked list of prospects. And even if you have such a list, it's still a question if the schools who applied to the Pac-12 with Washington and Colorado six months ago would still take a membership in the Pac-10 with SDSU and Colorado State (or whoever).

But if the PAC-4 are staying, and if they have a $100M a year media deal in place, and they're willing to fund exit fees, I figure they get 6 schools to sign up.

s are some rough media deal outlines with ballpark values from multiple potential media partners.

This part I agree with, largely because the media difference between Rice, Tulane and SMU or between Fresno, Boise and Colorado State is pretty trivial. Make a list of 10-12, pick 6 out of a hat and whichever 6 you get it's pretty similiar.

(08-23-2023 01:02 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 12:59 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  I am sure SDSU and other MWC schools are negotiating exit fees right now.

How'd that work out for you last time?

Just fine, why do you ask? It sure isn't SDSU's fault the PAC imploded.

Again, I am sure multiple MWC schools are talking with the MWC regarding exit fees right now. If Calford stays then SDSU, CSU, AFA, UNLV and Hawaii would all be considered to rebuild the PAC along with some AAC schools.

(08-23-2023 01:15 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 11:52 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 11:48 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-22-2023 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  But the settlements are shaped by what would (likely) happen if they did go to court.

Yes. And there is precedence for what a fair fee would be, and it would be less than that of the AAC based on the relative value of their media rights deal.

I feel like we keep saying the same things, but -- it's not going to court because that takes years. From what the WSU president said, the PAC has until October 1 to figure it all out or it's game over.

Yes, the Pac-10 presidents threw out plenty of "next few weeks" deadlines that came and went without result, but eventually a real deadline happens. They're out of time to delay and hope -- they need to secure 6 home football games for next season and 6 road games, and know who the opponents are.

You may favor SDSU taking a risk-tolerant course, exiting the MW without an agreement and letting it go to court. But you need a bunch of AAC schools, you probably need other Mountain West schools, and not everyone is going to be that risk-tolerant. And the PAC isn't going to have the money to reimburse you after this year--if the money isn't spent, it gets distributed.

I think you're in the Mountain West, and so are WSU and OSU. Who knows what Stanford and Cal are going to do.

One thing I think is different here is the Pac4 have the ability to talk to any realistic expansion prospects quickly---without the slow normal back door process necessary to avoid torturous interference suits. This is because most every school the Pac4 would be interested in adding has already sent an application to the Pac12 during the last year or so--and has already been vetted over the last year. So---the "would you be interested if" conversations will have already happened and the various combinations have likely already been shopped to the the leagues current partners (ESPN/FOX) as well as the networks that Kliavkoff had been talking to prior to the Pac10 implosion (remember, the conference is currently still in the open negotiations period and can talk to any network any time). All those discussions are likely going on behind the scenes right now. Point being, once the league knows whether or not Stanford and Cal are staying----it should not take very long at all to put a rebuilt Pac10 together. My guess is the base plan and the schools ready and willing to accept Pac10 invites are already largely in place....as are some rough media deal outlines with ballpark values from multiple potential media partners. If these details are not already being handled---then Kliavkoff and Luck are not earning their money.

My guess is the base plan and the schools ready and willing to accept Pac10 invites are already largely in place
Given how expeditiously the PAC-10 schools have been doing things, I doubt very much that they have a list of 10 schools (4+6) ready to go, or a ranked list of prospects. And even if you have such a list, it's still a question if the schools who applied to the Pac-12 with Washington and Colorado six months ago would still take a membership in the Pac-10 with SDSU and Colorado State (or whoever).

But if the PAC-4 are staying, and if they have a $100M a year media deal in place, and they're willing to fund exit fees, I figure they get 6 schools to sign up.

s are some rough media deal outlines with ballpark values from multiple potential media partners.

This part I agree with, largely because the media difference between Rice, Tulane and SMU or between Fresno, Boise and Colorado State is pretty trivial. Make a list of 10-12, pick 6 out of a hat and whichever 6 you get it's pretty similiar.

One reason I think a lot is foundational work is quietly being accomplished is because Oliver Luck in on board working apparently for WSU and OSU. Its in their best interests to be rolling up their sleeves in order to get as much accomplished on a potential rebuild as possible.

While the Pac12 as a whole is stuck in purgatory until Stanford and Cal exhaust all P5 options---Luck would be doing the grunt work to build preferred Pac4 survival options. Not that I think much of Kliavkoff, but Im pretty sure it would be in his best interests to be working on survival plans as well---as the most likely way for him to hang on to his job is via a rebuild rather than a merger. Thats just a couple of the reasons why I think there is probably more going on quietly behind the scenes than it may appear. After watching the Kirk Schulz (WSU president) interview---he comes off as really amiable and very well informed on athletics topics. Its probably a mistake not to have him front and center with Luck in presenting possible rebuild scenarios to various expansion target presidents.

(08-23-2023 02:59 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 01:02 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 12:59 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  I am sure SDSU and other MWC schools are negotiating exit fees right now.

How'd that work out for you last time?

Just fine, why do you ask? It sure isn't SDSU's fault the PAC imploded.

Again, I am sure multiple MWC schools are talking with the MWC regarding exit fees right now. If Calford stays then SDSU, CSU, AFA, UNLV and Hawaii would all be considered to rebuild the PAC along with some AAC schools.

If Calford and SMU manage to get ACC invites do you think a best of the rest can still happen? At that point OSU and WSU would want schools that Calford would not. Would SDSU, Fresno St, Boise St want to leave some MWC schools behind bad enough to join a rebuilt PAC without SMU in the mix?

(08-23-2023 03:33 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 02:59 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 01:02 PM)clunk Wrote:  [quote='Aztecgolfer' pid='19094600' dateline='1692813553']
I am sure SDSU and other MWC schools are negotiating exit fees right now.

How'd that work out for you last time?

Just fine, why do you ask? It sure isn't SDSU's fault the PAC imploded.

Again, I am sure multiple MWC schools are talking with the MWC regarding exit fees right now. If Calford stays then SDSU, CSU, AFA, UNLV and Hawaii would all be considered to rebuild the PAC along with some AAC schools.

At that point I see OSU and WSU inviting at least 9 MWC schools to the PAC to form a better FB conference than Calford were to give them. That allows them to keep the money that belongs to the conference including NCAA credits due as well as, perhaps, whatever the PAC12 earns this year in bowl and CFP credits. Don't see any AAC school leaving for that.Still, it would be a temporarily enhanced MWC. However, ESPN would not be getting much late night inventory with Calford in the ACC so I could see the B12 being urged to invite a couple of Pacific times zone schools to create a league with three six teams pods. That would increase their late night inventory in the B12 from 4 to 12 in conference games. Calford to the ACC really only gets them one late night conference game per year.
If Calford and SMU manage to get ACC invites do you think a best of the rest can still happen? At that point OSU and WSU would want schools that Calford would not. Would SDSU, Fresno St, Boise St want to leave some MWC schools behind bad enough to join a rebuilt PAC without SMU in the mix?