I see no way that OSU and Wazzuu can bridge the media rights gap for both 24/25 and 25/26 to get to the open 26/27 MWC year. The only way is to be absorbed into the MWC deal for those two years and go back out on the market for 26/27.

I also see no reason that OSU and WSU would want to cut out programs from the MWC. Cutting out Hawaii cuts out additional tv windows that literally no one else has. Cutting San Jose or Utah St or New Mexico is just cutting markets, there is no reason for it. If I were OSU and Wazzuu I would be pushing for Gonzaga to balance out Hawaii and also add UTEP and Texas State to get a little bit of Texas recruiting area. That would be 17/16 model and would cover the entire west outside of Arizona. Basically a western version of the American.

ESPN isn't going to be in play now that they are paying for 16 Big 12 schools (2 AZ/2Utah) and 17/18 ACC schools (2 CA) as well as 14 American schools. You better set up this conference with some real inventory to get another network excited. If the American/ESPN is able to steal Army away in the long run from CBS Sports, that network may be the best place for the MWC. I just dont see a streaming network working for the MWC. Fox may be interested in the MWC as well but they have the four B1G schools out west already.

(09-05-2023 01:03 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I see no way that OSU and Wazzuu can bridge the media rights gap for both 24/25 and 25/26 to get to the open 26/27 MWC year. The only way is to be absorbed into the MWC deal for those two years and go back out on the market for 26/27.

I also see no reason that OSU and WSU would want to cut out programs from the MWC. Cutting out Hawaii cuts out additional tv windows that literally no one else has. Cutting San Jose or Utah St or New Mexico is just cutting markets, there is no reason for it. If I were OSU and Wazzuu I would be pushing for Gonzaga to balance out Hawaii and also add UTEP and Texas State to get a little bit of Texas recruiting area. That would be 17/16 model and would cover the entire west outside of Arizona. Basically a western version of the American.

ESPN isn't going to be in play now that they are paying for 16 Big 12 schools and 17/18 ACC schools (2 out west) as well as 14 American schools. You better set up this conference with some real inventory to get another network excited. If the American/ESPN is able to steal Army away in the long run from CBS Sports, that network may be the best place for the MWC. I just dont see a streaming network working for the MWC. Fox may be interested in the MWC as well but they have the four B1G schools out west already.

My new theory is to add New Mexico State & UTEP also. First, push for Hawai'i to go all-in as a full member, they've done it before, and that additional TV window brings a lot of value or look at Wichita State as the Olympic sports void for 16. Gonzaga won't leave the WCC for a Pac-16. I would see if Nexstar is open to having a Game of the Week exclusive to them and selling them the Pac-12 Networks, let CBS Sports Network pick up the rest of the inventory, and sub-license anything they can't show but they need the content. Let Nexstar use its muscle to get the Pac-12 Networks on pay-TV providers.

(09-05-2023 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 11:37 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 05:51 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-04-2023 06:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  ... As long as the PAC 12 is not legally dissolved, Ore St and Wash St own the PAC 12’s credits and that Rose Bowl tie in for the duration of the 4-team CFP. ..

The Rose Bowl tie-in is the lever point. "Power" conferences are not defined in the CFP contracts by name, they are defined as conferences with tie-ins with a NY6 contract bowl. If the Rose Bowl can break the PAC agreement based on some term in that contract, then the PAC loses their Power Conference status, and with it they lose their leverage to block the CFP12 without getting some sugar, since they no longer have anything to gain by the veto.

Didn't the Rose Bowl already do that when they became a CFP game? They're not a PAC/B1G tie-in anymore. So that $80M is gone. At best they're getting a CFP per school share, not the full $80M. At worst the CFP pays $0 as they're not a real conference anymore. A 2PAC is going to be slaughtered in the transfer portal and have fun putting together a 2024 schedule at this point. I doubt either one is even bowl eligible in 24 and 25.
They'll get the BB credits, but that's only a net gain of around $7M each over their normal share. Every penny of that plus some will be eaten up paying schools for home games across all sports.
2PAC simply isn't viable financially. The war chest doesn't exist.

Im not sure how it was handled, but there is no way the CFP screwed the Pac12 and Big10 out the revenue from their traditional contract bowl when it became a playoff game for the last 2 years of the 12 agreement. My guess is that part of the revenue distribution either remained the same or ALL contract bowl revenue for all the conferences was pooled and then distributed as part of the equal "per P5 school" share.

The bolded parts are the problem. You think 2PAC is getting everything, I think 2PAC is getting almost nothing. The next few months will show who's right.

(09-05-2023 08:51 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 11:37 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 05:51 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-04-2023 06:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  ... As long as the PAC 12 is not legally dissolved, Ore St and Wash St own the PAC 12’s credits and that Rose Bowl tie in for the duration of the 4-team CFP. ..

The Rose Bowl tie-in is the lever point. "Power" conferences are not defined in the CFP contracts by name, they are defined as conferences with tie-ins with a NY6 contract bowl. If the Rose Bowl can break the PAC agreement based on some term in that contract, then the PAC loses their Power Conference status, and with it they lose their leverage to block the CFP12 without getting some sugar, since they no longer have anything to gain by the veto.

Didn't the Rose Bowl already do that when they became a CFP game? They're not a PAC/B1G tie-in anymore. So that $80M is gone. At best they're getting a CFP per school share, not the full $80M. At worst the CFP pays $0 as they're not a real conference anymore. A 2PAC is going to be slaughtered in the transfer portal and have fun putting together a 2024 schedule at this point. I doubt either one is even bowl eligible in 24 and 25.
They'll get the BB credits, but that's only a net gain of around $7M each over their normal share. Every penny of that plus some will be eaten up paying schools for home games across all sports.
2PAC simply isn't viable financially. The war chest doesn't exist.

Im not sure how it was handled, but there is no way the CFP screwed the Pac12 and Big10 out the revenue from their traditional contract bowl when it became a playoff game for the last 2 years of the 12 agreement. My guess is that part of the revenue distribution either remained the same or ALL contract bowl revenue for all the conferences was pooled and then distributed as part of the equal "per P5 school" share.

The bolded parts are the problem. You think 2PAC is getting everything, I think 2PAC is getting almost nothing. The next few months will show who's right.

To be clear---Im simply referring to the 2022 CFP expansion talks which occurred when the Pac12 was still a full fledged member of the P5 (nobody really believed it would completely collapse at that time). During those negotiations to expand the playoff to 12 teams, the Rose Bowl was made a permanent playoff bowl---and Im simply pointing out that the contract payout for the Rose Bowl was contractually split between the Pac12 and the Big10. No way those two conferences just gave up that money unless all the other P5's were also pooling their bowl income for group distribution (or the Pac12/Big10 were compensated in some other way). I do not know the specifics. I do know they didnt get screwed out of revenue because either conference could completely derail the idea if they were being treated unfairly because every change to the current CFP agreement required unanimous approval. So while I dont know the specifics----Im quite confident that self interest and the necessity for unanimity in any CFP vote prevented the Pac12 (and Big10) from being screwed out of millions of dollars by any changes enacted.

PAC2 is due 2 more big CFP & Rose Bowl pay days after this year. Those two payoffs split two ways, plus two years of NCAA credits, would be more than enough to hold OSU and WSU over until the MWC open year, 2 years from now. The 2 year NCAA compliance waiver will cover them on that side.

Work out some type of paid ramped entry into the MWC so that in 2 years time the schools become full members of the MWC. This way OSU and WSU can reap the benefits of the last 2 years of the PAC while still having a schedule in all sports.

(09-05-2023 08:51 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 11:37 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 05:51 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-04-2023 06:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  ... As long as the PAC 12 is not legally dissolved, Ore St and Wash St own the PAC 12’s credits and that Rose Bowl tie in for the duration of the 4-team CFP. ..

The Rose Bowl tie-in is the lever point. "Power" conferences are not defined in the CFP contracts by name, they are defined as conferences with tie-ins with a NY6 contract bowl. If the Rose Bowl can break the PAC agreement based on some term in that contract, then the PAC loses their Power Conference status, and with it they lose their leverage to block the CFP12 without getting some sugar, since they no longer have anything to gain by the veto.

Didn't the Rose Bowl already do that when they became a CFP game? They're not a PAC/B1G tie-in anymore. So that $80M is gone. At best they're getting a CFP per school share, not the full $80M. At worst the CFP pays $0 as they're not a real conference anymore. A 2PAC is going to be slaughtered in the transfer portal and have fun putting together a 2024 schedule at this point. I doubt either one is even bowl eligible in 24 and 25.
They'll get the BB credits, but that's only a net gain of around $7M each over their normal share. Every penny of that plus some will be eaten up paying schools for home games across all sports.
2PAC simply isn't viable financially. The war chest doesn't exist.

Im not sure how it was handled, but there is no way the CFP screwed the Pac12 and Big10 out the revenue from their traditional contract bowl when it became a playoff game for the last 2 years of the 12 agreement. My guess is that part of the revenue distribution either remained the same or ALL contract bowl revenue for all the conferences was pooled and then distributed as part of the equal "per P5 school" share.

The bolded parts are the problem. You think 2PAC is getting everything, I think 2PAC is getting almost nothing. The next few months will show who's right.

The problem with your argument is taking away that 80 million in Rose Bowl tie money (which was split between the Pac12 and Big10) required the permission of the Pac12 and Big10 (as any change to the existing CFP deal had to be unanimous). I seriously doubt either the Pac12 or Big10 would agree to that. Thus, any reasonable person would have to conclude the Pac12 and Big10 were compensated for that lost revenue---otherwise I dont see how you get an unanimous agreement on the 12 team expansion. Like I said---I dont know the details---but I know those two conferences lost no revenue---otherwise they would never agree to change the current deal.

If you look at the comment you responded to----I leave open the possibility that, if ALL the conferences pooled ALL the CFP bowl income and split it on a per team basis equally across the entire P5---then a Pac2 would only get 2 shares (which is similar to what you said). Common sense tells us thats the worst case scenario for the Pac2---because common sense tells us the Pac12 and Big10 did not simply agree to give up 80 million in Rose Bowl revenue and get NOTHING in return (which is what is required to reach your worst case scenario).

Just had another thought. If you lose your voting rights when announcing you're leaving, what happens if WOSU say they're joining MWC? PAC now has 0 voting members. Bylaws don't allow the commissioner to rule as a dictator.

(09-07-2023 09:59 AM)clunk Wrote:  Just had another thought. If you lose your voting rights when announcing you're leaving, what happens if WOSU say they're joining MWC?

They won't leave, unless there's a big deal made with those leaving. That most of the net assets go to OSU and WSU.

It's possible, but instead merging the MW into the PAC-12 is probably easier.

(Note: Not a "reverse merger," but instead will be announced as a "merger." But in reality it is an "acquisition" like when one company buys another. E.g., when AlliedSignal bought Honeywell. Interestingly, AS chose to adopt the Honeywell name because of the-then stronger brand. In this case, at least for now, the PAC-12 is the stronger brand name.)

(09-07-2023 12:46 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  ... They won't leave, unless there's a big deal made with those leaving. That most of the net assets go to OSU and WSU.

For the NCAA units, the deal would be some share of the revenue reverting to the individual schools are paid to Oregon State and Wazzou ... the share that it requires depends on how much of that money Oregon State and Wazzou would have to burn through to fund the "keep the PAC2 shell alive" approach. Give the expense of the "keep the shell alive", that share could conceivably be 50:50.

To swing that, it has to be credible that Oregon State and Wazzou can keep the shell alive.

The CFP revenue is the one where we don't have the terms of the agreement between the Rose Bowl and the CFP. We don't actually know the stage that the contractual relationships are at. We have reports that "the Rose Bowl has agreed to ...", but we don't know what is a signed contract that binds the PAC2 and what is an agreement in principal that relied on the incentive the PAC-12 then PAC-10 had to ramp up their Power Conference distribution revenue going ahead into 2025. After all, if the PAC "agreed to" give up their Rose Bowl tie-in because of the higher total payout that would be due to them as a power conference under the CFP12, but they haven't signed a contract to that effect, they may be in a position to renege on that agreement.

It is a matter of public record that under the CFP4, the entitlement for getting a Power Conference share is being a Contract conference. If nobody is a Contract Conference anymore starting in 2024, we do not know on what basis the payout will discriminate between Power Conferences and non-power conferences.

(09-07-2023 01:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 12:46 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  ... They won't leave, unless there's a big deal made with those leaving. That most of the net assets go to OSU and WSU.

For the NCAA units, the deal would be some share of the revenue reverting to the individual schools are paid to Oregon State and Wazzou ... the share that it requires depends on how much of that money Oregon State and Wazzou would have to burn through to fund the "keep the PAC2 shell alive" approach. Give the expense of the "keep the shell alive", that share could conceivably be 50:50.

To swing that, it has to be credible that Oregon State and Wazzou can keep the shell alive.

The CFP revenue is the one where we don't have the terms of the agreement between the Rose Bowl and the CFP. We don't actually know the stage that the contractual relationships are at. We have reports that "the Rose Bowl has agreed to ...", but we don't know what is a signed contract that binds the PAC2 and what is an agreement in principal that relied on the incentive the PAC-12 then PAC-10 had to ramp up their Power Conference distribution revenue going ahead into 2025. After all, if the PAC "agreed to" give up their Rose Bowl tie-in because of the higher total payout that would be due to them as a power conference under the CFP12, but they haven't signed a contract to that effect, they may be in a position to renege on that agreement.

It is a matter of public record that under the CFP4, the entitlement for getting a Power Conference share is being a Contract conference. If nobody is a Contract Conference anymore starting in 2024, we do not know on what basis the payout will discriminate between Power Conferences and non-power conferences.

I have read that the colleges and conferences reached agreement on all the points for the next two years, but do not have a written contract. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a contract. But they agreed on the 6-6, 4 byes, home games first round, the split of revenue between the A group and the G5 group and they agreed how the A group would split their share.

(09-07-2023 01:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 01:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 12:46 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  ... They won't leave, unless there's a big deal made with those leaving. That most of the net assets go to OSU and WSU.

For the NCAA units, the deal would be some share of the revenue reverting to the individual schools are paid to Oregon State and Wazzou ... the share that it requires depends on how much of that money Oregon State and Wazzou would have to burn through to fund the "keep the PAC2 shell alive" approach. Give the expense of the "keep the shell alive", that share could conceivably be 50:50.

To swing that, it has to be credible that Oregon State and Wazzou can keep the shell alive.

The CFP revenue is the one where we don't have the terms of the agreement between the Rose Bowl and the CFP. We don't actually know the stage that the contractual relationships are at. We have reports that "the Rose Bowl has agreed to ...", but we don't know what is a signed contract that binds the PAC2 and what is an agreement in principal that relied on the incentive the PAC-12 then PAC-10 had to ramp up their Power Conference distribution revenue going ahead into 2025. After all, if the PAC "agreed to" give up their Rose Bowl tie-in because of the higher total payout that would be due to them as a power conference under the CFP12, but they haven't signed a contract to that effect, they may be in a position to renege on that agreement.

It is a matter of public record that under the CFP4, the entitlement for getting a Power Conference share is being a Contract conference. If nobody is a Contract Conference anymore starting in 2024, we do not know on what basis the payout will discriminate between Power Conferences and non-power conferences.

I have read that the colleges and conferences reached agreement on all the points for the next two years, but do not have a written contract. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a contract. But they agreed on the 6-6, 4 byes, home games first round, the split of revenue between the A group and the G5 group and they agreed how the A group would split their share.

But that agreement was made in a P5 / G5 world. That world is gone.

Actually to be specific, I think there is a valid contract for the next two years for a 6+6 playoff. After that, it's the wild blue yonder. There was an agreement in principle a year ago, but the liquidation of the PAC changed the facts underlying that tentative agreement.

(09-07-2023 01:52 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 01:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 01:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 12:46 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  ... They won't leave, unless there's a big deal made with those leaving. That most of the net assets go to OSU and WSU.

For the NCAA units, the deal would be some share of the revenue reverting to the individual schools are paid to Oregon State and Wazzou ... the share that it requires depends on how much of that money Oregon State and Wazzou would have to burn through to fund the "keep the PAC2 shell alive" approach. Give the expense of the "keep the shell alive", that share could conceivably be 50:50.

To swing that, it has to be credible that Oregon State and Wazzou can keep the shell alive.

The CFP revenue is the one where we don't have the terms of the agreement between the Rose Bowl and the CFP. We don't actually know the stage that the contractual relationships are at. We have reports that "the Rose Bowl has agreed to ...", but we don't know what is a signed contract that binds the PAC2 and what is an agreement in principal that relied on the incentive the PAC-12 then PAC-10 had to ramp up their Power Conference distribution revenue going ahead into 2025. After all, if the PAC "agreed to" give up their Rose Bowl tie-in because of the higher total payout that would be due to them as a power conference under the CFP12, but they haven't signed a contract to that effect, they may be in a position to renege on that agreement.

It is a matter of public record that under the CFP4, the entitlement for getting a Power Conference share is being a Contract conference. If nobody is a Contract Conference anymore starting in 2024, we do not know on what basis the payout will discriminate between Power Conferences and non-power conferences.

I have read that the colleges and conferences reached agreement on all the points for the next two years, but do not have a written contract. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a contract. But they agreed on the 6-6, 4 byes, home games first round, the split of revenue between the A group and the G5 group and they agreed how the A group would split their share.

But that agreement was made in a P5 / G5 world. That world is gone.

Actually to be specific, I think there is a valid contract for the next two years for a 6+6 playoff. After that, it's the wild blue yonder. There was an agreement in principle a year ago, but the liquidation of the PAC changed the facts underlying that tentative agreement.

Oh, I don't think they had an agreement in principle on anything but a 6/6 model for 2026 and beyond. And that was a soft agreement to be revisited.

(09-07-2023 02:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 01:52 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 01:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 01:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 12:46 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  ... They won't leave, unless there's a big deal made with those leaving. That most of the net assets go to OSU and WSU.

For the NCAA units, the deal would be some share of the revenue reverting to the individual schools are paid to Oregon State and Wazzou ... the share that it requires depends on how much of that money Oregon State and Wazzou would have to burn through to fund the "keep the PAC2 shell alive" approach. Give the expense of the "keep the shell alive", that share could conceivably be 50:50.

To swing that, it has to be credible that Oregon State and Wazzou can keep the shell alive.

The CFP revenue is the one where we don't have the terms of the agreement between the Rose Bowl and the CFP. We don't actually know the stage that the contractual relationships are at. We have reports that "the Rose Bowl has agreed to ...", but we don't know what is a signed contract that binds the PAC2 and what is an agreement in principal that relied on the incentive the PAC-12 then PAC-10 had to ramp up their Power Conference distribution revenue going ahead into 2025. After all, if the PAC "agreed to" give up their Rose Bowl tie-in because of the higher total payout that would be due to them as a power conference under the CFP12, but they haven't signed a contract to that effect, they may be in a position to renege on that agreement.

It is a matter of public record that under the CFP4, the entitlement for getting a Power Conference share is being a Contract conference. If nobody is a Contract Conference anymore starting in 2024, we do not know on what basis the payout will discriminate between Power Conferences and non-power conferences.

I have read that the colleges and conferences reached agreement on all the points for the next two years, but do not have a written contract. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a contract. But they agreed on the 6-6, 4 byes, home games first round, the split of revenue between the A group and the G5 group and they agreed how the A group would split their share.

But that agreement was made in a P5 / G5 world. That world is gone.

Actually to be specific, I think there is a valid contract for the next two years for a 6+6 playoff. After that, it's the wild blue yonder. There was an agreement in principle a year ago, but the liquidation of the PAC changed the facts underlying that tentative agreement.

Oh, I don't think they had an agreement in principle on anything but a 6/6 model for 2026 and beyond. And that was a soft agreement to be revisited.

Agreed. But if the P5 world had continued, that agreement in principle would have had a lot of inertia behind it. It's a worked-out formula, it's been agreed, why reinvent the wheel.

With the PAC-12 gone, there is actually a reason to reinvent the wheel.

(09-05-2023 01:03 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I see no way that OSU and Wazzuu can bridge the media rights gap for both 24/25 and 25/26 to get to the open 26/27 MWC year. The only way is to be absorbed into the MWC deal for those two years and go back out on the market for 26/27.

I also see no reason that OSU and WSU would want to cut out programs from the MWC. Cutting out Hawaii cuts out additional tv windows that literally no one else has. Cutting San Jose or Utah St or New Mexico is just cutting markets, there is no reason for it. If I were OSU and Wazzuu I would be pushing for Gonzaga to balance out Hawaii and also add UTEP and Texas State to get a little bit of Texas recruiting area. That would be 17/16 model and would cover the entire west outside of Arizona. Basically a western version of the American.

ESPN isn't going to be in play now that they are paying for 16 Big 12 schools (2 AZ/2Utah) and 17/18 ACC schools (2 CA) as well as 14 American schools. You better set up this conference with some real inventory to get another network excited. If the American/ESPN is able to steal Army away in the long run from CBS Sports, that network may be the best place for the MWC. I just dont see a streaming network working for the MWC. Fox may be interested in the MWC as well but they have the four B1G schools out west already.

I think your overstating the dire media situation. UConn has an indy deal. UMass has an indy deal. NM State had an indy TV deal for while. Liberty had an indy deal. I dont think a pair of current P5 teams that the two top G5 conferences are fighting over is going to have an issue landing a short term TV deal. If the mentioned indy teams landed deals---then a 2 team conference with 2 current P5 teams can land a deal. It will absolutely look more like a G5 deal than a P5 deal---but I suspect it will be better than the 4 million a team deal in the MW and likely closer to the AAC legacy deal.

(09-07-2023 01:52 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 01:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 01:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 12:46 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  ... They won't leave, unless there's a big deal made with those leaving. That most of the net assets go to OSU and WSU.

For the NCAA units, the deal would be some share of the revenue reverting to the individual schools are paid to Oregon State and Wazzou ... the share that it requires depends on how much of that money Oregon State and Wazzou would have to burn through to fund the "keep the PAC2 shell alive" approach. Give the expense of the "keep the shell alive", that share could conceivably be 50:50.

To swing that, it has to be credible that Oregon State and Wazzou can keep the shell alive.

The CFP revenue is the one where we don't have the terms of the agreement between the Rose Bowl and the CFP. We don't actually know the stage that the contractual relationships are at. We have reports that "the Rose Bowl has agreed to ...", but we don't know what is a signed contract that binds the PAC2 and what is an agreement in principal that relied on the incentive the PAC-12 then PAC-10 had to ramp up their Power Conference distribution revenue going ahead into 2025. After all, if the PAC "agreed to" give up their Rose Bowl tie-in because of the higher total payout that would be due to them as a power conference under the CFP12, but they haven't signed a contract to that effect, they may be in a position to renege on that agreement.

It is a matter of public record that under the CFP4, the entitlement for getting a Power Conference share is being a Contract conference. If nobody is a Contract Conference anymore starting in 2024, we do not know on what basis the payout will discriminate between Power Conferences and non-power conferences.

I have read that the colleges and conferences reached agreement on all the points for the next two years, but do not have a written contract. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a contract. But they agreed on the 6-6, 4 byes, home games first round, the split of revenue between the A group and the G5 group and they agreed how the A group would split their share.

But that agreement was made in a P5 / G5 world. That world is gone.

Actually to be specific, I think there is a valid contract for the next two years for a 6+6 playoff. After that, it's the wild blue yonder. There was an agreement in principle a year ago, but the liquidation of the PAC changed the facts underlying that tentative agreement.

Exactly. Difficult to change anything about the 6+6 plan over the next two years due to the necessity of every change needing to be a unanimous decision. But after that---its a P2 world and the rest of the conferences are just living in it.

(09-07-2023 03:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ... Exactly. Difficult to change anything about the 6+6 plan over the next two years due to the necessity of every change needing to be a unanimous decision. But after that---its a P2 world and the rest of the conferences are just living in it.

It seems like a contract would have to be in existence on the 2024/2025 restructure, and it jibes with the reporting of the concession that the RB made on not getting the guarantees they had wanted regarding 2026 forward to allow the 2024 restructure to go ahead. The first CFP12 games are less than 18 months from now, after all -- they would need contractual cover to be making the scale of financial commitments that are going to be going ahead at the current time.

So quite a lot depends on the wording of that contract.

Some group of people working for Wazzou and Oregon State are going to be going through that contract with a fine tooth comb. Indeed, I expect that process is already underway.

(09-07-2023 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 01:03 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I see no way that OSU and Wazzuu can bridge the media rights gap for both 24/25 and 25/26 to get to the open 26/27 MWC year. The only way is to be absorbed into the MWC deal for those two years and go back out on the market for 26/27.

I also see no reason that OSU and WSU would want to cut out programs from the MWC. Cutting out Hawaii cuts out additional tv windows that literally no one else has. Cutting San Jose or Utah St or New Mexico is just cutting markets, there is no reason for it. If I were OSU and Wazzuu I would be pushing for Gonzaga to balance out Hawaii and also add UTEP and Texas State to get a little bit of Texas recruiting area. That would be 17/16 model and would cover the entire west outside of Arizona. Basically a western version of the American.

ESPN isn't going to be in play now that they are paying for 16 Big 12 schools (2 AZ/2Utah) and 17/18 ACC schools (2 CA) as well as 14 American schools. You better set up this conference with some real inventory to get another network excited. If the American/ESPN is able to steal Army away in the long run from CBS Sports, that network may be the best place for the MWC. I just dont see a streaming network working for the MWC. Fox may be interested in the MWC as well but they have the four B1G schools out west already.

I think your overstating the dire media situation. UConn has an indy deal. UMass has an indy deal. NM State had an indy TV deal for while. Liberty had an indy deal. I dont think a pair of current P5 teams that the two top G5 conferences are fighting over is going to have an issue landing a short term TV deal. If the mentioned indy teams landed deals---then a 2 team conference with 2 current P5 teams can land a deal. It will absolutely look more like a G5 deal than a P5 deal---but I suspect it will be better than the 4 million a team deal in the MW and likely closer to the AAC legacy deal.

Those deals were all for, roughly speaking, no money. I'm sure WSU and OSU can get a TV deal with somebody somewhere. CBS SportsNet will take them. The problem is CBS Sportsnet doesn't have any money.

It makes tons of sense, so unlikely that they pull it off.

(09-07-2023 06:59 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  It makes tons of sense, so unlikely that they pull it off.

Watching how so much of realignment seems so ham-fistedly done (or not done - with opportunities lost), I'm starting to feel that way too.

It's a product of bureaucracy, and people who answer to other people, and all the biases and motivations throughout, to be sure.

But still....

(09-08-2023 09:23 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-07-2023 06:59 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  It makes tons of sense, so unlikely that they pull it off.

Watching how so much of realignment seems so ham-fistedly done (or not done - with opportunities lost), I'm starting to feel that way too.

It's a product of bureaucracy, and people who answer to other people, and all the biases and motivations throughout, to be sure.

But still....

Yes ... it seems likely that the Big12 learned a lot about possible problem cases when schools exit during the first set of school exits, and so the conference by laws when Texas and Oklahoma left were likely much tighter as a result. The PAC has not experienced an exit before, and the bylaws look like they only included language about exits to satisfy their media partner in the early 2010's, so they are flailing.

And the final decision rests with people who really were very much not hired due to their competence at handling University conference alignment decisions.

Further complicating things is that the Presidents are going to be under a lot of pressure to "take action to stay in the Power Conferences" even though that is no longer a live option. Making a good faith effort to attempt what the majority of supporters and student athletes would be expressing as their desire takes even more time away from getting the best realistic option sorted out.

So Wazzou and Oregon State ending up joining the MWC under the MWC charter and the MWC media contract despite their interests best being served by some other outcome is very much a live possibility.