Collapse of the PAC-12: Oregon State & Washington State left in the dust
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
The Sun Belt is the only FBS conference still using divisions. The old PSAC rule no longer applies.
C-USA could add ETZ schools to keep the travel semi-even, but it is not necessary.
Takuto Maruki
Ideal and the real
So they can sell stock to The CW, of course.
KevFu
Registered User
One thing I'd point out on using budgets is that they aren't really apples to apples in both directions.
Like Washington St and Oregon St have huge budgets compared to everyone they just invited from the MWC... but the biggest difference accounting for all that is that WSU/OSU have been getting Pac-10/Pac-12 money from TV for decades, selling tickets to home games against Pac-12 schools for decades, and those other teams have been getting WAC/MWC TV revenue for decades, while rarely if ever getting home opponents like Pac-12 schools to sell a ton of tickets too.
It's a two-way street. Revenues are going to go up when you elevate conferences; A from TV money, B from scheduling and C from just overall excitement.
Look at Tulane in C-USA vs now in the American. They got like $7m annually from moving to the AAC, they renovated/built new facilities and got people actually excited for Tulane athletics. They've gone from "Adding Tulane was the final straw that caused the Big East to split" to "the ideal adds for the Pac-12 are Memphis and Tulane."
You want to look for the things that DON'T change, or can't change. Like Texas State being near both Austin and San Antonio and having 40,0000 students. Schools don't shrink very often. That makes them "The next UCF." UCF was a BIG SCHOOL in a small conference, so when they committed to athletics, you can see how they played their way up.
The other thing with Grand Canyon is that they've had internal discussions about adding football and they have money. They could add football to join the Pac-12, and the Pac-12 could consider it because if they had just opened a new stadium for their new FBS team already, they're on the Pac-12's wishlist somewhere near Fresno St and UNLV. They'd probably be the team added before Utah St and the Pac-12 would be at eight right now.
If the NCAA changes the FBS minimum to 7 members and the MW adds NMSU, I could see Air Force and Colorado State playing each other in a non-conference game every year on Thanksgiving weekend.
The conference games in the Pac-12 that weekend would then be:
Boise State-Utah State
Fresno State-San Diego State
Oregon State-Washington State
The conference games in the MW on Thanksgiving weekend could be:
Hawaii-San Jose State
Nevada-UNLV
New Mexico-Wyoming
New Mexico State-UTEP
The conference games in the Pac-12 that weekend would then be:
Boise State-Utah State
Fresno State-San Diego State
Oregon State-Washington State
The conference games in the MW on Thanksgiving weekend could be:
Hawaii-San Jose State
Nevada-UNLV
New Mexico-Wyoming
New Mexico State-UTEP
There's no guaranteeing GCU's football program would award scholarships. If they go the non-scholarship route (likely with PFL membership, just like San Diego who will be one of their WCC rivals soon), then they are out as a Pac-12 member.
KevFu
Registered User
Right, of course it would entail a massive/major investment on GCU's part.
The point I was making that if GCU were to commit to going FBS, they would suddenly skyrocket up the "conference realignment depth chart" because of their location.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Hawaii to become a full-time Mountain West member in 2026
Hawaii has been a football-only member of the conference while other sports played in the Big West.
sports.yahoo.com
Hawaii to join MWC fully in 2026, not just football.
I thought the whole point of them being in the Big West was to cut down on travel costs for Olympic sports
Hawaii to become a full-time Mountain West member in 2026
Hawaii has been a football-only member of the conference while other sports played in the Big West.
Hawaii to join MWC fully in 2026, not just football.
The math changes with full membership to the MWC. I am willing to bet they aren't getting a full share as a football only member (and I don't care enough to look it up at this juncture). That difference more than likely covers the difference of flying to El Paso, TX for cross country instead of Northridge or Bakersfield.
Now that the Mountain West is officially back to a full 8 members, who does the PAC-12 go for? They aren't desperate enough to add New Mexico State... are they?!?!? That's the only domino left out there, outside of adding an FBS program.
I think NMSU goes to the MW, and the Pac-12 lobbies the NCAA to lower the FBS minimum to 7 football members.
PAC may try for an exemption or extension to get to 8. I think the end game is to get Cal &/or Stanford back. If not then there's a lot of talk it seems for Sacramento State to move up from FCS to FBS and could get in at a reduced rate. Not a sexy pick but increases California reach.
KevFu
Registered User
Well, yes, but only kinda. We tend to overrate costs as if airplanes are like taxis. The cost of flights, hotels, busses and food are basically ridiculously similar regardless of where you're going once you hit the airport. But the more time you spend traveling, the worse your legs and mood are; so if you're Hawaii and have to fly through LAX, San Diego and Sacramento to go anywhere else mainland, why not just play the 10 schools near LA, SD, SAC in conference?
It's not so much that Hawai'i was like "Let's leave the WAC for travel savings" as it was "The WAC radically changed over two waves of downgrades and instead of being a good football league with BYU, Utah, San Diego State and UNLV, we're in a league that no longer has FBS football and has Seattle U, UT Arlington, Texas State and Louisiana Tech.
There was no upside to being in the WAC over being in the Big West. There was a large upside to the Big West over the WAC from 2012-present: The logistics of travel were just better in the Big West. Plus they had more history in non-revenue sports with BWC schools (and volleyball IS a revenue sport in Hawaii).
There's once again an advantage to being with Air Force, UTEP, Wyoming, New Mexico, UNLV and Nevada (some being schools they went to the WAC to be with, or voted to add to the WAC).
It's mostly about football security. They just can't afford to be an independent. It's less about what they gain joining the MWC but what they avoid potentially losing by not joining the MWC.
Extension maybe. I don't see the NCAA caring enough to give them the full exemption. But I don't see how Stanford or Cal gets out of the ACC now that they're caught in that Grant of Rights web.
If the Pac-12 lobbies hard enough they can get the FBS minimum down to 7. It was 7 in the past and before that 6. After all, what's old can be new again, as seen in some major league sports teams going from having an RSN broadcast their games regionally to an OTA station like it was before the rise of RSNs.
The Marquis
Moderator
I don't see why the Pac would want to stick with 7 unless there is literally zero interest which we know not to be true.
KevFu
Registered User
I doubt the Pac-12 is sticking with seven. I think it's more that they're weighing their options and trying to find the best path to ultimately land where they want.
It's a "depth chart" thing.
They don't have the cash reserves to land their top choices (Memphis, Tulane, UTSA).
Nor some of their second tier of choices (i.e. UNLV, Air Force among others).
You don't want to add someone just because you need a number and be stuck with them forever just because you had a deadline (like, say, UTEP or New Mexico St).
So now it's "Well, if we were a 12 or 14-team league, who's #12-#16, and if we were to add them BEFORE teams 8-11, what would that look like? Is that acceptable both long term and short term?"
And those things take time because you're trying to balance short and long term and the limited cash reserves to make it happen.
It's a "depth chart" thing.
They don't have the cash reserves to land their top choices (Memphis, Tulane, UTSA).
Nor some of their second tier of choices (i.e. UNLV, Air Force among others).
You don't want to add someone just because you need a number and be stuck with them forever just because you had a deadline (like, say, UTEP or New Mexico St).
So now it's "Well, if we were a 12 or 14-team league, who's #12-#16, and if we were to add them BEFORE teams 8-11, what would that look like? Is that acceptable both long term and short term?"
And those things take time because you're trying to balance short and long term and the limited cash reserves to make it happen.
The Marquis
Moderator
I don't know if the Pac doesn't have the money to land Memphis, Tulane, UTSA. They just didn't make the deal good enough for them and are probably playing it safe by actively negotiating (which has been rumored for Memphis as early as a few days ago... though I lack evidence due to laziness). The issue is that those 3 and one other (I forget who) all want to move together, or would prefer it. I think Tulane and Memphis in particular are tied together from that standpoint. That makes them more expensive, but time exists. You get some big dogs in there, the TV revenue increases. The actual dollar amounts may not matter over the long haul if they look at these acquisitions as investments rather than "fees". That said, it's possible they don't have the money for it too, but the fact that they were able to make offers to them at all, says a lot.
I think the endgame for the American and MW schools that turned down the Pac-12 is going to either the ACC or Big 12 which retain their power conference status.
KevFu
Registered User
These organizations have a lot less money than you think. It's a liquidity issue. Look at MWC vs Pac-12 for a second...
The Pac-7 is just categorically better than the MWC's remaining 7 and UTEP, right? Better football, better basketball, better markets. So why on earth would UNLV turn them down?
Because the MWC offered them a $11m loyalty bonus right now to stay put.
The Pac-7 offered them $2.5 million to put toward their $17m exit fee to the MWC.
So UNLV has to pay $14.5 million to get out of the MWC, join the Pac-8 and then they can make $10m in TV money a year instead of $6.5m in TV money a year. They right a check now, and in four years they make their money back. That only works if you have the money up front.
But the Pac-12 is in that situation. Why are they only offering $2.5 million up front to move? Because that's all they got.
The Pac-12 did not have exit fees because they've been a power conference for over 70 years. They had to go to court over it, and the Pac-2 got $65m total from the departing 10 schools in "revenue distribution withheld."
But the scheduling arrangement with the MWC had a clause that the Pac-12 would pay the MWC a $10m fee with 0.5m escalator for each MWC they poach.
So when the Pac-12 offered four AAC schools and four MWC schools $2.5m each to help with their exit fees... thats $10m for the AAC schools, $10m for the MWC schools, $43m poaching fees to the MWC = $63m.
Because the Pac-12 isn't playing, their only other source of money is the NCAA payouts, but that's what's covering their legal fees as they fight on multiple fronts.
The issue is that while the Pac-7 is a better "Other Half" of the conference than the "others" of the American... the Pac-7 is in San Diego, Denver, Fresno, Logan, Boise, Spokane and Corvallis; while the American other is in Houston, Dallas, Philly, Miami, Charlotte, Birmingham, and Tulsa.
If you're Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, and South Florida and committed to go or stay as a group, the long-term TV revenue is going to be higher in the American than the Pac-12; because it's a bigger market and better time slots. The Pac-12 wants them because they'd open up the noon ET timeslot which a lot more people watch on TV than the 10 pm ET timeslot that West Coast games fill.
Couple that with the fact that it's all guesswork and estimations: The Pac-12 is saying "You'd get $10-$15m in media rights, that's almost double the $8m you're getting now!"
But the AAC four KNOW they're getting $8m from ESPN, they know their games are distributed on ESPN and ESPN+, they know EXPOSURE goes through ESPN. They don't know who's offering the Pac-12 anything. They're just being told "trust us, we can get the money!"
Pretend for a second that Turner/Max is offering $10m per school to the Pac-12 regardless of whom their teams 8-12 are. Over a Six-Year TV deal, the four schools leaving the American would getting $12m more in total TV revenue; but they have to pay $15 to $18m in exit fees to get that. They don't make their money back until year eight or nine.
But the American TV deal is up after year six of the new Pac-12, in year seven they're going to get a big bump in dollars because the old AAC contract didn't have Miami, Charlotte, Birmingham; or Army or Navy in it. And being on ESPN is better than not being on ESPN.
The Pac-12 just can't offer a better deal.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
First off… I’m one who didn’t initially understand the Hawaii move. But the most important consideration, and proof of the desperation of the MWC: Hawaii won’t have to subsidize travel like they used to in whatever conference they were in. This helps out with the chronic deficits that UH runs.
Of course, understanding a little ECHL history, I can safely ask what the other schools are thinking at this point. Leagues and conferences don’t necessarily enjoy trips to Hawaii or Alaska on the regular.
***
The PAC just hired Octagon to help assess their TV market value, which is better than when George Kliavkoff hired “some guy” to do it and then put faith in a Utah professor who thought the Pac-12 sans the LA schools could still pull $50M per school per year. It could well be the cover for the Pac to fish for the Sacramento market over the Mississippi River inhabitants, or it could show Memphis and Tulane that they would get a better deal FWIW.
Of course, understanding a little ECHL history, I can safely ask what the other schools are thinking at this point. Leagues and conferences don’t necessarily enjoy trips to Hawaii or Alaska on the regular.
***
The PAC just hired Octagon to help assess their TV market value, which is better than when George Kliavkoff hired “some guy” to do it and then put faith in a Utah professor who thought the Pac-12 sans the LA schools could still pull $50M per school per year. It could well be the cover for the Pac to fish for the Sacramento market over the Mississippi River inhabitants, or it could show Memphis and Tulane that they would get a better deal FWIW.
Grand Canyon University to join Mountain West Conference; will be ninth member
LARAMIE, Wyo. — After a few weeks of silence from the Mountain West and the greater NCAA world as a whole regarding conference realignment, it was announced
Grand Canyon has officially "pulled a TCU", and will join the MW (ironically TCU's conference before the Big 12) instead of the WCC.
This move shocked me, I thought with Hawaii becoming a full member the door closed on any non-football schools being full members of the MW.
New Mexico State joining the MW would now even out that conference at 10 full members, but still only 9 for football.
I still want St. Mary's to go to the Pac-12, there's no point in the Gaels staying in the WCC now that Gonzaga is leaving.
In addition to the WAC's California Baptist (which would be the first WCC member to be Baptist and from the Inland Empire), the WCC should add D-II schools Chaminade (best known for hosting the Maui Invitational), Hawaii Pacific (which would along with Chaminade be the first WCC schools in Hawaii and HPU would be the first never to have a religious affiliation at any point in its history), and Seattle Pacific.
The WCC can divide into divisions for select sports like basketball as follows:
North: Pacific, Portland, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Seattle, Seattle Pacific
South: California Baptist, Chaminade, Hawaii Pacific, Loyola Marymount, Pepperdine, San Diego
So you got the PNW and NorCal schools in one division, and the Hawaii and SoCal schools in the other.
Meanwhile, the WAC can reload with Big Sky members Montana and Montana State (whose football programs would join the UAC possibly paving the way for those two to finally go FBS in the future), Summit League member Denver (who spent a year in the WAC from 2012-13 before going to the Summit), and D-II schools Montana State-Billings, MSU Denver, and Southeastern Oklahoma (whose football team would also join the UAC).
Their divisions would be this:
East: Abilene Christian, Denver, MSU Denver, Southeastern Oklahoma, Tarleton, UT Arlington
West: Montana, Montana State, Montana State-Billings, Southern Utah, Utah Tech, Utah Valley
With this, the WAC would no longer have any schools who are in the Pacific Time Zone on at least a part-time basis (GCU is effectively PTZ when DST is in effect, as most of Arizona doesn't observe DST).
Last edited:
Big McLargehuge
Fragile Traveler
I don't see the Montana schools leaving the Big Sky for anything less than an FBS invitation and I absolutely don't see Montana State-Billings jumping up. MSU Billings is tiny, poorly funded, and largely irrelevant even on the local level. It's the only DII program in the state, but it's below NAIA Carroll & Montana Tech on a pecking order where only the top 2 programs are anything approaching D1 size/scope. Montana is a one sport state (football) and Billings doesn't have a team in that sport...that kinda says it all. I don't want to be too harsh on them (being in Billings is harsh enough), but it's just your standard small, public DII branch campus with neither the money nor ambition to move up. Survival is tough enough.
From a UM standpoint I really don't see the upside in such a move. That's a worse conference than the Big Sky in every way. Maybe it's that I'm overly-oblivious to basketball (Grand Canyon has a campus?), but so is Montana in general. Both UM & MSU make decently regular trips to the NCAA Tournament, so it's not as if the Big Sky is holding them back. All the UAC would add is higher travel costs for lesser competition.
Northern Colorado could probably be swayed by the idea of being something other than a doormat; their jump up from DII power to Big Sky cupcake has been excruciating to watch, but Montana & Montana State lack a reason to consider such a move.
On a related note...this Saturday's (4) UC Davis @ (7) Montana game will be on ESPN2 to help underline my point
Last edited:
