|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 11, 2024 16:11:42 GMT -8
What constitutes "acceptance" of an offer before August 1, 2025? Is it a verbal understanding, or is it ink on paper? Can the Pac-2 negotiate with schools before then, but not formalize an agreement until August 1, 2025. Is intent enough to constitute "acceptance" or does it have to be actual performance? Good question. It might be pretty close to what 10 Pac-12 teams forgot about (or glossed over). But it looks like August of 2027. If they can accept an offer after Aug. 1, 2025 without the big financial penalties, that changes the game quite a bit as far as the Pac-2 options. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbred on Jan 11, 2024 17:57:27 GMT -8
How many teams do we need in order to constitute what the NCAA regards as a legitimate conference? I know its more than 2 and that we're in a two year grace period on that. Would 8 be enough?
From Oregon State's perspective, an 8 team conference would give us room to schedule 5 games with legacy Pac teams and anyone else in the Big12 who is interested. It also means a better per team payout under a TV deal I would hope.
From a Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, etc., perspective, wouldn't they be in better shape in an 8 team conference with the top 6 MWC teams, add in OSU and WSU, than they are now? What path forward do they have now as they currently stand? If they have ultimate eyes on the Big12 or some alliance involving the same I would think a Pac8 membership would be a more advantageous launching pad. Better TV deal too likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 11, 2024 18:58:02 GMT -8
How many teams do we need in order to constitute what the NCAA regards as a legitimate conference? I know its more than 2 and that we're in a two year grace period on that. Would 8 be enough? From Oregon State's perspective, an 8 team conference would give us room to schedule 5 games with legacy Pac teams and anyone else in the Big12 who is interested. It also means a better per team payout under a TV deal I would hope. From a Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, etc., perspective, wouldn't they be in better shape in an 8 team conference with the top 6 MWC teams, add in OSU and WSU, than they are now? What path forward do they have now as they currently stand? If they have ultimate eyes on the Big12 or some alliance involving the same I would think a Pac8 membership would be a more advantageous launching pad. Better TV deal too likely. Yes, it's eight teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 11, 2024 20:11:08 GMT -8
If we take the entire MWC, then no fees get paid. Get an entire conference for free, run the table and become the next Boise State! I think it's starting to become clear that is never going to happen. I don't think anything is anywhere near clear at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 12, 2024 10:46:02 GMT -8
I think it's starting to become clear that is never going to happen. I don't think anything is anywhere near clear at this point. Disagree. I think there are plenty of clear signs that Oregon State is aggressively pursuing other options and not making a panic move. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 12, 2024 11:05:41 GMT -8
SDSU was apparently ready to cut loose at 17 million until the MWC said it would be 34. I read somewhere right after everything fell apart and they were looking at options, that BSU would be interested in a rebuilt Pac and was would likely join if they could give a year notice to keep it at 17. I think 17 is doable by at least a few schools (if we have an attractive media deal lined up), but the 34 might be hard to stomach if they can time it right by giving a year's notice. That's got me thinking we can potentially hear things on the expansion front as early as July/August of this year for the 2025 season, or a year later for the following season. The MWC has pretty much the most restrictve buyout of the G5 conferences from what I've read, so there could be some others out there available if the Pac-2 decides to take the leap of faith. I would be surprised if Boise and Fresno were not part of the plan for a rebuilt Pac, and I'm sure they will get enough notice. But if a one time cost of an extra $17M is still not going to be a road block that keeps them from joining a P5 conference. The MWC buy outs won't keep them home. The ROI is still shorter than any other path. They are undoubtedly. along with SDSU and UNLV. Those 4 are a core target. The real work is who can we get versus who we are "forced" to take. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbred on Jan 12, 2024 12:54:54 GMT -8
Why are we forced to take anyone unless we go for the entire 12? You think some schools are doing the, "Only if you also take _____?"
|
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Jan 12, 2024 14:16:38 GMT -8
I would be surprised if Boise and Fresno were not part of the plan for a rebuilt Pac, and I'm sure they will get enough notice. But if a one time cost of an extra $17M is still not going to be a road block that keeps them from joining a P5 conference. The MWC buy outs won't keep them home. The ROI is still shorter than any other path. They are undoubtedly. along with SDSU and UNLV. Those 4 are a core target. The real work is who can we get versus who we are "forced" to take. I think the best case without being totally unrealistic (only some unrealistic) is if CalBerkeley and Stanford 1)are able to exit the ACC and 2)think the premier west coast athletic conference is in their best interest. Then you could possibly start with those two, OSU, WSU, and the four mentioned MWC schools. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 12, 2024 14:19:22 GMT -8
They are undoubtedly. along with SDSU and UNLV. Those 4 are a core target. The real work is who can we get versus who we are "forced" to take. I think the best case without being totally unrealistic (only some unrealistic) is if CalBerkeley and Stanford 1)are able to exit the ACC and 2)think the premier west coast athletic conference is in their best interest. Then you could possibly start with those two, OSU, WSU, and the four mentioned MWC schools. This keeps getting brought up, but Stanford has already made it clear that they are too smart and snooty and won't be subjected to being in a conference with Fresneck and Boise. Otherwise, they could have stayed with us and we would have 4 teams left not 2. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 12, 2024 14:23:26 GMT -8
They are undoubtedly. along with SDSU and UNLV. Those 4 are a core target. The real work is who can we get versus who we are "forced" to take. I think the best case without being totally unrealistic (only some unrealistic) is if CalBerkeley and Stanford 1)are able to exit the ACC and 2)think the premier west coast athletic conference is in their best interest. Then you could possibly start with those two, OSU, WSU, and the four mentioned MWC schools. Timing-wise, I think it's going to work out to be the opposite. OSU adds enough teams to meet the NCAA minimum to remain a conference and then CalBerkeley and Furd join a year later as the ACC disintegrates. I think they'll hang on for a couple of seasons still. At that point you're probably looking at some kind of Big12 merger to remain relevant with the two 500 pound gorillas. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 12, 2024 14:24:17 GMT -8
I think the best case without being totally unrealistic (only some unrealistic) is if CalBerkeley and Stanford 1)are able to exit the ACC and 2)think the premier west coast athletic conference is in their best interest. Then you could possibly start with those two, OSU, WSU, and the four mentioned MWC schools. This keeps getting brought up, but Stanford has already made it clear that they are too smart and snooty and won't be subjected to being in a conference with Fresneck and Boise. Otherwise, they could have stayed with us and we would have 4 teams left not 2. I don't think that Stanford's objections about being in a conference with Fresno and Boise exist any more. They're not remotely operating from the same position. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 12, 2024 14:25:20 GMT -8
This keeps getting brought up, but Stanford has already made it clear that they are too smart and snooty and won't be subjected to being in a conference with Fresneck and Boise. Otherwise, they could have stayed with us and we would have 4 teams left not 2. I don't think that Stanford's objections about being in a conference with Fresno and Boise exist any more. They're not remotely operating from the same position. That was their reason from jumping to the ACC for a 30% payout. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 12, 2024 14:27:42 GMT -8
I don't think that Stanford's objections about being in a conference with Fresno and Boise exist any more. They're not remotely operating from the same position. That was their reason from jumping to the ACC for a 30% payout. Is this narrative actually publicly accepted fact? Makes zero sense because there was no offer to Fresno and Boise at the time that CalFurd left for them to even object to. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 12, 2024 14:31:45 GMT -8
That was their reason from jumping to the ACC for a 30% payout. Is this narrative actually publicly accepted fact? Makes zero sense because there was no offer to Fresno and Boise at the time that CalFurd left for them to even object to. No, it's not public....just something that I have heard from staff that work in our AD office. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 12, 2024 14:34:33 GMT -8
I don't think that Stanford's objections about being in a conference with Fresno and Boise exist any more. They're not remotely operating from the same position. That was their reason from jumping to the ACC for a 30% payout. According to Florida State, it was a 33% payout. |
|
