|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 12, 2024 14:36:13 GMT -8
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. I'm not saying that it isn't discussed as a factor I just have a really hard time believing that is the case given the timing. They were gone in days after Oregon and UW jumped ship. San Diego State was approved by Stanford as an expansion target already, so there was only one additional school that was needed to make the minimum 6. It just doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 12, 2024 14:47:55 GMT -8
No, it's not public....just something that I have heard from staff that work in our AD office. I'm not saying that it isn't discussed as a factor I just have a really hard time believing that is the case given the timing. They were gone in days after Oregon and UW jumped ship. San Diego State was approved by Stanford as an expansion target already, so there was only one additional school that was needed to make the minimum 6. It just doesn't make sense. Between 1948-2013 (66 years), San Jose State and Stanford played 62 times. Stanford started a home-and-home with Hawaii this year and played a home-and-home with San Diego State 6/7 years ago. Stanford has Fresno State, Hawaii, and San Jose State on future schedules now. Stanford may have an aversion to playing some/all of the other eight, but it seems that the Cardinal are not adverse to playing at least four of the Mountain West schools. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 12, 2024 14:50:36 GMT -8
I'm not saying that it isn't discussed as a factor I just have a really hard time believing that is the case given the timing. They were gone in days after Oregon and UW jumped ship. San Diego State was approved by Stanford as an expansion target already, so there was only one additional school that was needed to make the minimum 6. It just doesn't make sense. Between 1948-2013 (66 years), San Jose State and Stanford played 62 times. Stanford started a home-and-home with Hawaii this year and played a home-and-home with San Diego State 6/7 years ago. Stanford has Fresno State, Hawaii, and San Jose State on future schedules now. Stanford may have an aversion to playing some/all of the other eight, but it seems that the Cardinal are not adverse to playing at least four of the Mountain West schools. There was a time 20 years ago when the Pac10 prided itself on being comprised entirely of research institutions. I don't believe there was ever any issue with PLAYING the academically inferior programs, it was with granting them conference admission. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 12, 2024 14:54:08 GMT -8
Between 1948-2013 (66 years), San Jose State and Stanford played 62 times. Stanford started a home-and-home with Hawaii this year and played a home-and-home with San Diego State 6/7 years ago. Stanford has Fresno State, Hawaii, and San Jose State on future schedules now. Stanford may have an aversion to playing some/all of the other eight, but it seems that the Cardinal are not adverse to playing at least four of the Mountain West schools. There was a time 20 years ago when the Pac10 prided itself on being comprised entirely of research institutions. I don't believe there was ever any issue with PLAYING the academically inferior programs, it was with granting them conference admission. I am sorry. I may have misread, where you were going. Hawaii is R1. Fresno State and San Diego State are R2. San Jose State is not on the other three universities' level. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 12, 2024 15:21:40 GMT -8
There was a time 20 years ago when the Pac10 prided itself on being comprised entirely of research institutions. I don't believe there was ever any issue with PLAYING the academically inferior programs, it was with granting them conference admission. I am sorry. I may have misread, where you were going. Hawaii is R1. Fresno State and San Diego State are R2. San Jose State is not on the other three universities' level. SJSU is very good in a narrow range, but yes the are not a broad based research university. They are Silicon Valley's leading tech school, more or less. and while Hawaii shares the same rare honor as OSU as being only one of four Land, Sea, Space and Sun grant schools in the US, SJSU is ranked considerably higher than U of H in every common ranking system. The Carnagie classifications are... simplistic. There are currently 146 R1 universities in the US right now, and to be a R1 university it means you awarded at least 70 research based doctorial degrees and you had $50M in research expenditures. The size of the graduating class is a dubious metric, as there really is no room in the Carnagie classification to measure actual quality of research. You are R1 by virtue of being big, not by any actual noteworthy research achievement. SJSU is held back by having limited PhD offerings. but they do have 150 BA/BS options, 90 Masters options, are ranked well, and do an average of $60M a year in research expenditures. Long story short, if they pumped more PhDs out the door they'd easily be an "R1 University". All of that said, I wouldn't put Hawaii or SJSU in our top tier of most desirable new Pac-12 schools. I would put SJSU there in the second tier though. I'd have to debate Hawaii more. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 12, 2024 15:24:10 GMT -8
I realize that all this is opinion, but so much is rehashed that has been discussed, laid out, and dismissed as completely false before. Too much to even mention. But, not knowing what will actually happen...
- If FSU "wins" it'll be years of appeals/court fights unless the ACC decides to jettison them for fairly large dollars. Dollars that benefit all the other ACC teams and could be as much as a 10% boost if some of the lower figures prove correct. The ACC will not just magically fall apart as the majority of the conference has no where to go and a guaranteed TV /GOR deal and they'll have sufficient teams and depth to continue. So something extremely deep in their contracts would have to exist for Cal and/or Furd to even consider coming back to a Pac4 situation;
- The MWC and Gloria were FAR more astute that George and the Pac12 presidents in their conference setup and media contracts. They are not going to let the conference be torn apart, or leave it with too few members to function as a conference. The scheduling alliance earned her schools about $1.27 mil each (about 25% increase in some of their media payouts) to not have to go get killed for a payday. She saw the MWC had all the leverage and not only made $ but protected her conference. My guess she and many of the school presidents are all on the same page... OSU and WSU need to work with the MWC as a whole;
- Folks are forgetting the MWC media deal has two years, but will be reopened, probably in the next 6-10 months if typical procedures are used. If the Pac2 hasn't figured their sh&t out they might be on the outside looking in of even a reverse merger. The MWC will have a new deal far before any team can opt out for free;
- But, the MWC negotiations might indeed be a Pac2/MWC combined look at what a new media deal will be like. Many still believe the "alliance" will be a one year deal. It was to help slow down the merger process, let everyone catch their collective breath. Let all the revenue/liability issues finalized, see how it all plays out with audiences and gate receipts. And, give ample time for the new media deal to be negotiated with both MWC and Pac2 at the table to see if the reverse merger is indeed a viable option;
- Unless the Pac2 has a substantial media deal to present to any of the aforementioned "select" teams they aren't agreeing to any kind of expenditure for a buyout. And, even then they might be hesitant when it is compared to their new media deal with no buyout. Or a total MWC/Pac2 reverse merger media deal;
- The Pac2 can NOT afford to help in multiple buyouts of MWC teams with their revenue spread out over years unless they somehow land a pretty large media deal on the speculation that teams will indeed spend to buyout and join. Really? How many large athletic conference media deals are based on "maybes"... these teams may join IF? Hence, said teams would have to give notice, meaning huge buyouts, to then hopefully get a deal that works:
- The Pac2 has zero leverage. They had to pay large guarantees to schedule games, and will have to do so for the WCC's help for the (10) other sports. Although I've yet to see any concrete financial details on this affiliated membership?!
We'll all see what REALLY happens, but it is tough to ignore some simple common sense and financial realities.
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 12, 2024 15:49:42 GMT -8
I realize that all this is opinion, but so much is rehashed that has been discussed, laid out, and dismissed as completely false before. Too much to even mention. But, not knowing what will actually happen... - If FSU "wins" it'll be years of appeals/court fights unless the ACC decides to jettison them for fairly large dollars. Dollars that benefit all the other ACC teams and could be as much as a 10% boost if some of the lower figures prove correct. The ACC will not just magically fall apart as the majority of the conference has no where to go and a guaranteed TV /GOR deal and they'll have sufficient teams and depth to continue. So something extremely deep in their contracts would have to exist for Cal and/or Furd to even consider coming back to a Pac4 situation; - The MWC and Gloria were FAR more astute that George and the Pac12 presidents in their conference setup and media contracts. They are not going to let the conference be torn apart, or leave it with too few members to function as a conference. The scheduling alliance earned her schools about $1.27 mil each (about 25% increase in some of their media payouts) to not have to go get killed for a payday. She saw the MWC had all the leverage and not only made $ but protected her conference. My guess she and many of the school presidents are all on the same page... OSU and WSU need to work with the MWC as a whole; - Folks are forgetting the MWC media deal has two years, but will be reopened, probably in the next 6-10 months if typical procedures are used. If the Pac2 hasn't figured their sh&t out they might be on the outside looking in of even a reverse merger. The MWC will have a new deal far before any team can opt out for free; - But, the MWC negotiations might indeed be a Pac2/MWC combined look at what a new media deal will be like. Many still believe the "alliance" will be a one year deal. It was to help slow down the merger process, let everyone catch their collective breath. Let all the revenue/liability issues finalized, see how it all plays out with audiences and gate receipts. And, give ample time for the new media deal to be negotiated with both MWC and Pac2 at the table to see if the reverse merger is indeed a viable option; - Unless the Pac2 has a substantial media deal to present to any of the aforementioned "select" teams they aren't agreeing to any kind of expenditure for a buyout. And, even then they might be hesitant when it is compared to their new media deal with no buyout. Or a total MWC/Pac2 reverse merger media deal; - The Pac2 can NOT afford to help in multiple buyouts of MWC teams with their revenue spread out over years unless they somehow land a pretty large media deal on the speculation that teams will indeed spend to buyout and join. Really? How many large athletic conference media deals are based on "maybes"... these teams may join IF? Hence, said teams would have to give notice, meaning huge buyouts, to then hopefully get a deal that works: - The Pac2 has zero leverage. They had to pay large guarantees to schedule games, and will have to do so for the WCC's help for the (10) other sports. Although I've yet to see any concrete financial details on this affiliated membership?! We'll all see what REALLY happens, but it is tough to ignore some simple common sense and financial realities. $7 million for 7 games isn't that large... large schools routinely shell out $1 to $1.5M fees to fill OOCs. Nothing we paid the MWC is extraordinary or any indication we were taken advantage of. It was a mutually beneficial exchange at generally accepted market rates for a short notice schedule fill. games we get to keep the TV revenue for when played at home no less. But more to the point. we have lots of leverage. OSU/WSU are both significantly bigger brands (both athletic and academic) than any MWC school. The MWC may be well run, it may be safe and secure, but it is not THRIVING. They are always and for ever going to be an afterthought and a conference of also-rans. Boise state, Fresno State, SDSU... they want more. They are desperate for a shot to be up with the bigger fish. even if it means a small step up to a more quasi-power five conference. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the next couple years. But writing off OSU's position as weak and the MWC as the only realistic destiny is foolhardy. On another note, given OSU will be contracting its own media this coming year, I am very, very interested in how this looks. I think OSU is too. What OSU sells off individual games for will vary greatly (we will get a mint for Oregon) but I think it is going to be really informative to OSU's position in a future conference. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 12, 2024 15:53:09 GMT -8
I realize that all this is opinion, but so much is rehashed that has been discussed, laid out, and dismissed as completely false before. Too much to even mention. But, not knowing what will actually happen... - If FSU "wins" it'll be years of appeals/court fights unless the ACC decides to jettison them for fairly large dollars. Dollars that benefit all the other ACC teams and could be as much as a 10% boost if some of the lower figures prove correct. The ACC will not just magically fall apart as the majority of the conference has no where to go and a guaranteed TV /GOR deal and they'll have sufficient teams and depth to continue. So something extremely deep in their contracts would have to exist for Cal and/or Furd to even consider coming back to a Pac4 situation; - The MWC and Gloria were FAR more astute that George and the Pac12 presidents in their conference setup and media contracts. They are not going to let the conference be torn apart, or leave it with too few members to function as a conference. The scheduling alliance earned her schools about $1.27 mil each (about 25% increase in some of their media payouts) to not have to go get killed for a payday. She saw the MWC had all the leverage and not only made $ but protected her conference. My guess she and many of the school presidents are all on the same page... OSU and WSU need to work with the MWC as a whole; - Folks are forgetting the MWC media deal has two years, but will be reopened, probably in the next 6-10 months if typical procedures are used. If the Pac2 hasn't figured their sh&t out they might be on the outside looking in of even a reverse merger. The MWC will have a new deal far before any team can opt out for free; - But, the MWC negotiations might indeed be a Pac2/MWC combined look at what a new media deal will be like. Many still believe the "alliance" will be a one year deal. It was to help slow down the merger process, let everyone catch their collective breath. Let all the revenue/liability issues finalized, see how it all plays out with audiences and gate receipts. And, give ample time for the new media deal to be negotiated with both MWC and Pac2 at the table to see if the reverse merger is indeed a viable option; - Unless the Pac2 has a substantial media deal to present to any of the aforementioned "select" teams they aren't agreeing to any kind of expenditure for a buyout. And, even then they might be hesitant when it is compared to their new media deal with no buyout. Or a total MWC/Pac2 reverse merger media deal; - The Pac2 can NOT afford to help in multiple buyouts of MWC teams with their revenue spread out over years unless they somehow land a pretty large media deal on the speculation that teams will indeed spend to buyout and join. Really? How many large athletic conference media deals are based on "maybes"... these teams may join IF? Hence, said teams would have to give notice, meaning huge buyouts, to then hopefully get a deal that works: - The Pac2 has zero leverage. They had to pay large guarantees to schedule games, and will have to do so for the WCC's help for the (10) other sports. Although I've yet to see any concrete financial details on this affiliated membership?! We'll all see what REALLY happens, but it is tough to ignore some simple common sense and financial realities. I still see that a full reverse merger with the MWC as the most likely, although not ideal path. Unless the ACC completely blows up and Cal and Stanford come crawling back, who are you going to get as the "best of the rest" after the top 4-5 MWC schools. There is nobody left with a big enough draw to add to be considered a "major conference". Tulane, Memphis, UTSA.....none of those are big enough schools/programs to suddenly get you a large P4 type media deal. Again, everything could change, but I just feel like we're stalling on a MWC merger so we can collect as much left over Pac12 money as possible without having to share it with anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 12, 2024 16:04:38 GMT -8
I realize that all this is opinion, but so much is rehashed that has been discussed, laid out, and dismissed as completely false before. Too much to even mention. But, not knowing what will actually happen... - If FSU "wins" it'll be years of appeals/court fights unless the ACC decides to jettison them for fairly large dollars. Dollars that benefit all the other ACC teams and could be as much as a 10% boost if some of the lower figures prove correct. The ACC will not just magically fall apart as the majority of the conference has no where to go and a guaranteed TV /GOR deal and they'll have sufficient teams and depth to continue. So something extremely deep in their contracts would have to exist for Cal and/or Furd to even consider coming back to a Pac4 situation; - The MWC and Gloria were FAR more astute that George and the Pac12 presidents in their conference setup and media contracts. They are not going to let the conference be torn apart, or leave it with too few members to function as a conference. The scheduling alliance earned her schools about $1.27 mil each (about 25% increase in some of their media payouts) to not have to go get killed for a payday. She saw the MWC had all the leverage and not only made $ but protected her conference. My guess she and many of the school presidents are all on the same page... OSU and WSU need to work with the MWC as a whole; - Folks are forgetting the MWC media deal has two years, but will be reopened, probably in the next 6-10 months if typical procedures are used. If the Pac2 hasn't figured their sh&t out they might be on the outside looking in of even a reverse merger. The MWC will have a new deal far before any team can opt out for free; - But, the MWC negotiations might indeed be a Pac2/MWC combined look at what a new media deal will be like. Many still believe the "alliance" will be a one year deal. It was to help slow down the merger process, let everyone catch their collective breath. Let all the revenue/liability issues finalized, see how it all plays out with audiences and gate receipts. And, give ample time for the new media deal to be negotiated with both MWC and Pac2 at the table to see if the reverse merger is indeed a viable option; - Unless the Pac2 has a substantial media deal to present to any of the aforementioned "select" teams they aren't agreeing to any kind of expenditure for a buyout. And, even then they might be hesitant when it is compared to their new media deal with no buyout. Or a total MWC/Pac2 reverse merger media deal; - The Pac2 can NOT afford to help in multiple buyouts of MWC teams with their revenue spread out over years unless they somehow land a pretty large media deal on the speculation that teams will indeed spend to buyout and join. Really? How many large athletic conference media deals are based on "maybes"... these teams may join IF? Hence, said teams would have to give notice, meaning huge buyouts, to then hopefully get a deal that works: - The Pac2 has zero leverage. They had to pay large guarantees to schedule games, and will have to do so for the WCC's help for the (10) other sports. Although I've yet to see any concrete financial details on this affiliated membership?! We'll all see what REALLY happens, but it is tough to ignore some simple common sense and financial realities. $7 million for 7 games isn't that large... large schools routinely shell out $1 to $1.5M fees to fill OOCs. Nothing we paid the MWC is extraordinary or any indication we were taken advantage of. It was a mutually beneficial exchange at generally accepted market rates for a short notice schedule fill. games we get to keep the TV revenue for when played at home no less. But more to the point. we have lots of leverage. OSU/WSU are both significantly bigger brands (both athletic and academic) than any MWC school. The MWC may be well run, it may be safe and secure, but it is not THRIVING. They are always and for ever going to be an afterthought and a conference of also-rans. Boise state, Fresno State, SDSU... they want more. They are desperate for a shot to be up with the bigger fish. even if it means a small step up to a more quasi-power five conference. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the next couple years. But writing off OSU's position as weak and the MWC as the only realistic destiny is foolhardy. On another note, given OSU will be contracting its own media this coming year, I am very, very interested in how this looks. I think OSU is too. What OSU sells off individual games for will vary greatly (we will get a mint for Oregon) but I think it is going to be really informative to OSU's position in a future conference. First... "no leverage" doe snot mean "weak". But, unless OSU/WSU have a deal in place, media or otherwise they do not have any leverage. Nor, did I ever mention the MWC as the only realistic option. But, as of now it is the ONLY option that has been openly discussed by both parties. Period. Next... "bigger brands" with no media deal is still not media deal. And alone OSU/WSU have zero leverage to get a conference deal. They can sell off single games for now. But, in terms of media revenue and having a deal... having one counts more than being a supposed "bigger brand" without one. Wanting more... means some guaranteed security and revenue. BSU, FSU, etc aren't leaving their "after thought" of a conference on a maybe. The MWC will have a new media deal (or extension) by the beginning of the 2025 season. If so, that means buyouts, GOR, and longer term... OSU/WSU need to be part of "some" deal before that happens. Bigger brand or not. Also will be interested to see who and how much OSU can get for game broadcasts and if the Pac12 network will somehow be utilized as far as having the physical plant. OSU paid $14mil for (12) games I believe, about double what OSU pays for a home game vs that level of team. These are not all home games. So OSU and WSU are actually paying to play away at times. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 12, 2024 16:10:16 GMT -8
I realize that all this is opinion, but so much is rehashed that has been discussed, laid out, and dismissed as completely false before. Too much to even mention. But, not knowing what will actually happen... - If FSU "wins" it'll be years of appeals/court fights unless the ACC decides to jettison them for fairly large dollars. Dollars that benefit all the other ACC teams and could be as much as a 10% boost if some of the lower figures prove correct. The ACC will not just magically fall apart as the majority of the conference has no where to go and a guaranteed TV /GOR deal and they'll have sufficient teams and depth to continue. So something extremely deep in their contracts would have to exist for Cal and/or Furd to even consider coming back to a Pac4 situation; - The MWC and Gloria were FAR more astute that George and the Pac12 presidents in their conference setup and media contracts. They are not going to let the conference be torn apart, or leave it with too few members to function as a conference. The scheduling alliance earned her schools about $1.27 mil each (about 25% increase in some of their media payouts) to not have to go get killed for a payday. She saw the MWC had all the leverage and not only made $ but protected her conference. My guess she and many of the school presidents are all on the same page... OSU and WSU need to work with the MWC as a whole; - Folks are forgetting the MWC media deal has two years, but will be reopened, probably in the next 6-10 months if typical procedures are used. If the Pac2 hasn't figured their sh&t out they might be on the outside looking in of even a reverse merger. The MWC will have a new deal far before any team can opt out for free; - But, the MWC negotiations might indeed be a Pac2/MWC combined look at what a new media deal will be like. Many still believe the "alliance" will be a one year deal. It was to help slow down the merger process, let everyone catch their collective breath. Let all the revenue/liability issues finalized, see how it all plays out with audiences and gate receipts. And, give ample time for the new media deal to be negotiated with both MWC and Pac2 at the table to see if the reverse merger is indeed a viable option; - Unless the Pac2 has a substantial media deal to present to any of the aforementioned "select" teams they aren't agreeing to any kind of expenditure for a buyout. And, even then they might be hesitant when it is compared to their new media deal with no buyout. Or a total MWC/Pac2 reverse merger media deal; - The Pac2 can NOT afford to help in multiple buyouts of MWC teams with their revenue spread out over years unless they somehow land a pretty large media deal on the speculation that teams will indeed spend to buyout and join. Really? How many large athletic conference media deals are based on "maybes"... these teams may join IF? Hence, said teams would have to give notice, meaning huge buyouts, to then hopefully get a deal that works: - The Pac2 has zero leverage. They had to pay large guarantees to schedule games, and will have to do so for the WCC's help for the (10) other sports. Although I've yet to see any concrete financial details on this affiliated membership?! We'll all see what REALLY happens, but it is tough to ignore some simple common sense and financial realities. I still see that a full reverse merger with the MWC as the most likely, although not ideal path. Unless the ACC completely blows up and Cal and Stanford come crawling back, who are you going to get as the "best of the rest" after the top 4-5 MWC schools. There is nobody left with a big enough draw to add to be considered a "major conference". Tulane, Memphis, UTSA.....none of those are big enough schools/programs to suddenly get you a large P4 type media deal. Again, everything could change, but I just feel like we're stalling on a MWC merger so we can collect as much left over Pac12 money as possible without having to share it with anyone else. Plus that is the easiest path leading to what will probably be a short term situation. As I feel like in 2+ years the NCAA football divisions will be revamped due to NIL policies and the amount of money schools can afford to be responsible for if it goes down that path. The reverse merger is the best way to keep future revenue/security until we see what will happen with NCAA alignments/policies. OSU/WSU can't afford to lay out big money for buy out assistance, etc. when the entire D1 division maybe revamped. Transitioning as a temp wait and see seems like a very smart approach while at the same time building a conference that qualifies for CFP money and playoff spot. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 12, 2024 16:23:06 GMT -8
Nothing regarding the future of the Pac-2 has been factually dismissed as completely false. Nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 12, 2024 16:31:48 GMT -8
$7 million for 7 games isn't that large... large schools routinely shell out $1 to $1.5M fees to fill OOCs. Nothing we paid the MWC is extraordinary or any indication we were taken advantage of. It was a mutually beneficial exchange at generally accepted market rates for a short notice schedule fill. games we get to keep the TV revenue for when played at home no less. But more to the point. we have lots of leverage. OSU/WSU are both significantly bigger brands (both athletic and academic) than any MWC school. The MWC may be well run, it may be safe and secure, but it is not THRIVING. They are always and for ever going to be an afterthought and a conference of also-rans. Boise state, Fresno State, SDSU... they want more. They are desperate for a shot to be up with the bigger fish. even if it means a small step up to a more quasi-power five conference. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the next couple years. But writing off OSU's position as weak and the MWC as the only realistic destiny is foolhardy. On another note, given OSU will be contracting its own media this coming year, I am very, very interested in how this looks. I think OSU is too. What OSU sells off individual games for will vary greatly (we will get a mint for Oregon) but I think it is going to be really informative to OSU's position in a future conference. First... "no leverage" doe snot mean "weak". But, unless OSU/WSU have a deal in place, media or otherwise they do not have any leverage. Nor, did I ever mention the MWC as the only realistic option. But, as of now it is the ONLY option that has been openly discussed by both parties. Period. Next... "bigger brands" with no media deal is still not media deal. And alone OSU/WSU have zero leverage to get a conference deal. They can sell off single games for now. But, in terms of media revenue and having a deal... having one counts more than being a supposed "bigger brand" without one. Wanting more... means some guaranteed security and revenue. BSU, FSU, etc aren't leaving their "after thought" of a conference on a maybe. The MWC will have a new media deal (or extension) by the beginning of the 2025 season. If so, that means buyouts, GOR, and longer term... OSU/WSU need to be part of "some" deal before that happens. Bigger brand or not. Also will be interested to see who and how much OSU can get for game broadcasts and if the Pac12 network will somehow be utilized as far as having the physical plant. OSU paid $14mil for (12) games I believe, about double what OSU pays for a home game vs that level of team. These are not all home games. So OSU and WSU are actually paying to play away at times. OSU and WSU combined paid a total of $14 million, or $7M per school. OSU ends up with 7 games by virtue of having an existing MWC on the schedule that was not newly added and then picked up 6 more. OSU effectively paid $7M to add 6 games, while retaining media rights to 3 of the new six games. (SJSU, UNLV, CSU which is a decent, but not the best, line up for selling rights to). |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 12, 2024 16:33:18 GMT -8
Nothing regarding the future of the Pac-2 has been factually dismissed as completely false. Nothing. And generally the opposite is true, other than the basics of what we know. OSU/WSU have control of the conference currently and after August. Nothing is abundantly certain. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 12, 2024 16:38:41 GMT -8
Nothing regarding the future of the Pac-2 has been factually dismissed as completely false. Nothing. Yeah... well read some of the past posts including your own. But, overall there were some crazy arse posts about OSU's/Pac2's future. Most were of course on the basics and the key word is "future" cuz how long are we talking? But lets begin with the recruiting. You, know, that there is no chance to sign a decent class, who's want to come here? Or the same with the portal. Or, the foreseen " mass exodus of players? Or even the questions about hiring a coach and staff... those negative posts seemed to think OSU was doomed to not attract anyone of quality. False... every single one. Neither OSU or WSU (the Pac2) has seen any of that. Plus they both have a stable and solid schedule. Another common issue that folks said would be an issue and tough to achieve. Now if one keeps extending the "future" goalposts from their initial statements that a B12 or ACC invite would or is near to happening... I guess that can never be dismissed as false. But, since it seems it was never enough of a consideration to ever be more than a rumor and "expert" opinion on message boards... probably tells you right there. But, then again some have gotten a bit more "political" and softened their negative stances to toss in some kudos, but always seem to have that backhanded take on the future. But, again when that is the posting style concerning all this Pac12 mess as it effects OSU it is more about being part of the "I told you so crowd" if negatives do happen. And, change the goal posts if they don't. So... how far out is the future we're talking now that recruiting is pretty much over, scheduling alliance/conference affiliation set, and coaching staff pretty much set? |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 12, 2024 16:48:21 GMT -8
If the Pac-12 brand is so valuable and joining the Pac-2 will be a boon as far as the MWC getting a better broadcast deal and rebuilding the Pac-12 with the MWC has been the plan all along, why doesn't the Pac-2 just make the move with the stipulation that OSU and WSU get to keep all the Pac-12 payments?
Why did they go ahead and pay $14 million for a football scheduling alliance as well as agree to all the extra fees to bring in fewer MWC teams if that's what they wanted to do?
Seems like a lot to lay out to have a year or two of extra time to see if something better comes along, nothing more than a pipe dream to some.
I'm not saying there won't be a full merger with the MWC. But I do believe that there is a high chance that the Pac-2 leaders either have some information or reason why they are willing to go the route they have chosen.
|
|
