|
|
Post by 93beav on Sept 17, 2024 10:07:54 GMT -8
It's interesting reading the Memphis and Tulane message boards (there are some Fresno St and Boise St fans already there trying to talk up the positives). They both seem to believe (or at least some subsection of fans) that they will get an ACC invite, presumably if Florida St. wins and leaves. The majority seem to be okay with the move but ONLY if they get a max'd out media deal and if the PAC pays all of their exit penalties. I'm not sure we could even afford that. The CBS sports article says max $10 million per school. Of course, that's Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports writing for his overlords. There was a person on one of the boards saying the rumor on BSU's board was 10.5. Then another person saying that Memphis/Tulane were getting $15 million guaranteed and the PAC would pay the difference with whatever reality becomes. And another saying $12 was the number. It's all over the place and just mass speculation. I think many of them feel like with the loss of recent schools to the Big12, their next media deal will be crap. We already know the MWC's next media deal will be crap. There's not a whole lot of schools left in the AAC that can carry them. One last interesting thing is that both schools seemed really intent on bringing along UCF. I would assume they mean USF. UCF is in the Big 12 already. They're not leaving. Sorry, you are correct - USF. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 17, 2024 10:27:17 GMT -8
It's interesting reading the Memphis and Tulane message boards (there are some Fresno St and Boise St fans already there trying to talk up the positives). They both seem to believe (or at least some subsection of fans) that they will get an ACC invite, presumably if Florida St. wins and leaves. The majority seem to be okay with the move but ONLY if they get a max'd out media deal and if the PAC pays all of their exit penalties. I'm not sure we could even afford that. The CBS sports article says max $10 million per school. Of course, that's Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports writing for his overlords. There was a person on one of the boards saying the rumor on BSU's board was 10.5. Then another person saying that Memphis/Tulane were getting $15 million guaranteed and the PAC would pay the difference with whatever reality becomes. And another saying $12 was the number. It's all over the place and just mass speculation. I think many of them feel like with the loss of recent schools to the Big12, their next media deal will be crap. We already know the MWC's next media deal will be crap. There's not a whole lot of schools left in the AAC that can carry them. One last interesting thing is that both schools seemed really intent on bringing along UCF. On the AAC exit fees, the AAC has negotiated several. A couple schools supposedly paid 10 million over 4 years a few years back, and SMU supposedly is paying 18 million over 14 years. Their exit fees seem much more doable. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 17, 2024 10:34:38 GMT -8
On Gonzaga, I thought Gonzaga to the Big 12 probably wasn't a good deal for Gonzaga basically because of the frequent long distance travel, and the potential for "too much" competition hurting their brand. Enter the Pac 12, I think both of those issues are lessened to some extent. The Pac may not be able to pay as much, but Gonzaga would still have a good shot at running the leaguen keeping the brand healthy. I'm all for it this time around. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 17, 2024 10:45:06 GMT -8
Getting exciting.... it will be interesting to see what the next moves are.
Barnes has publicly said 9 or so total a couple times. I think he's just underselling the numbers.
One thing that was consistent among the AD interviews I saw was they were all amazed at how well the schools were able to keep negotiations under wraps. It had been in the works casually for quite a whilen and more seriously for at least several days.
Apparently there was a leak the night before they announced, but otherwise it pretty much took the nation's reporters by surprise to a degree. They seemed pretty proud of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Sept 17, 2024 10:59:00 GMT -8
It's interesting reading the Memphis and Tulane message boards (there are some Fresno St and Boise St fans already there trying to talk up the positives). They both seem to believe (or at least some subsection of fans) that they will get an ACC invite, presumably if Florida St. wins and leaves. The majority seem to be okay with the move but ONLY if they get a max'd out media deal and if the PAC pays all of their exit penalties. I'm not sure we could even afford that. The CBS sports article says max $10 million per school. Of course, that's Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports writing for his overlords. There was a person on one of the boards saying the rumor on BSU's board was 10.5. Then another person saying that Memphis/Tulane were getting $15 million guaranteed and the PAC would pay the difference with whatever reality becomes. And another saying $12 was the number. It's all over the place and just mass speculation. I think many of them feel like with the loss of recent schools to the Big12, their next media deal will be crap. We already know the MWC's next media deal will be crap. There's not a whole lot of schools left in the AAC that can carry them. One last interesting thing is that both schools seemed really intent on bringing along UCF. Fans don't know s%#t. I don't know s%#t. Nobody knows s%#t. Who does know s%#t is the people working on this stuff and what we can deduce is that actions were made because nobody is counting on the ACC actually collapsing anytime soon. Sure, someday. Someday FSU and Clemson are bolting. But not in the next couple years. counting on that lawsuit is probably a fools errand. We didn't want to wait on it, but for sure it is an interesting complication for the future. I wonder what our bylaws are going to look like knowing that collapse is coming like a freight trains and we, ourselves, will be interested in teams from it? |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 17, 2024 12:10:49 GMT -8
It's interesting reading the Memphis and Tulane message boards (there are some Fresno St and Boise St fans already there trying to talk up the positives). They both seem to believe (or at least some subsection of fans) that they will get an ACC invite, presumably if Florida St. wins and leaves. The majority seem to be okay with the move but ONLY if they get a max'd out media deal and if the PAC pays all of their exit penalties. I'm not sure we could even afford that. The CBS sports article says max $10 million per school. Of course, that's Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports writing for his overlords. There was a person on one of the boards saying the rumor on BSU's board was 10.5. Then another person saying that Memphis/Tulane were getting $15 million guaranteed and the PAC would pay the difference with whatever reality becomes. And another saying $12 was the number. It's all over the place and just mass speculation. I think many of them feel like with the loss of recent schools to the Big12, their next media deal will be crap. We already know the MWC's next media deal will be crap. There's not a whole lot of schools left in the AAC that can carry them. One last interesting thing is that both schools seemed really intent on bringing along UCF. Fans don't know s%#t. I don't know s%#t. Nobody knows s%#t. Who does know s%#t is the people working on this stuff and what we can deduce is that actions were made because nobody is counting on the ACC actually collapsing anytime soon. Sure, someday. Someday FSU and Clemson are bolting. But not in the next couple years. counting on that lawsuit is probably a fools errand. We didn't want to wait on it, but for sure it is an interesting complication for the future. I wonder what our bylaws are going to look like knowing that collapse is coming like a freight trains and we, ourselves, will be interested in teams from it? We know that the Pac-12 has added four schools. We know that the Pac-12 has to add at least two more to become an official conference, therefore we know that the rebuild is not finished. As far as the ACC, we don't know what will happen. Or when anything will happen if it does. But we can be pretty sure from Barnes' comments that he thinks the ACC will undergo some sort of change. And we know for sure that FSU and Clemson are taking on the ACC in court. So everything that is happening right now is in reaction to the reality that it will be a much higher cost of waiting to add MWC teams and everything going on with the ACC being slower to pan out. That does not mean that the Pac-12 has given up on the idea of adding ACC teams in the future (or maybe even making some sort of deal with the ACC). On the contrary, I believe they think it is a strong possibility at some point down the road. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Sept 17, 2024 12:33:51 GMT -8
Getting exciting.... it will be interesting to see what the next moves are. Barnes has publicly said 9 or so total a couple times. I think he's just underselling the numbers. One thing that was consistent among the AD interviews I saw was they were all amazed at how well the schools were able to keep negotiations under wraps. It had been in the works casually for quite a whilen and more seriously for at least several days. Apparently there was a leak the night before they announced, but otherwise it pretty much took the nation's reporters by surprise to a degree. They seemed pretty proud of that. I wouldn't be surprised if it is only 9 initially. He wants an 8 game conference football schedule. Also, 9 leaves some room if the ACC falls apart. The goal is just to become the best non P4 football conference, so that your champion gets the non-power conference automatic bid. You just want the best teams available and to weaken both the MWC and the AAC, as those are currently the two strongest non P4 leagues. If you take too many teams, you just water down the conference and potentially weaken the chances of your league champion being the highest ranked conference champion from a non P4 league. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbeav on Sept 17, 2024 15:13:14 GMT -8
Getting exciting.... it will be interesting to see what the next moves are. Barnes has publicly said 9 or so total a couple times. I think he's just underselling the numbers. One thing that was consistent among the AD interviews I saw was they were all amazed at how well the schools were able to keep negotiations under wraps. It had been in the works casually for quite a whilen and more seriously for at least several days. Apparently there was a leak the night before they announced, but otherwise it pretty much took the nation's reporters by surprise to a degree. They seemed pretty proud of that. I wouldn't be surprised if it is only 9 initially. He wants an 8 game conference football schedule. Also, 9 leaves some room if the ACC falls apart. The goal is just to become the best non P4 football conference, so that your champion gets the non-power conference automatic bid. You just want the best teams available and to weaken both the MWC and the AAC, as those are currently the two strongest non P4 leagues. If you take too many teams, you just water down the conference and potentially weaken the chances of your league champion being the highest ranked conference champion from a non P4 league. Every time I hear Barnes talk, he sounds EXTREMELY bullish about the Pac-12 remaining a P5 conference once it's rebuilt. Maybe it's just bluster and tough talk, but I have to think their intention is to get back to P5 and automatic CFP inclusion. It sounds like that is certainly what they will propose. Maybe they get laughed out of the room, but it sounds like to me they don't care and will fight for it anyway. I think it all hinges on what exactly defines a P5 conference. I mean, that has to be written down somewhere, doesn't it? If there's some sort of criteria listed and we don't meet it then that's one thing, but if the contracts specifically call out Big10, Big12, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12, then that's pretty much that. We just argue that we met the NCAA's 2 year waiver to rebuild, and once that's done then we deserve to be back in business. I dunno...Barnes just sounds VERY confident, and I wonder if that confidence is playing a part in attracting these teams to leave their conferences and join us. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Sept 17, 2024 15:34:53 GMT -8
I wouldn't be surprised if it is only 9 initially. He wants an 8 game conference football schedule. Also, 9 leaves some room if the ACC falls apart. The goal is just to become the best non P4 football conference, so that your champion gets the non-power conference automatic bid. You just want the best teams available and to weaken both the MWC and the AAC, as those are currently the two strongest non P4 leagues. If you take too many teams, you just water down the conference and potentially weaken the chances of your league champion being the highest ranked conference champion from a non P4 league. Every time I hear Barnes talk, he sounds EXTREMELY bullish about the Pac-12 remaining a P5 conference once it's rebuilt. Maybe it's just bluster and tough talk, but I have to think their intention is to get back to P5 and automatic CFP inclusion. It sounds like that is certainly what they will propose. Maybe they get laughed out of the room, but it sounds like to me they don't care and will fight for it anyway. I think it all hinges on what exactly defines a P5 conference. I mean, that has to be written down somewhere, doesn't it? If there's some sort of criteria listed and we don't meet it then that's one thing, but if the contracts specifically call out Big10, Big12, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12, then that's pretty much that. We just argue that we met the NCAA's 2 year waiver to rebuild, and once that's done then we deserve to be back in business. I dunno...Barnes just sounds VERY confident, and I wonder if that confidence is playing a part in attracting these teams to leave their conferences and join us. We are not going to be a P5 conference. So, what they are trying to become is the best of the rest. That will get the Pac 12's winner the best chance at getting the 5th auto bid to the CFP. But, we are not going to be considered on par with the P4 leagues. People seem to still be confused and not understand that the 5th auto bid to the CFP is the highest ranked non-power conference champion. If we make the Pac 12 better than the MWC and the AAC (the two most likely competitors), that gives the league the best shot at that auto-bid. Getting back to 8 teams just makes us an autonomous conference. It doesn't make us a power conference. There's no way the other P4 leagues are going to vote to reinstate our "power" status. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 17, 2024 15:36:16 GMT -8
I wouldn't be surprised if it is only 9 initially. He wants an 8 game conference football schedule. Also, 9 leaves some room if the ACC falls apart. The goal is just to become the best non P4 football conference, so that your champion gets the non-power conference automatic bid. You just want the best teams available and to weaken both the MWC and the AAC, as those are currently the two strongest non P4 leagues. If you take too many teams, you just water down the conference and potentially weaken the chances of your league champion being the highest ranked conference champion from a non P4 league. Every time I hear Barnes talk, he sounds EXTREMELY bullish about the Pac-12 remaining a P5 conference once it's rebuilt. Maybe it's just bluster and tough talk, but I have to think their intention is to get back to P5 and automatic CFP inclusion. It sounds like that is certainly what they will propose. Maybe they get laughed out of the room, but it sounds like to me they don't care and will fight for it anyway. I think it all hinges on what exactly defines a P5 conference. I mean, that has to be written down somewhere, doesn't it? If there's some sort of criteria listed and we don't meet it then that's one thing, but if the contracts specifically call out Big10, Big12, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12, then that's pretty much that. We just argue that we met the NCAA's 2 year waiver to rebuild, and once that's done then we deserve to be back in business. I dunno...Barnes just sounds VERY confident, and I wonder if that confidence is playing a part in attracting these teams to leave their conferences and join us. It could be wishful thinking on Barnes' part (my part too), but I think he is trying his hardest to make it happen. That's why I don't see it as 10 schools, maybe not even just 12. He's arguably snagged 4 of the top MWC schools. If he can snag UNLV and a few of the top AAC schools, a decent (not great compared to Big12 though) TV deal will probably happen. Snag that and the top teams in CUSA/Sunbelt will want in. At that point you could have a league competitive with the Big12 at least some years. Then it just depends on what the BCS or whoever is in charge of Power designations says. I'd think he's striving to make the best argument possible for a Power conference based largely out of the west. Ultimately, if the ACC loses it's lawsuits and implodes, the TV networks probably determine what college football looks like, and there could be no P4 or even a P3. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 17, 2024 15:44:08 GMT -8
Every time I hear Barnes talk, he sounds EXTREMELY bullish about the Pac-12 remaining a P5 conference once it's rebuilt. Maybe it's just bluster and tough talk, but I have to think their intention is to get back to P5 and automatic CFP inclusion. It sounds like that is certainly what they will propose. Maybe they get laughed out of the room, but it sounds like to me they don't care and will fight for it anyway. I think it all hinges on what exactly defines a P5 conference. I mean, that has to be written down somewhere, doesn't it? If there's some sort of criteria listed and we don't meet it then that's one thing, but if the contracts specifically call out Big10, Big12, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12, then that's pretty much that. We just argue that we met the NCAA's 2 year waiver to rebuild, and once that's done then we deserve to be back in business. I dunno...Barnes just sounds VERY confident, and I wonder if that confidence is playing a part in attracting these teams to leave their conferences and join us. We are not going to be a P5 conference. So, what they are trying to become is the best of the rest. That will get the Pac 12's winner the best chance at getting the 5th auto bid to the CFP. But, we are not going to be considered on par with the P4 leagues. People seem to still be confused and not understand that the 5th auto bid to the CFP is the highest ranked non-power conference champion. If we make the Pac 12 better than the MWC and the AAC (the two most likely competitors), that gives the league the best shot at that auto-bid. The whole P4 P5 designation isn't really about auto bids, I think it's about access to playoff money I'm not so sure whoever makes that decision has ever said the Pac 12 is completely out of the picture permanently... they are essentially "suspended" for now and only have until summer of '26 to right the ship. At which point, if they succeed, it might be revisited? |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Sept 17, 2024 15:47:29 GMT -8
We are not going to be a P5 conference. So, what they are trying to become is the best of the rest. That will get the Pac 12's winner the best chance at getting the 5th auto bid to the CFP. But, we are not going to be considered on par with the P4 leagues. People seem to still be confused and not understand that the 5th auto bid to the CFP is the highest ranked non-power conference champion. If we make the Pac 12 better than the MWC and the AAC (the two most likely competitors), that gives the league the best shot at that auto-bid. The whole P4 P5 designation isn't really about auto bids, I think it's about access to playoff money I'm not so sure whoever makes that decision has ever said the Pac 12 is completely out of the picture permanently... they are essentially "suspended" for now and only have until summer of '26 to right the ship. At which point, if they succeed, it might be revisited? The P4 leagues would to have to vote to reinstate us as a power conference. It won't happen. But, if we are considered the best of the non-P4, we may be able to negotiate a higher distribution from the playoff in regards to the other G5 conferences. |
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Sept 17, 2024 16:16:37 GMT -8
I wouldn't be surprised if it is only 9 initially. He wants an 8 game conference football schedule. Also, 9 leaves some room if the ACC falls apart. The goal is just to become the best non P4 football conference, so that your champion gets the non-power conference automatic bid. You just want the best teams available and to weaken both the MWC and the AAC, as those are currently the two strongest non P4 leagues. If you take too many teams, you just water down the conference and potentially weaken the chances of your league champion being the highest ranked conference champion from a non P4 league. Every time I hear Barnes talk, he sounds EXTREMELY bullish about the Pac-12 remaining a P5 conference once it's rebuilt. Maybe it's just bluster and tough talk, but I have to think their intention is to get back to P5 and automatic CFP inclusion. It sounds like that is certainly what they will propose. Maybe they get laughed out of the room, but it sounds like to me they don't care and will fight for it anyway. I think it all hinges on what exactly defines a P5 conference. I mean, that has to be written down somewhere, doesn't it? If there's some sort of criteria listed and we don't meet it then that's one thing, but if the contracts specifically call out Big10, Big12, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12, then that's pretty much that. We just argue that we met the NCAA's 2 year waiver to rebuild, and once that's done then we deserve to be back in business. I dunno...Barnes just sounds VERY confident, and I wonder if that confidence is playing a part in attracting these teams to leave their conferences and join us. I guess i feel like he HAS to say that.. for coaches, donors, recruits & fans. And I'm sure we'll give it our best effort.. I just don't see it happening unless there's some pretty radical shifts/ACC implosion, etc. Or maybe he's trying to will it into existence. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Sept 17, 2024 16:25:45 GMT -8
Every time I hear Barnes talk, he sounds EXTREMELY bullish about the Pac-12 remaining a P5 conference once it's rebuilt. Maybe it's just bluster and tough talk, but I have to think their intention is to get back to P5 and automatic CFP inclusion. It sounds like that is certainly what they will propose. Maybe they get laughed out of the room, but it sounds like to me they don't care and will fight for it anyway. I think it all hinges on what exactly defines a P5 conference. I mean, that has to be written down somewhere, doesn't it? If there's some sort of criteria listed and we don't meet it then that's one thing, but if the contracts specifically call out Big10, Big12, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12, then that's pretty much that. We just argue that we met the NCAA's 2 year waiver to rebuild, and once that's done then we deserve to be back in business. I dunno...Barnes just sounds VERY confident, and I wonder if that confidence is playing a part in attracting these teams to leave their conferences and join us. We are not going to be a P5 conference. So, what they are trying to become is the best of the rest. That will get the Pac 12's winner the best chance at getting the 5th auto bid to the CFP. But, we are not going to be considered on par with the P4 leagues. People seem to still be confused and not understand that the 5th auto bid to the CFP is the highest ranked non-power conference champion. If we make the Pac 12 better than the MWC and the AAC (the two most likely competitors), that gives the league the best shot at that auto-bid. Getting back to 8 teams just makes us an autonomous conference. It doesn't make us a power conference. There's no way the other P4 leagues are going to vote to reinstate our "power" status. The thing is, its semantics. If you are so indisputably better than the rest of G5, and only a hair worse that the Powers, you are basically a Power conference. are we REALLY a power conference? no. for all intents and purposes are we? yes. We will get the 5th auto bid locked down, anything else, who really cares. The rule is simply the 5 highest ranked conference champions. it is far and away the most likely that who ever wins the Pac-12 will be among those 5. The remaining pool of G5, after we raid this universe is simply not going to be strong enough. Are we getting Power conference media money? no. Are going to get way more than G5? yes. We will the ultimate tweener conference that is effectively a Power conference by any other name. The bummer is that we will likely never land two teams from the 7 at large... and that is where being a REAL power conference comes in. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Sept 17, 2024 16:28:30 GMT -8
We are not going to be a P5 conference. So, what they are trying to become is the best of the rest. That will get the Pac 12's winner the best chance at getting the 5th auto bid to the CFP. But, we are not going to be considered on par with the P4 leagues. People seem to still be confused and not understand that the 5th auto bid to the CFP is the highest ranked non-power conference champion. If we make the Pac 12 better than the MWC and the AAC (the two most likely competitors), that gives the league the best shot at that auto-bid. Getting back to 8 teams just makes us an autonomous conference. It doesn't make us a power conference. There's no way the other P4 leagues are going to vote to reinstate our "power" status. The thing is, its semantics. If you are so indisputably better than the rest of G5, and only a hair worse that the Powers, you are basically a Power conference. are we REALLY a power conference? no. for all intents and purposes are we? yes. We will get the 5th auto bid locked down, anything else, who really cares. The rule is simply the 5 highest ranked conference champions. it is far and away the most likely that who ever wins the Pac-12 will be among those 5. The remaining pool of G5, after we raid this universe is simply not going to be strong enough. Are we getting Power conference media money? no. Are going to get way more than G5? yes. We will the ultimate tweener conference that is effectively a Power conference by any other name. The bummer is that it is downfall we ever land two teams from the 7 at large... and that is where being a REAL power conference comes in. It’s not exactly “semantics”. The P4 conferences still get to make some decisions on their own without the other conferences. We’ve lost that, but we are definitely trying to be the best of the rest. |
|
