PonyFans.com

ponyboy wrote:Posted this morning.

If the Pac-12 schools can stay together — they’ve made that pledge to one another, whatever that’s worth these days — Kliavkoff has the authority to move forward with expansion. That could target Boise State, San Diego State or possibly SMU, if the league is looking for a Texas connection.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/J ... nment.aspx

Of the schools mentioned in this article and the Canzano article, it is really almost impossible for me to imagine Cal and Stanford voting to add some of them based on academics (Boise State, Memphis, Houston) and some of them based on religion (Baylor). There's also a reason KU was trying to tweet last fall about how easy it is to get to Lawrence, also; DFW airport matters, and the Boises and Baylors lose some shine on travel difficulty.

I'd be on board with a trip to Boise. A friend moved there and said it is gorgeous.

Dukie wrote:

ponyboy wrote:Posted this morning.

If the Pac-12 schools can stay together — they’ve made that pledge to one another, whatever that’s worth these days — Kliavkoff has the authority to move forward with expansion. That could target Boise State, San Diego State or possibly SMU, if the league is looking for a Texas connection.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/J ... nment.aspx

Of the schools mentioned in this article and the Canzano article, it is really almost impossible for me to imagine Cal and Stanford voting to add some of them based on academics (Boise State, Memphis, Houston) and some of them based on religion (Baylor). There's also a reason KU was trying to tweet last fall about how easy it is to get to Lawrence, also; DFW airport matters, and the Boises and Baylors lose some shine on travel difficulty.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the Pac-12 will stick together. ND is quiet, B1G is quiet, and ACC is hamstrung with their GOR. For us, time is a good thing and having access to the DFW market matters a lot. The B12 will make a very strong push to pull away teams once the 30-day negotiating period ends. The four corner schools will know their financial options. The Arizona schools are probably most at risk of accepting an invitation, but their #1 recruiting grounds reside in California. I just don't see a compelling enough reason for anybody to jump ship.

If, and it's a big IF, the Pac-12 steadies its ship and stays together, that conference will then try to go on the offensive. Houston, TCU, and Baylor will be top of the list (P12 will swallow their pride with Baylor for the DFW market). I think all of those schools would prefer the P12, but are they willing to pay the $50-$80M exit fee? Since Houston hasn't joined the B12 yet, I'm not sure they would have any real exit fees to the B12. If not, this is where game theory gets fun.

San Diego, Dallas, and Houston are the expansion markets with the most upside for P12. These markets have a total of 6.4M TV households and growing (P12 lost 6.8M via UCLA/USC). Although Boise State has more viewers, their upside is limited with 500K households (the Achilles heel that won't go away). When it's all said and done, I think the P12 will ideally look to mimic the B12 strategy, add 4-6 teams, and grow those markets. If they don't go big, then seriously consider staying put with the current 10 if SDSU and SMU don't matter enough. Revenue appropriations to G5 schools would make it financially palatable in exchange for perceived stability. Net/Net, I think getting multiple teams from Texas is the biggest selling point to schools as this would be a viable new market for the conference.

Am I looking through Harvard Crimson and Yale Blue colored glasses?

in addition to the $80+ million (moving closer to $90 now) exit fee for TCU and Baylor there is also the $21+ million in exit fee splits from Texas and OU to consider.....so you are looking at $100+ million given up in present day value to move to the PAC 12 for any current member of the Big 12

the PAC 12 would need a TV contract that pays $10 million more per year for 10 years to make up for that and that is ignoring present value and cost of money which becomes a major factor with those dollar amounts

the estimates for the Big 12 with new teams and excluding Texas and OU for conference payouts in the future was just a few million per year under the ACC and PAC 12 and that was the PAC 12 with USC and UCLA.......which talking heads are saying cost them $200 million per year in conference money

so that would put them WELL UNDER a Big 12 as configured now with new members

it is difficult to believe it will not be a push at best and lower for the PAC 12 going forward vs the Big 12

in addition even if there is a slightly better contract for the PAC 12 even now without USC and UCLA the reality is teams in the PAC 12 are in horrible financial shape

WSU is known to be in terrible shape with annual budget deficits AFTER academic subsidies and Arizona, ASU, and Colorado run extremely high academic side subsidies and also occasionally run budget deficits for the year AFTER those subsidies are included

Cal is a financial disaster with massive debt and poor facilities and Colorado also has very poor facilities

there is a lot of athletics department debt in the PAC 12 and large annual debt services

the Big 12 on the other hand has much lower debt loads, debt services, and dramatically lower academic side subsidies (a number are zero or below a million) and they do not run annual budget deficits

this is exclusive of the new members though where Houston runs an embarrassingly high academic side subsidy (the highest in D1-A and D1-AA), but maybe the Big 12 could get lucky and dump them on the PAC 12

Houston would not owe an exit fee unless it is in the contract they signed to join because the current Big 12 contract exit fee is for two prior years distributions per member (so that would be ZERO for new members), but there could be changes to contracts or additional contracts that prevent a free jump....but really the Big 12 could be so lucky as to see Houston jump

Stanford looks to be rapidly heading back to their historical level of being terrible at football, Cal sucks, Colorado just does not care, AU and ASU are disasters in football right now and who knows what UW will do and they and Oregon are going to be a continual source of instability until it is known the Big 10 is done expanding and that could be a decade or more

any current Big 12 team would be stupid and destroying their program to make a jump to the financial and competitive disaster that is the PAC 12 especially with more defections hanging over their head

and the up front cost to do it is massive and it seems highly unlikely that the long term payout is there to even make it financially worth it even if one ignores the overall condition of PAC 12 programs financially and competitively especially relative to the Big 12

There are multiple schools in the Pac 12 that are much more attractive than any school in the future B12. Those Pac 12 schools schools include, IMO, Oregon, Washington and Stanford. The ACC has multiple schools (UNC, Clemson, Florida State, Miami) that are much more attractive than any school in the B12. The issue is that the top schools in the ACC are not getting compensated what they believe they are worth (which is comparable to what the B10 and SEC payout is per school) and the same was true for USC and UCLA. The problem with the Pac 12 was their TV contract was about to expire, and they had two blue-blooded programs that were extremely desirable. The ACC has its hands tied with the GOR. The B12 is stable because they don't have a truly desirable school that would appeal to the B10 or the Pac 12. That gives them the advantage to hold on to their current contract and try to destabilize the Pac 12.

Vitale wrote:I'd be on board with a trip to Boise. A friend moved there and said it is gorgeous.

It’s nice: super-clean and beautiful. I’m in Sun Valley at the moment, but I’ll be back in Boise later this week. I might move if my wife and I were still in our 20’s.

ponyboy wrote:

Vitale wrote:I'd be on board with a trip to Boise. A friend moved there and said it is gorgeous.

It’s nice: super-clean and beautiful. I’m in Sun Valley at the moment, but I’ll be back in Boise later this week. I might move if my wife and I were still in our 20’s.

If you move, I get dibs on your house....well, along with the mortgage and taxes....

Sigh...never mind. SWMBO likes it here in Aggieland.

Just win baby!

https://utah.rivals.com/news/sources-remaining-pac-12-schools-expected-to-announce-sticking-together

Utah folks think P12 is sticking together for now, which is good for SMU.

EastStang wrote:https://utah.rivals.com/news/sources-remaining-pac-12-schools-expected-to-announce-sticking-together

Utah folks think P12 is sticking together for now, which is good for SMU.

I agree that the remaining PAC12 schools sticking together should give us some optimism that we may be in play. A merger of PAC12 and Big XII would likely lock us out of their future.

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2022/07/11/big-12-smu-have-had-expansion-conversations-report/

More reason for optimism. Intact Pac 12 (minus UCLA and USC) vs. Big 12, I prefer Pac 12.

A couple good one-liners from this Mac Engel interview with John Canzano.
https://soundcloud.com/kxtg-the-bald-fa ... -mac-engel

I assume the one-liners are courtesy of Canzano. It's hard to imagine Engel saying anything funny.

Mac Engel is a professor at SMU?! How did that happen? He compared us to the University of Seattle?!

I would have at least compared us to Georgetown.