If ACC doesn't happen then

[ROCKNEPONY]

If ACC  falls through get with PAC 4 presidents and secure ACC and SEC votes to remain a power conference.  Once secured Add:

1. SDSU
2. BOISE

ADD:
1. SMU
2. RICE
3. TULANE
4. MEMPHIS

FOOTBALL ONLY:
1. NAVY + zags
2. ARMY + zags rival

In 2026 ADD: (Agreed2Now)
1. AIR FORCE
2. ?

[rodrod5]

Boise is highly unlikely with Cal and Stanford. Even if they can get past "the academics" there is still the fact that Boise feast on California recruits. Part of the reason they are able to do that is players that actually want to get out of an area like Oakland or LA to go to school. Second is players that are not going to college to "play school" and are going there to play sports. Third is players from places in the valley that want to go come place nicer, but have no interest in a major city.

SDSU and Boise would not be the first to move anyway because of the MWC buyout. Navy is not going to join football only. Army will most likely not join without Navy. That means Memphis is out unless Army and Navy say no which I see as doubtful if offered. Air Force in the past stated they were not interested in the Big 12 because they did not feel with their recruiting limitations that they would be able to compete and they did not need money to be a bottom feeder. With Stanford, Cal, Navy, and Army all in a conference Air Force, or the other two Academies, should feel they can compete regularly.

In addition a school like Rice would help the three Academies feel they can compete regularly and it gives Navy another Texas school for recruiting that they have indicated is important to them. That also would appeal to Cal and Stanford. Tulane is pretty much the same since Louisiana is actually as much or more of a recruiting hot bed as Texas.

SMU, Rice, Tulane, Navy, Army all join first. Air Force, CSU, and SDSU after the MWC buyout goes down.

Oregon State
WSU
Cal
Stanford
SDSU
CSU

Air Force
Army
Navy
Rice
Tulane
SMU

[Topper]

Boise is highly unlikely with Cal and Stanford. Even if they can get past "the academics" there is still the fact that Boise feast on California recruits. Part of the reason they are able to do that is players that actually want to get out of an area like Oakland or LA to go to school. Second is players that are not going to college to "play school" and are going there to play sports. Third is players from places in the valley that want to go come place nicer, but have no interest in a major city.

SDSU and Boise would not be the first to move anyway because of the MWC buyout. Navy is not going to join football only. Army will most likely not join without Navy. That means Memphis is out unless Army and Navy say no which I see as doubtful if offered. Air Force in the past stated they were not interested in the Big 12 because they did not feel with their recruiting limitations that they would be able to compete and they did not need money to be a bottom feeder. With Stanford, Cal, Navy, and Army all in a conference Air Force, or the other two Academies, should feel they can compete regularly.

In addition a school like Rice would help the three Academies feel they can compete regularly and it gives Navy another Texas school for recruiting that they have indicated is important to them. That also would appeal to Cal and Stanford. Tulane is pretty much the same since Louisiana is actually as much or more of a recruiting hot bed as Texas.

SMU, Rice, Tulane, Navy, Army all join first. Air Force, CSU, and SDSU after the MWC buyout goes down.

Oregon State
WSU
Cal
Stanford
SDSU
CSU

Air Force
Army
Navy
Rice
Tulane
SMU

[Topper]

Boise is highly unlikely with Cal and Stanford. Even if they can get past "the academics" there is still the fact that Boise feast on California recruits. Part of the reason they are able to do that is players that actually want to get out of an area like Oakland or LA to go to school. Second is players that are not going to college to "play school" and are going there to play sports. Third is players from places in the valley that want to go come place nicer, but have no interest in a major city.

SDSU and Boise would not be the first to move anyway because of the MWC buyout. Navy is not going to join football only. Army will most likely not join without Navy. That means Memphis is out unless Army and Navy say no which I see as doubtful if offered. Air Force in the past stated they were not interested in the Big 12 because they did not feel with their recruiting limitations that they would be able to compete and they did not need money to be a bottom feeder. With Stanford, Cal, Navy, and Army all in a conference Air Force, or the other two Academies, should feel they can compete regularly.

In addition a school like Rice would help the three Academies feel they can compete regularly and it gives Navy another Texas school for recruiting that they have indicated is important to them. That also would appeal to Cal and Stanford. Tulane is pretty much the same since Louisiana is actually as much or more of a recruiting hot bed as Texas.

SMU, Rice, Tulane, Navy, Army all join first. Air Force, CSU, and SDSU after the MWC buyout goes down.

Oregon State
WSU
Cal
Stanford
SDSU
CSU

Air Force
Army
Navy
Rice
Tulane
SMU

This conference, by my count, could claim 7 national titles in football in history compared to 2 for the Big 12 of 2024. But I doubt if either of the East Coast service academies would want this travel schedule. Any media rights deal would only be marginally better, if at all, than the AAC or MWC. Also, this would be the weakest basketball conference I can think of. None of the service academies would participate in hoops as they really don't travel far from home during the regular season. I agree, the lineup would be better than the AAC, but it would not be a Power conference.

[rodrod5]

Playing 8 conference games those two east coast Academies would only have to travel to the west coast two times in a season. Navy would get to play in San Diego frequently and that should be appealing to them. In addition in the years that either of them played CSU on the road that is no different than their yearly trip to Air Force.

As for the media rights there was an article in the Athletic yesterday that stated the PAC 12 was close to a deal that was ESPN, Fox. CBS, and Amazon right at the end. CBS wanted a small amount of basketball. Amazon ended up not making a formal bid, but that tells me that at least one streaming partner, Amazon, was more interested in "testing" streaming vs. going all in on it. I say this based on my belief that ESPN and Fox are not going to be interested in second or third tier content. They are going to pay for a smaller amount of better content. I also am about 100% certain that the PAC 12 would not have been interested in a streaming deal that took the best content while other linear partners took the lesser tiers.

Apple on the other hand wanted all the best content and to share none of it. This is what I believe the main issue was for the PAC 12 at the end. The money was only there for streaming taking the best content and ESPN and Fox were really not interested at all in lesser content.

In addition of course all bidders were bidding against "better offers" from other conferences. Now that reality has set in for the 4 PAC members and the price is reduced for any and all bidders it is 100% a new negotiation.

I agree this is not a top basketball conference, but if a partner wants that Nevada, UNLV, Fresno, and Utah State are all available and if they have to Stanford and Cal can probably live with some of those. Memphis is available in that discussion too.

If CBS wants a little bit of basketball perhaps TNT wants a little bit also. That frees Fox and or ESPN from paying for that. You also have to consider that any AAC team that moves to the PAC gives ESPN the ability to cut that AAC contract by the amount they pay for that member. So SMU, Tulane, and Navy are "free" for ESPN until they start to pay over $7 million for them and Rice is "free" until they start to pay over $3.5 million. The MWC has a contract coming up in 2 years and Fox and CBS have that contract now. They could dump the MWC entirely at the same time that MWC members would have a reduced buyout to leave. Or they can at least look at any member they move over as being "free" up to a bid of $4 million.

Amazon may well be back in play if they just want to "test streaming" and the price of doing so for a lesser tier or for more content is now lower. The CW and others may well have a look with the reduced price.

Cazano is X'ing now that the PAC has hired Oliver Luck as a consultant. To me that is not a sign they are about to break up or to rush off to the AAC or MWC just yet. It tells me they are going to reengage all bidders and see what the offers at a new price with who those bidders feel they might want.

[mtrout]

I can't believe the Pac 12 hired Kliavkovff instead of Oliver Luck to begin with.

[ROCKNEPONY]

I can't believe they passed on 30 million from ESPN last fall.

How about the below with Army &  Navy as football only.
Memphis is important for basketball.

It would be important to add basketball powerhouses from the west coast as the bball schools to pair with Army & Navy & UNLV.

As mentioned, recruiting stops in San Diego, Houston, Dallas I think would be a very good for the academies.  (not talking about football recruiting here)  plus San Diego is a great Navy town and Killeen is not terrible far from Houston or Dallas.

And how about UNLV as football only.  Easy flight, fun trip and would allow another basketball school.

Oregon State
WSU
Cal
Stanford
SDSU
UNLV
CSU
Air Force
SMU
Memphis
Army
Navy
Rice
Tulane

The media money should be 12 to 15 million but at least10m I would think with the markets and teams. The academies all together would be a significant boost to viewership.

Plus fans and recruits can look forward to cities like Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, San Diego, San Francisco, New Orleans, Denver/Colorado Springs. 

[Dukie]

Boise is highly unlikely with Cal and Stanford. Even if they can get past "the academics" there is still the fact that Boise feast on California recruits. Part of the reason they are able to do that is players that actually want to get out of an area like Oakland or LA to go to school. Second is players that are not going to college to "play school" and are going there to play sports. Third is players from places in the valley that want to go come place nicer, but have no interest in a major city.

SDSU and Boise would not be the first to move anyway because of the MWC buyout. Navy is not going to join football only. Army will most likely not join without Navy. That means Memphis is out unless Army and Navy say no which I see as doubtful if offered. Air Force in the past stated they were not interested in the Big 12 because they did not feel with their recruiting limitations that they would be able to compete and they did not need money to be a bottom feeder. With Stanford, Cal, Navy, and Army all in a conference Air Force, or the other two Academies, should feel they can compete regularly.

In addition a school like Rice would help the three Academies feel they can compete regularly and it gives Navy another Texas school for recruiting that they have indicated is important to them. That also would appeal to Cal and Stanford. Tulane is pretty much the same since Louisiana is actually as much or more of a recruiting hot bed as Texas.

SMU, Rice, Tulane, Navy, Army all join first. Air Force, CSU, and SDSU after the MWC buyout goes down.

Oregon State
WSU
Cal
Stanford
SDSU
CSU

Air Force
Army
Navy
Rice
Tulane
SMU

Congratulations, as an SMU fan (presumably) you have created divisions that put SMU in an incredibly far-flung junior division with none of the PAC 4 and only Navy and perhaps Army as *any* sort of draw at the gate at Ford Stadium. You used some words around why Memphis would not be invited but those words actually didn't relate to Memphis at all, or make sense.

SMU's goal should be a division-less conference with regular games against Stanford and Cal (and WSU and OSU for that matter).

[rodrod5]

Boise is highly unlikely with Cal and Stanford. Even if they can get past "the academics" there is still the fact that Boise feast on California recruits. Part of the reason they are able to do that is players that actually want to get out of an area like Oakland or LA to go to school. Second is players that are not going to college to "play school" and are going there to play sports. Third is players from places in the valley that want to go come place nicer, but have no interest in a major city.

SDSU and Boise would not be the first to move anyway because of the MWC buyout. Navy is not going to join football only. Army will most likely not join without Navy. That means Memphis is out unless Army and Navy say no which I see as doubtful if offered. Air Force in the past stated they were not interested in the Big 12 because they did not feel with their recruiting limitations that they would be able to compete and they did not need money to be a bottom feeder. With Stanford, Cal, Navy, and Army all in a conference Air Force, or the other two Academies, should feel they can compete regularly.

In addition a school like Rice would help the three Academies feel they can compete regularly and it gives Navy another Texas school for recruiting that they have indicated is important to them. That also would appeal to Cal and Stanford. Tulane is pretty much the same since Louisiana is actually as much or more of a recruiting hot bed as Texas.

SMU, Rice, Tulane, Navy, Army all join first. Air Force, CSU, and SDSU after the MWC buyout goes down.

Oregon State
WSU
Cal
Stanford
SDSU
CSU

Air Force
Army
Navy
Rice
Tulane
SMU

Congratulations, as an SMU fan (presumably) you have created divisions that put SMU in an incredibly far-flung junior division with none of the PAC 4 and only Navy and perhaps Army as *any* sort of draw at the gate at Ford Stadium. You used some words around why Memphis would not be invited but those words actually didn't relate to Memphis at all, or make sense.

SMU's goal should be a division-less conference with regular games against Stanford and Cal (and WSU and OSU for that matter).

Your reply makes no sense. It is hard to say that SMU is in a far flung conference with Tulane, Rice, and Navy that are all either close to SMU or already in a conference and in the same division as SMU. The only new one is Air Force that is not all that far. You seem to not understand the draw of Army, Navy, and Air Force vs. most schools. I suppose you are feeling that Tulsa, north Texas state, Temple, and UTSA are major draws? Or SMU fans are excited by ECU, USF, UAB, Charlotte, and FAU. Or that somehow in a conference with or without divisions that conference is not "far flung".

I am pretty positive that Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and WSU fans are not going to be flocking to Ford Stadium. Perhaps SMU fans will, but perhaps SMU fans need to worry more about supporting their program by going to games against anyone and then SMU would not be in the position they are in now.

What applies to Memphis not being invited is the PAC is not going to be rebuilding a massive 14 or 16 team conference especially when academics still matter to the PAC members right or wrong. In addition if the PAC wants to rebuild with a larger conference and they are going to put academics aside then most likely Boise, UNLV, Nevada, and Fresno will be in play. That pretty much assures that SMU will still be in the eastern half of the conference and they will have the PAC members as home opponents even less frequently than what I laid out.

The goal of SMU should be to wake up to reality and realize that you can be with north Texas state, FAU, UAB, Charlotte, Temple, ECU, Tulsa, and others while pretending that something better is coming. Or SMU can realize they are not a "chooser" in this situation and they are not going to make any demands and polite request will probably be ignored, but a perceived improvement will be possible.

Congrats on not understanding at all what is going on here or what will make something beneficial happen for SMU.

[Dukie]

Your reply makes no sense. It is hard to say that SMU is in a far flung conference with Tulane, Rice, and Navy that are all either close to SMU or already in a conference and in the same division as SMU. The only new one is Air Force that is not all that far. You seem to not understand the draw of Army, Navy, and Air Force vs. most schools. I suppose you are feeling that Tulsa, north Texas state, Temple, and UTSA are major draws? Or SMU fans are excited by ECU, USF, UAB, Charlotte, and FAU. Or that somehow in a conference with or without divisions that conference is not "far flung".

I am pretty positive that Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and WSU fans are not going to be flocking to Ford Stadium. Perhaps SMU fans will, but perhaps SMU fans need to worry more about supporting their program by going to games against anyone and then SMU would not be in the position they are in now.

What applies to Memphis not being invited is the PAC is not going to be rebuilding a massive 14 or 16 team conference especially when academics still matter to the PAC members right or wrong. In addition if the PAC wants to rebuild with a larger conference and they are going to put academics aside then most likely Boise, UNLV, Nevada, and Fresno will be in play. That pretty much assures that SMU will still be in the eastern half of the conference and they will have the PAC members as home opponents even less frequently than what I laid out.

The goal of SMU should be to wake up to reality and realize that you can be with north Texas state, FAU, UAB, Charlotte, Temple, ECU, Tulsa, and others while pretending that something better is coming. Or SMU can realize they are not a "chooser" in this situation and they are not going to make any demands and polite request will probably be ignored, but a perceived improvement will be possible.

Congrats on not understanding at all what is going on here or what will make something beneficial happen for SMU.

Slow down, take a deep breath or two, and read. Please.

You are attacking me for comparing that junior division in a new conference by noting that the AAC is far flung. My comparison was not to the AAC, it was to a smaller, new PAC 4-based conference (that's why I mentioned you've put the PAC 4, the only P5 holdovers in your idea, on the other side of the divisional divide). That would be terrible for SMU. I do agree with you that the new AAC is garbage and that SMU needs to get out, but it needs to get into an 8- or 10-team PAC 4-based conference, not some continent-wide amalgam that puts us with Rice, Tulane, and the service academies (and I didn't even get into the huge negatives of option-based opponents, but they're real, too).

SMU is not Michigan, but there is no binary "chooser" or "taker" in the levels of this thing. SMU has enough attractive components to not just take whatever 12- or 16-team conference is thrown at us.

Yes, the PAC 4 will not necessarily fill Ford with their fans. But they're better "name" draws than anyone you've put SMU into the junior division with.

On Memphis, here's what you said: "SDSU and Boise would not be the first to move anyway because of the MWC buyout. Navy is not going to join football only. Army will most likely not join without Navy. That means Memphis is out unless Army and Navy say no which I see as doubtful if offered." Please explain how any of that word salad actually is an explanation of why Memphis is out?

[rodrod5]

Your reply makes no sense. It is hard to say that SMU is in a far flung conference with Tulane, Rice, and Navy that are all either close to SMU or already in a conference and in the same division as SMU. The only new one is Air Force that is not all that far. You seem to not understand the draw of Army, Navy, and Air Force vs. most schools. I suppose you are feeling that Tulsa, north Texas state, Temple, and UTSA are major draws? Or SMU fans are excited by ECU, USF, UAB, Charlotte, and FAU. Or that somehow in a conference with or without divisions that conference is not "far flung".

I am pretty positive that Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and WSU fans are not going to be flocking to Ford Stadium. Perhaps SMU fans will, but perhaps SMU fans need to worry more about supporting their program by going to games against anyone and then SMU would not be in the position they are in now.

What applies to Memphis not being invited is the PAC is not going to be rebuilding a massive 14 or 16 team conference especially when academics still matter to the PAC members right or wrong. In addition if the PAC wants to rebuild with a larger conference and they are going to put academics aside then most likely Boise, UNLV, Nevada, and Fresno will be in play. That pretty much assures that SMU will still be in the eastern half of the conference and they will have the PAC members as home opponents even less frequently than what I laid out.

The goal of SMU should be to wake up to reality and realize that you can be with north Texas state, FAU, UAB, Charlotte, Temple, ECU, Tulsa, and others while pretending that something better is coming. Or SMU can realize they are not a "chooser" in this situation and they are not going to make any demands and polite request will probably be ignored, but a perceived improvement will be possible.

Congrats on not understanding at all what is going on here or what will make something beneficial happen for SMU.

Slow down, take a deep breath or two, and read. Please.

You are attacking me for comparing that junior division in a new conference by noting that the AAC is far flung. My comparison was not to the AAC, it was to a smaller, new PAC 4-based conference (that's why I mentioned you've put the PAC 4, the only P5 holdovers in your idea, on the other side of the divisional divide). That would be terrible for SMU. I do agree with you that the new AAC is garbage and that SMU needs to get out, but it needs to get into an 8- or 10-team PAC 4-based conference, not some continent-wide amalgam that puts us with Rice, Tulane, and the service academies (and I didn't even get into the huge negatives of option-based opponents, but they're real, too).

SMU is not Michigan, but there is no binary "chooser" or "taker" in the levels of this thing. SMU has enough attractive components to not just take whatever 12- or 16-team conference is thrown at us.

Yes, the PAC 4 will not necessarily fill Ford with their fans. But they're better "name" draws than anyone you've put SMU into the junior division with.

On Memphis, here's what you said: "SDSU and Boise would not be the first to move anyway because of the MWC buyout. Navy is not going to join football only. Army will most likely not join without Navy. That means Memphis is out unless Army and Navy say no which I see as doubtful if offered." Please explain how any of that word salad actually is an explanation of why Memphis is out?

SDSU and Boise are not going to immediately join the PAC because the MWC has a $34 million dollar buyout. While I believe the PAC will get a media deal that makes it worth a buyout for teams to move the difference between a $34 million buyout and a reduced MWC buyout is still significant for any MWC member. That means that the PAC will wait the two years to add MWC members. I believe the PAC will want to have all three Academies. I believe the PAC is not going to go past 12 schools. So that means SMU, Tulane, Rice, Navy, and Army will be the first ones to join the 4 members of the PAC to make a 9 team conference. That means no other issues for the PAC with the NCAA and needing 8 teams to be a conference. That means a 9 team conference can play 8 conference games. That means the PAC has time to wait on the 3 MWC members they want. SDSU, CSU, and Air Force. That is 12 teams. That means Memphis is out.

If Army and Navy say no I still believe Memphis is out. Because at that point the PAC will simply play with 7 and wait out the MWC teams and add one more of them. I seriously doubt that Army and Navy will say no especially because I believe the money will be better and because it is about the only hope of all 3 of them ending up in the same conference. Even more so with heavy Texas recruiting plus Louisiana recruiting and San Diego for Navy and CSU for Air Force.

SMU will end up in the eastern half of that and they can deal with it. Or they can find themselves in the AAC without Navy, Tulane, and Rice. And probably with Texas State, maybe UTEP, or someone from the CUSA.

No one is attacking you. You just simply do not understand what is going on here. There is not going to be an 8 team PAC. There is not going to be a PAC with Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, WSU, Rice, SMU, Tulane, and CSU.

Nor will there be that with Air Force and Memphis added in. They are not going to take a single service academy. Nor are they going to have SMU, Memphis, Tulane, and Rice holding them over to get some of the MWC schools.

Any program that is not ready to make a jump of that has an issue will simply be moved on from. But for the programs in the AAC that might have an issue making the jump the replacements are going to come from the MWC pretty much without a doubt. Because once they have to go for programs they do not like the academics of the members of the PAC are going to go with programs that are closer to them. They are not going to be turned down by Rice or Tulane and then go for USF because of academics that is simply too far. They are not going to go with Memphis because "they are competitive" they will just go with Fresno or UNLV or some other MWC school.

[Dukie]

SDSU and Boise are not going to immediately join the PAC because the MWC has a $34 million dollar buyout. While I believe the PAC will get a media deal that makes it worth a buyout for teams to move the difference between a $34 million buyout and a reduced MWC buyout is still significant for any MWC member. That means that the PAC will wait the two years to add MWC members. I believe the PAC will want to have all three Academies. I believe the PAC is not going to go past 12 schools. So that means SMU, Tulane, Rice, Navy, and Army will be the first ones to join the 4 members of the PAC to make a 9 team conference. That means no other issues for the PAC with the NCAA and needing 8 teams to be a conference. That means a 9 team conference can play 8 conference games. That means the PAC has time to wait on the 3 MWC members they want. SDSU, CSU, and Air Force. That is 12 teams. That means Memphis is out.

If Army and Navy say no I still believe Memphis is out. Because at that point the PAC will simply play with 7 and wait out the MWC teams and add one more of them. I seriously doubt that Army and Navy will say no especially because I believe the money will be better and because it is about the only hope of all 3 of them ending up in the same conference. Even more so with heavy Texas recruiting plus Louisiana recruiting and San Diego for Navy and CSU for Air Force.

SMU will end up in the eastern half of that and they can deal with it. Or they can find themselves in the AAC without Navy, Tulane, and Rice. And probably with Texas State, maybe UTEP, or someone from the CUSA.

No one is attacking you. You just simply do not understand what is going on here. There is not going to be an 8 team PAC. There is not going to be a PAC with Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, WSU, Rice, SMU, Tulane, and CSU.

Nor will there be that with Air Force and Memphis added in. They are not going to take a single service academy. Nor are they going to have SMU, Memphis, Tulane, and Rice holding them over to get some of the MWC schools.

Any program that is not ready to make a jump of that has an issue will simply be moved on from. But for the programs in the AAC that might have an issue making the jump the replacements are going to come from the MWC pretty much without a doubt. Because once they have to go for programs they do not like the academics of the members of the PAC are going to go with programs that are closer to them. They are not going to be turned down by Rice or Tulane and then go for USF because of academics that is simply too far. They are not going to go with Memphis because "they are competitive" they will just go with Fresno or UNLV or some other MWC school.

Hey, thanks for at least explaining your "reasoning" on Memphis this time. And I sure wouldn't know what I'm talking about if I had proposed the 8-team "PAC" that you dismiss as never happening. Except ... I didn't propose that conference, you just created a straw man and had your own fun knocking it over.

Anyway, in your view, I do not know what I am talking about, but you are absolutely certain there will be a conference with exactly 12 teams, and you already know exactly which schools are in, and then you already know which schools are in if any of that first set of schools aren't exactly in. You are very certain about many things, therefore, except you also create caveats to deal with what happens if your certainty isn't correct, and somehow all layers of your certainty involve *Rice* definitely making it in. And all of this while Stanford and Cal and SMU have only lost the ACC push in the last 48 hours, and the PAC 4 only hired their new advisor (who seems capable; I wish he'd been commish instead of Kliavkoff) a hot minute ago. You're very entertaining but you should take more care with the Dunning-Kruger levels of confidence you are exhibiting.

[mtrout]

rodrod5 is kliavkoff

[Dukie]

rodrod5 is kliavkoff

He’s intense and verbose and I like the dedication, but obviously I think he’s an Owl.

[birddogger]

rodrod5 is kliavkoff

He’s intense and verbose and I like the dedication, but obviously I think he’s an Owl.

Temple, Rice or FAU variety?