Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

How long would the half share last? If the offer was permanant half share or like a decade I'd reject that too. 

I sort of lol'd at this line: "I don't see a Mountain West merger happening since the Pac-12's whole goal the last several months has been to separate from the lower-end Mountain West schools."

Wasn't the original MWC formed by a few members of the WAC to separate themselves as more valueable than the rest and ended up merging with most of the left behind's anways a few years later?

Posted
18 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Rumor going around that Texas State was offered the final spot in the PAC12 at a 50% share and turned them down.

Well, hells bells, Texas State ain't exactly SMU and the new PAC ain't the ACC

Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

How long would the half share last? If the offer was permanant half share or like a decade I'd reject that too.

Unclear, I assume the half share would be for the length of their proposed TV deal but most of that hasn’t been released publicly. If it was permanently at a half share then I don’t blame them for turning it down.

They also are giving Gonzaga a FULL Football share so I could see how that would rub Texas State the wrong way too.

 

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Wasn't the original MWC formed by a few members of the WAC to separate themselves as more valueable than the rest and ended up merging with most of the left behind's anways a few years later?

It took a decade+ but yes they pretty much brought back TCU and everyone in the Mountain/Pacific Time Zones other than UTEP.

Utah/BYU (now in B12), Colorado State/San Diego St (joining P12), New Mexico, UNLV, Wyoming, and Air Force left the WAC to form the MWC leaving behind…

TCU (later invited now in B12)
Fresno (later invited now in P12)
Hawaii (later invited, still in MWC)
SJSU (later invited, still in MWC)


UTEP (only recently invited to MWC)
SMU (rumored but never officially invited, now in ACC)
Rice (rumored but never officially invited, now in AAC)
Tulsa (see above)

Fresno should feel good about themselves, going from shunned to shunner. Utah State and Boise State weren’t in the original 16 team WAC when the MWC split off but obviously their trajectory is great as well.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 1 month later...
Posted
7 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:


https://www.betarizona.com/college-football/pac-12-expansion

 

Pac 12 Expansion Candidates: Odds For Next College To Join Conference

College 

Odds 

Texas State 

+110 

Tulane 

+225

Memphis

+800 

UNLV

+900 

North Texas 

+1400 

UTSA 

+1600 

Sacramento State 

+2750 

The Field 

+1000 


 

Texas State looks to be the obvious choice here, but still interesting that Tulane is a close #2.

I can't see an AAC school leaving. I agree with you that Texas State seems like the most obvious choice to get into Texas....UNLV would be a smart choice by the PAC for Vegas reasons. 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I can't see an AAC school leaving. I agree with you that Texas State seems like the most obvious choice to get into Texas....UNLV would be a smart choice by the PAC for Vegas reasons. 

Why do you feel Texas State is a better choice than UTSA or UNT for access to Texas. There maybe good reasons and I'll openly admit my ignorance if they exist. 

Purely logistically speaking San Antonio and Denton seem better for hosting visiting fans. Granted, Austin will be the location for hotels should fans travel. Importantly, both are aligned to bigger cities, DFW and SA. UTSA also has "University of Texas" in their name which brings a certain perceived value sports wise, justified or not.

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Why do you feel Texas State is a better choice than UTSA or UNT for access to Texas. There maybe good reasons and I'll openly admit my ignorance if they exist. 

Why would UTSA/UNT leave the top paying non p4 conference for an unproven and unknown conference? UTSA and Tulane have already turned down the PAC. Also because their name says "State" lol

Football Members of New PAC:

Washington State
Oregon State
Boise State
Fresno State
Colorado State
San Diego State
Utah State

 

They HAVE to get to 8 by 2026 in order to eligible to be considered for playoff auto bid.

Edited by BurntOrange&White
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Why would UTSA/UNT leave the top paying non p4 conference for an unproven and unknown conference? Also UTSA and Tulane have already turned down the PAC. Also because their name says "State" lol

Football Members of New PAC:

Washington State
Oregon State
Boise State
Fresno State
Colorado State
San Diego State
Utah State

 

They HAVE to get to 8 by 2026 in order to eligible to be considered for playoff auto bid.

Ahhh.. so its more who wants to join the Pac than who the Pac wants to join.

I'm on page now. 

Posted
18 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Ahhh.. so its more who wants to join the Pac than who the Pac wants to join.

I'm on page now. 

Yes UNT and UTSA are in a much better place than the new PAC which already seems shaky af. It’s not a move up from AAC and more likely a step down plus travel. It’s a step up for TXST from the Sunbelt but not a slam dunk.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
22 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Why would UTSA/UNT leave the top paying non p4 conference for an unproven and unknown conference? UTSA and Tulane have already turned down the PAC. Also because their name says "State" lol

Football Members of New PAC:

Washington State
Oregon State
Boise State
Fresno State
Colorado State
San Diego State
Utah State

 

They HAVE to get to 8 by 2026 in order to eligible to be considered for playoff auto bid.

It'll be Sac State.

Teams with options won't want the travel costs and headaches for non-rev sports.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

It'll be Sac State.

Teams with options won't want the travel costs and headaches for non-rev sports.

I doubt it. The PAC12’s ultimate goal would be to get Cal and/or Stanford back eventually. There is no way either of those two would ever deign to share a conference with Sac State nor San Jose State. The PAC adding Fresno State is already a hurdle for tree and Berkeley that isn’t helping (both had already accepted that they’d be slumming it with SDSU prior to joining the ACC for their media market).

Posted

Cal and Stanford will never join, they make a ton more as part of the ACC and could make as much or more in the Big XII if they could get over their own snobbery. They’d probably make more as an independent than joining Mountain West 2.0.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
7 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I doubt it. The PAC12’s ultimate goal would be to get Cal and/or Stanford back eventually. There is no way either of those two would ever deign to share a conference with Sac State nor San Jose State. The PAC adding Fresno State is already a hurdle for tree and Berkeley that isn’t helping (both had already accepted that they’d be slumming it with SDSU prior to joining the ACC for their media market).

If academics are factored in, neither Cal or Stanford will associate with the western "State" colleges.

Not gonna happen. ACC is a better deal for them short and long-term. I forgot about SJSU. The new PAC will probably have to settle for one of those CA state schools. Maybe both.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

If academics are factored in, neither Cal or Stanford will associate with the western "State" colleges.

Not gonna happen. ACC is a better deal for them short and long-term. I forgot about SJSU. The new PAC will probably have to settle for one of those CA state schools. Maybe both.

You should check out the academic rankings of Washington State.

Posted
On 5/15/2025 at 8:40 AM, 'stache said:

Yes UNT and UTSA are in a much better place than the new PAC which already seems shaky af. It’s not a move up from AAC and more likely a step down plus travel. It’s a step up for TXST from the Sunbelt but not a slam dunk.

This,  I think the smart schools in solid non-P4 conferences wait for the next round of conference realignment.  

There are 68 teams in the four power conferences and ND.  Not all of those are going to be included in the next round which means there could be some very interesting options to form some new, regionalized conferences.  

Posted
1 hour ago, JFKFC said:

You should check out the academic rankings of Washington State.

Academic rankings shouldn't factor into an athletic affiliation decision, but Cal and Stanford are different.

Is Wazzu highly regarded? I don't care enough to look it up.

Posted

If we go another round of realignment and the ACC gets gobbled up:

SEC: FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke
B1G: ND, Miami, GT, UVA
B12: Pitt, Louisville, NCSU, VT

There is no way Stanford and Cal will hang out with the remainders:

Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest, SMU

And there is no way in hell they’d be able to go independent. They aren’t Notre Dame and wouldn’t have a TV deal nor access to the CFP/major bowls.

So their options will be Big 12 or PAC12 or reform an ACC with UConn fb, Memphis, USF, Temple, Rice and…?

If they don’t kiss and make up with the Big 12 the PAC12 is their most likely landing spot.

Posted

Stanford is a unique football program. It is as good as it wants to be. There are no shortage of Stanford billionaires. Its recruiting pull may be the best in the nation (obviously, I’m a Longhorn maniac. If my daughter were to be offered a choice between UT admission, and Stanford admission, I’d have to tell her that Stanford looks pretty great. Any of you differ?)

Stanford is not interested right now. If that changes, it sits where it wants. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, statsman said:

If my daughter were to be offered a choice between UT admission, and Stanford admission, I’d have to tell her that Stanford looks pretty great. Any of you differ?)

We would need pics to make that call.

  • Haha 3
Posted

Cal and Stanford's academic rankings means absolutely nothing in the athletics world which is why they had to beg for a bargain basement offer in a conference on the other side of the country. And in athletics I mean football, football and football. The Big Ten supposedly cares a lot about academics but the reality is they accepted Nebraska (when they were relevant in football) and rejected Cal and Stanford so it's clear what actually matters. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, John80 said:

Cal and Stanford's academic rankings means absolutely nothing in the athletics world which is why they had to beg for a bargain basement offer in a conference on the other side of the country. And in athletics I mean football, football and football. The Big Ten supposedly cares a lot about academics but the reality is they accepted Nebraska (when they were relevant in football) and rejected Cal and Stanford so it's clear what actually matters. 

Well even with SMU buying the way in for the 3 of them, it was only their academics that got them included in that deal.

It matters on the margins.  its one of the reasons Boise never got serious Big 12 consideration.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, bullet said:

Well even with SMU buying the way in for the 3 of them, it was only their academics that got them included in that deal.

It matters on the margins.  its one of the reasons Boise never got serious Big 12 consideration.

 

I don’t think that’s why Boise was left out of the Big 12.  The 3 G5 schools that got called up are in major media markets that are also recruiting hot beds.

Boise isn’t that big of a market, and does not produce much high school talent.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
15 hours ago, John80 said:

Cal and Stanford's academic rankings means absolutely nothing in the athletics world which is why they had to beg for a bargain basement offer in a conference on the other side of the country. And in athletics I mean football, football and football. The Big Ten supposedly cares a lot about academics but the reality is they accepted Nebraska (when they were relevant in football) and rejected Cal and Stanford so it's clear what actually matters. 

Stanford also has a habit of not playing well with their conference mates.  

They aren't a pain in the arse like say BYU with some of their outright  "we won't play on certain days" etc..... but there was more than one Pac school that was damn happy to be away from Stanford and it wasn't because they were getting beat by the Cardinal.  

Posted
15 hours ago, John80 said:

Cal and Stanford's academic rankings means absolutely nothing in the athletics world which is why they had to beg for a bargain basement offer in a conference on the other side of the country. And in athletics I mean football, football and football. The Big Ten supposedly cares a lot about academics but the reality is they accepted Nebraska (when they were relevant in football) and rejected Cal and Stanford so it's clear what actually matters. 

Cal and Stanford is the reason the PAC imploded to begin with. Dumb mother fuckers.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Cal and Stanford is the reason the PAC imploded to begin with. Dumb mother fuckers.

 

image.png.1f1feda7793d3ccad074f754d4b190a8.png

  • Haha 2
Posted
16 hours ago, PGFrog said:

 

image.png.1f1feda7793d3ccad074f754d4b190a8.png

Stanford and Cal were playing chess.  And it was too late when they realized the rest of the PAC did not know how to play chess?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Posted
17 hours ago, PGFrog said:

Stanford also has a habit of not playing well with their conference mates.  

They aren't a pain in the arse like say BYU with some of their outright  "we won't play on certain days" etc..... but there was more than one Pac school that was damn happy to be away from Stanford and it wasn't because they were getting beat by the Cardinal.  

Curious about this one, being on the other side of the country, I hadn't heard that. What did Stanford do?

Posted
Just now, gatormarc said:

Curious about this one, being on the other side of the country, I hadn't heard that. What did Stanford do?

If the Pac 12 had reached out to the Irate 8 (likely sans Baylor because religion) they could have absorbed KU, KSU, ISU, TTU, TCU and OK St and survived in the space the Big 12 occupies today.

They wouldn’t have to fly all the way across the country and play most of the schools they’ve always played.

But West Coast elitism won the day.  They couldn’t associate with prairie trash.  Although USC may be more responsible for that decision.  AZ and CU wanted to bring them in.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
On 5/17/2025 at 10:46 PM, John80 said:

Cal and Stanford's academic rankings means absolutely nothing in the athletics world

Certain recruits love it. If you get in to Stanford, you go to Stanford. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If the Pac 12 had reached out to the Irate 8 (likely sans Baylor because religion) they could have absorbed KU, KSU, ISU, TTU, TCU and OK St and survived in the space the Big 12 occupies today.

They wouldn’t have to fly all the way across the country and play most of the schools they’ve always played.

But West Coast elitism won the day.  They couldn’t associate with prairie trash.  Although USC may be more responsible for that decision.  AZ and CU wanted to bring them in.

Ding ding ding. USC nixed the idea. Was reported on by a few places. 

Posted

Regardless of what impact Stanford elitism may have had on Pac12 expansion, I figure there has to be more to the statement of them not playing well with others in their conference than that.

Posted
11 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

Regardless of what impact Stanford elitism may have had on Pac12 expansion, I figure there has to be more to the statement of them not playing well with others in their conference than that.

I’m sure Stanford has an attitude that they’re better than everyone else. To be fair, they are better than everyone else. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
On 5/15/2025 at 8:15 AM, BurntOrange&White said:

Why would UTSA/UNT leave the top paying non p4 conference for an unproven and unknown conference? UTSA and Tulane have already turned down the PAC. Also because their name says "State" lol

Football Members of New PAC:

Washington State
Oregon State
Boise State
Fresno State
Colorado State
San Diego State
Utah State

 

They HAVE to get to 8 by 2026 in order to eligible to be considered for playoff auto bid.

That's just the Mountain West by a new name. No cache at all. 

Posted
3 hours ago, lateshow said:

That's just the Mountain West by a new name. No cache at all. 

cachet (pronounced cash-ay): prestige

cache (pronounced cash): hidden stuff

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, bolverk said:

cachet (pronounced cash-ay): prestige

cache (pronounced cash): hidden stuff

Given the overall lack of eyeball appeal of their product and their time slots, "hidden stuff" might have been the correct appellation.

  • Haha 3
Posted
On 5/19/2025 at 2:59 PM, gatormarc said:

Regardless of what impact Stanford elitism may have had on Pac12 expansion, I figure there has to be more to the statement of them not playing well with others in their conference than that.

Go ask the folks on a UW, Oregon, and USC board about their thoughts on Stanford and the willingness of the Cardinal to make their feeling felt when they thought a Pac rival crossed in line.  

Wasn't also just conference expansion.  

Stanford was very vocal that athletics should not only over shadow academics, but even be a feature part of a universities identity and made sure they could exert whatever influence they had to check other schools who felt differently.  

Posted
25 minutes ago, PGFrog said:

Go ask the folks on a UW, Oregon, and USC board about their thoughts on Stanford and the willingness of the Cardinal to make their feeling felt when they thought a Pac rival crossed in line.  

I tried searching for Trojan opinions and Husky athletes and just got called into HR.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
On 5/18/2025 at 6:55 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

I don’t think that’s why Boise was left out of the Big 12.  The 3 G5 schools that got called up are in major media markets that are also recruiting hot beds.

Boise isn’t that big of a market, and does not produce much high school talent.  

Boise has had far more success than any G school and is a better TV draw.  Yet they really didn't get serious consideration either time.  And they weren't taken seriously because of academics.

Posted
On 5/18/2025 at 2:43 PM, BurntOrange&White said:

Cal and Stanford is the reason the PAC imploded to begin with. Dumb mother fuckers.

Well Stanford is the reason Texas and probably Colorado didn't join the Pac in 1990.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 hours ago, bolverk said:

cachet (pronounced cash-ay): prestige

cache (pronounced cash): hidden stuff

Well with paying exit fees and poaching fees, they probably won't have a cache either!

Posted
59 minutes ago, bullet said:

Boise has had far more success than any G school and is a better TV draw.  Yet they really didn't get serious consideration either time.  And they weren't taken seriously because of academics.

Name which school they should have been take over?

Utah, BYU, TCU, Houston, SMU, Louisville, Cincinnati?

These schools all have 50+ years of HISTORY in big time intercollegiate athletics. It’s not academics. Boise is still behind Memphis and Tulane in this category.

It’s a club, and these long time schools have been in and/or closely around the major players in this space for decades. 

They can jump the queue if they are head and shoulders above the competition (like Rice) but ultimately this is a risk adverse group of decision makers who will fall back on what feels safe and sounds familiar.

The only ‘recent’ call ups were USF and UCF. USF was called up and then left behind while UCF is yet to justify their inclusion. This was Boise State’s competition not Utah or TCU.

Posted
On 5/19/2025 at 4:11 PM, statsman said:

I’m sure Stanford has an attitude that they’re better than everyone else. To be fair, they are better than everyone else. 

For the amalgam of academic & athletic prestige, Duke is not only a peer, they may be a notch above Stanford. In the US News rankings (I know, I know....) Stanford is 4 & Duke is 6. We've all seen Duke win a national title in basketball, while Stanford wins in non-revenue sports. 

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, bullet said:

Well Stanford is the reason Texas and probably Colorado didn't join the Pac in 1990.

Did you forget that when PAC was negotiating their new media deal Stanford/Cal balked at the numbers because they thought they were worth a ton more money. Then the same deal was presented to Big 12 and they took it.

Edited by BurntOrange&White

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...