8 minutes. Kurtzie addresses this propaganda battle.
PAC has lost site of the forest for the trees. Bigger issues than what Flugaur, etc says.
4 Likes
Theyâre really playing with fire.
They are at 10 schools right now. You need 8 to be a conference per the NCAA. If the media offer is low and more than two schools leave, they drop below eight. As for backfill, some conferences require a certain amount of time before you can leave. I doubt any conference will go for a 14 month advance notice.
Thatâs why they are keeping SMU and SDSU âin limboâ.
They are their back-up plan if 2-4 schools defect so they can keep the PAC name instead of being raided by the MWC.
Imagine youâre Aresco. The PAC loses enough to drop below 8. Theyâre desperate. The three schools really got a nice exit deal going to the Big XII. But heâll have SMU and the PAC over a barrel. What would you negotiate?
1 Like
The AAC doesnât have the cachet that it had with UH, CFU, and UC. Aresco doesnât have any leverage over what the PAC or its remnants do.
âThe value
Every valuation calculation ends with the same question: Is the school accretive? In other words, would the addition of SMU create more media value for the Pac-12âs remaining schools?â
Wilmer is good at this. Why not stop the fights you cant win on Twitter for awhile ?
You might of explained this but are plugged into the PAC? Genuinely curious
When youâre arguing that SMU is gonna add value then youâve jumped the shark
7 Likes
Lost all respect for Altimore thought he was a intelligent guy, more he talks the more he shows he not too smart
3 Likes
I kinda think the PAC should stand pat if they can hold it all together and understand their markets arenât worth a huge contract, but if you ainât adding a team or ten, the impression is that of a dying conference. Hard to see what SMU or Tulane brings. SDSU should be added so the PAC has a team in SoCal, but they wonât add lots of eyeballs.
1 Like
SMU was good at NIL before it was a thing. Their old money donors in a power conference again⊠the sky is the limit. Nobody would be at the games but they have the potential to be good.
3 Likes
Its like farmers market in Mexicali. Its all fertilized by sewage but you gotta decide: lettuce or carrots.
5 Likes
One thing to consider for SMU to the PAC is recruiting value. It wont be huge value, but having regular games in Texas might help sway a few good recruits to Oregon, Stanford, Colorado, or Washington. As long as they are deemed by the media to be a huge drop in value.
I wish SMU well, and think the PAC will benefit them, maybe not the rest of the PAC by much more than a recruit or two.
One thing I had watched a little of is the California legislation where they want to require school to pay half of the revenue to the players. Last I heard it was still under consideration. If the California schools have to pay half, how much will they try to force it into PAC rules?
If the schools actually pay players to play for them, how can that be considered amateur sports? How is that within NCAA rules? Will there be an NCAA much longer?
1 Like
Being conservatively optimistic, maybe adding SMU is worth $1.5 million (annually) for the other schools. Thatâs $99 million (over six years).
SMU is worth 16.5 Million.
Wait Pac is back to considering expansion again?
1 Like