-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
Do you have any guesses how the Wazzu/OSU thing will play out? I have no idea at all..It seems like they are determined to stay the Pac 2 for a couple years. I am not sure how that will work.
It's incredibly hard to get a read on PAC 2 intentions, because they're still battling for control of the conference.
Feels like minimally they will stay long enough to get control and financial payouts.
There's a chance they still try to poach MWC/AAC teams to rebuild and become a best of the rest conference.
PAC has at least a two year period they can use to rebuild, if they can find teams to join them.
IF they pull that rebuild off, the rest of G5 is screwed on CFP bids, imo.
I think the G5 agreeing to the 5+7 format was premature, and stupid. But guess the P4 have voting power and call the shots.
The other option for WSU/OSU is they just cash out on PAC assets, then join MWC. Feels 50/50 to me which way this goes.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KSBisonFan
I hope this never happens. The uniform part.
The only think worse than black uniforms unless it's one of your school colors is all grey like Ohio State or the Detroit Lions.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hammerhead
The only think worse than black uniforms unless it's one of your school colors is all grey like Ohio State or the Detroit Lions.
JFC who comes up with that shit????
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Boise St doesn't fuck around.. couple losses and they fire the head coach w 3 games left
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El_Chapo
Boise St doesn't fuck around.. couple losses and they fire the head coach w 3 games left
Texas A&M just spent $76.8m to buyout Jimbo. Crazy money is spent in FBS.
https://www.espn.com/college-footbal...uyout-texas-am
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
Lol, NDSU, by comparison won’t buyout Entz for pennies.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
I am guessing Texas A&M boosters picked up that tab..
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
I am guessing Texas A&M boosters picked up that tab..
When Michigan hired Harbaugh, donor gave $50 million for a coaches endowment to cover the amount above the state payment.
Some details on boosters paying Jimbo's buyout.
https://mikefarrellsports.com/colleg...-of-75-million
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El_Chapo
Boise St doesn't fuck around.. couple losses and they fire the head coach w 3 games left
Vigen's name may be mentioned for that job.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
Even with a better media deal, imagine trying to compete with a school that spends more money paying someone not to coach than your entire athletic budget.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
The 2PAC reached out to the ... Sun Belt ... for a lifeline (scheduling alliance) and were rebuffed.
Reasons?
Geography. Money.
https://sports.yahoo.com/who-will-co...oIVTon567q9wFC
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hammerhead
... imagine trying to compete with a school that spends more money paying someone not to coach than your entire athletic budget.
In 2022, total athletics expenditures by the combined Dak4 (USD, SDSU, NDSU, UND) of $105M were less than half of those of The Ohio State University ($228M).
https://knightnewhousedata.org/reports/fd9e850f
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WhoRepsTheLurker
So another shake up will happen? Or they take the MW on and they fold?
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BISONBRI53
So another shake up will happen? Or they take the MW on and they fold?
Who knows but guess we’ll find out
I just want the B1G and its newfound west-coast affiliates to suffer for their blatant greed and disrespect for geography and PAC brand
I also want the Bears to suck forever ...
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WhoRepsTheLurker
I also want the Bears to suck forever ...
An update.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
PAC stays alive with the 2 via the judge.
if TUPAC takes 6 MWC members to make a 8 team PAC 8...
then NDSU SDSU and Montana's should easily slide into the Mountain West.
LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El_Chapo
PAC stays alive with the 2 via the judge.
if TUPAC takes 6 MWC members to make a 8 team PAC 8...
then NDSU SDSU and Montana's should easily slide into the Mountain West.
LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
MWC exit fees:
- 2 years notice: $17,000,000.00
- 1 year notice: $34,000,000.00
... to go to a "PAC" where the headliners are WasSU and OrSU. I'm just not feelin' it.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El_Chapo
PAC stays alive with the 2 via the judge.
if TUPAC takes 6 MWC members to make a 8 team PAC 8...
then NDSU SDSU and Montana's should easily slide into the Mountain West.
LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
take away the top 6 members of the MWC and what do you see?
But I do like the idea of being in same conference as Cats and Grizz.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Sicatoka
MWC exit fees:
- 2 years notice: $17,000,000.00
- 1 year notice: $34,000,000.00
... to go to a "PAC" where the headliners are WasSU and OrSU. I'm just not feelin' it.
Why wouldn’t the top teams want to dump the bottom of the MWC??? WSU and OSU are far better than WY or Nevada. The bottom of the MWC should be in the big sky anyways. The top Big Sky teams would no doubt consider backfilling the MWC along with others in the CUSA. Question is if the PAC 2 has enough money to help buy outs???
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
daddy daycare
take away the top 6 members of the MWC and what do you see?
But I do like the idea of being in same conference as Cats and Grizz.
Big Sky level teams….
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
B.Schlossman Fan Club
Why wouldn’t the top teams want to dump the bottom of the MWC??? WSU and OSU are far better than WY or Nevada. The bottom of the MWC should be in the big sky anyways. The top Big Sky teams would no doubt consider backfilling the MWC along with others in the CUSA. Question is if the PAC 2 has enough money to help buy outs???
One thing people seem to miss is conferences don't want 12 Alabamas in their membership. This leads to very good teams going 4-6 or 5-5 in their conference schedule. They are good with a mix to a point. The MWC may be very happy with the bottom of their conference if they are adequate academic institutions, geographic sense for the level, appropriate budget, etc. The focus here is football, but maybe those other schools have great programs in other sports.
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IndyBison
One thing people seem to miss is conferences don't want 12 Alabamas in their membership. This leads to very good teams going 4-6 or 5-5 in their conference schedule. They are good with a mix to a point. The MWC may be very happy with the bottom of their conference if they are adequate academic institutions, geographic sense for the level, appropriate budget, etc. The focus here is football, but maybe those other schools have great programs in other sports.
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Why were OSU and Wazzu not even considered for a power conference when absolute football stiffs like Colorado and Arizona received invitations?
What exactly would be the draw for schools to pay exit fees and join them?
Would the addition of several G5 schools make the Pac a P6 conference?
Where is the tv deal?
Wouldn't it make more sense for the Pac 2 to take their significant cash windfall and try to buy their way into the ACC or Big 12 then to pay exit fees for MW schools they could get for free with a merger?
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
Why were OSU and Wazzu not even considered for a power conference when absolute football stiffs like Colorado and Arizona received invitations?
What exactly would be the draw for schools to pay exit fees and join them?
Would the addition of several G5 schools make the Pac a P6 conference?
Where is the tv deal?
Wouldn't it make more sense for the Pac 2 to take their significant cash windfall and try to buy their way into the ACC or Big 12 then to pay exit fees for MW schools they could get for free with a merger?
Don't see that working for OSU/WSU.
Stanford/SMU brought more prestige to the table (academics, Stanford Olympic program is a major feeder to US Olympics), plus big new markets that translates to a larger ongoing revenue stream. ACC network carriage fees go way up by having a presence in the Dallas market. Automatically occurs due to the contract with ACCN/ESPN and Cable Co's.
It wasn't simply that they agreed to join for "free", they also brought new/bigger revenue stream to the conference.
OSU/WSU don't move the needle as much on the TV markets, its a big part of why they were left out to start with.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IndyBison
One thing people seem to miss is conferences don't want 12 Alabamas in their membership. This leads to very good teams going 4-6 or 5-5 in their conference schedule. They are good with a mix to a point. The MWC may be very happy with the bottom of their conference if they are adequate academic institutions, geographic sense for the level, appropriate budget, etc. The focus here is football, but maybe those other schools have great programs in other sports.
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Do you think Nevada and Wyoming want to lose Boise St on their schedules??? I think not
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
The only way I think they can poach is if they can convice the best of the AAC to merge with the best of MWC.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
B.Schlossman Fan Club
Do you think Nevada and Wyoming want to lose Boise St on their schedules??? I think not
Neither Wyoming or Boise are on my must have list.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
We are Venom
If you're hungry for brains why are you at Bisonville?
C'mon, it was so easy it had to be said. ::frog:
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WhoRepsTheLurker
The way that looks you see that Gloria/MWC has the power position.
Quote:
The agreement, expected to include a lucrative financial package for Mountain West members, is likely to feature a long-term commitment to the conference with an intent at a full merger beyond this two-year cycle. Part of the agreement includes a financial penalty that can be levied upon Oregon State and Washington State if the two programs attempt to acquire only a portion of MWC schools in the future.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Watching JMU pop on Pat McAfee this morning - NDSU missed the boat big time.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EndZoneQB
Watching JMU pop on Pat McAfee this morning - NDSU missed the boat big time.
OMG this is SO DEPRESSING .. JMU and PAT is electric! to watch JMU get ranked in TOP 20 and we have regressed.
thanks MATT!!! every NDSU program would be ELEVATED if we went FBS instead they are all fading as we speak. basketball volleyball wrestling baseball track all of them including football.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
We are Venom
I like your commish and she's also a big PAC fan
This looks like a win-win for both parties
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Hold on, there's a lawsuit right now on if the 10 leaving PAC teams get a vote after they announce they're leaving. If WSU and OSU sign an intent to join the MWC isn't that the same thing? It's now PAC-0?
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
WOW watch this JMU clip with Mcafee there now (espn gameday tomorrow)
https://x.com/PatMcAfeeShow/status/1...397291280?s=20
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taper
Hold on, there's a lawsuit right now on if the 10 leaving PAC teams get a vote after they announce they're leaving. If WSU and OSU sign an intent to join the MWC isn't that the same thing? It's now PAC-0?
It seems like that is why they are going with the "scheduling alliance" angle rather than a formal merger. This allows them the 2 year grace period to try to resurrect the PAC conference rather than just abandoning it all together. May result in the same thing (a MWC/PAC merger) but they technically aren't leaving the PAC. Also, personally I think Karma's a bitch for all the other former PAC schools who left. They're going to get their money in the B1G and the Big 12 but in order to do so they are likely going to give up the 35-40 million that was coming from the PAC 12. To me just seems right.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taper
Hold on, there's a lawsuit right now on if the 10 leaving PAC teams get a vote after they announce they're leaving. If WSU and OSU sign an intent to join the MWC isn't that the same thing? It's now PAC-0?
There has been no announcement that OSU and WSU are leaving the Pac. I am not even sure the scheduling alliance will happen. I think the Pac2 will ride it out for 2 years with a goal of buying their way into a P4 conference with all the revenue they will be getting by maintaining their conference.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taper
Hold on, there's a lawsuit right now on if the 10 leaving PAC teams get a vote after they announce they're leaving. If WSU and OSU sign an intent to join the MWC isn't that the same thing? It's now PAC-0?
" ... is likely to feature a long-term commitment to the conference with an intent at a full merger beyond this two-year cycle ..." <-- Is that enough to claim they're departing like all the rest. I bet it's weasel-worded just right to be non-binding, thus no 'departure'. But it'd be hilarious if just days after the 2PAC wins the suit for full control they screw it up with this.
-
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Sicatoka
" ... is likely to feature a long-term commitment to the conference with an intent at a full merger beyond this two-year cycle ..." <-- Is that enough to claim they're departing like all the rest. I bet it's weasel-worded just right to be non-binding, thus no 'departure'. But it'd be hilarious if just days after the 2PAC wins the suit for full control they screw it up with this.
With the bumbling incompetence the PAC has shown at every step so far I'd be somewhat surprised if it didn't end up that way.
