SDSU Not Leaving the Mountain West?

duckboy33 said:
1) The Big 12 hasn't added anyone. That doesn't mean it can't happen, it means it hasn't happened. I'm sure the Big 12 wants to wait and see what happens with the PAC but if the PAC survives, the Big 12 may shift their focus.

2) If the PAC goes down to 8 members, there's a very good chance they will want to get up to at least 12. It's why they're talking about SDSU and SMU right now, to get them back to 12.

3) SDSU could potentially joining the PAC by paying the exit fee that was agreed upon. All these contracts have exit penalties that are agreed upon. Conferences with lower payouts, like the MWC, generally have lower exit penalties. The ACC has made their exit penalties so egregious that nobody wants to leave the conference. But is that good for the ACC? The ACC schools don't seem to think so.

A couple factual errors you've made:
- I never claimed everyone in the MWC has a chance at joining a P5. This idea would probably be supported by SJSU, Hawaii, Wyoming, etc.
- Nobody compared Maryland to anyone in the MWC. The point was Maryland leaving triggered the ACC into implementing the idea that you're calling for. And with the gift of hindsight, it was clearly a mistake in the eyes of FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc.
Click to expand...
You have great patience
 
duckboy33 said:
1) The Big 12 hasn't added anyone. That doesn't mean it can't happen, it means it hasn't happened. I'm sure the Big 12 wants to wait and see what happens with the PAC but if the PAC survives, the Big 12 may shift their focus.

2) If the PAC goes down to 8 members, there's a very good chance they will want to get up to at least 12. It's why they're talking about SDSU and SMU right now, to get them back to 12.

3) SDSU could potentially joining the PAC by paying the exit fee that was agreed upon. All these contracts have exit penalties that are agreed upon. Conferences with lower payouts, like the MWC, generally have lower exit penalties. The ACC has made their exit penalties so egregious that nobody wants to leave the conference. But is that good for the ACC? The ACC schools don't seem to think so.

A couple factual errors you've made:
- I never claimed everyone in the MWC has a chance at joining a P5. This idea would probably be supported by SJSU, Hawaii, Wyoming, etc.
- Nobody compared Maryland to anyone in the MWC. The point was Maryland leaving triggered the ACC into implementing the idea that you're calling for. And with the gift of hindsight, it was clearly a mistake in the eyes of FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc.
Click to expand...
1) Never said it can’t, prospect of it is a long shot at this time and that’s coming from an assistant AD.

2) There is nothing to suggest the PAC goes to 12 if 2 more bolt. Absolutely nothing. They have no media deal with P members now. You think they are going to get something the same or better adding 1/3 G5 members?

3) Which is exactly why I’m arguing for a GoR for the MWC. Don’t question if I know what a GoR is when it’s quite clear you don’t understand it. A GoR protects the conference and members (most of the MWC) who don’t have an out. It’s exactly what I’m arguing for for these other members.

The last part is absolutely insane.
You are arguing for these teams to not a sign a short GoR under the assumption they MAY have a chance to go P5. While I’m quite literally telling You one or two do, the rest have ZERO CHANCE this decade unless the PAC losing 6+ members. Why? Because it don’t pay.

And yes you did compare Maryland when you cited them as a reason teams shouldn’t sign this. Maryland as a program and situation is worlds different.
 
ralphiewvu said:
1) Never said it can’t, prospect of it is a long shot at this time and that’s coming from an assistant AD.

2) There is nothing to suggest the PAC goes to 12 if 2 more bolt. Absolutely nothing. They have no media deal with P members now. You think they are going to get something the same or better adding 1/3 G5 members?

3) Which is exactly why I’m arguing for a GoR for the MWC. Don’t question if I know what a GoR is when it’s quite clear you don’t understand it. A GoR protects the conference and members (most of the MWC) who don’t have an out. It’s exactly what I’m arguing for for these other members.

The last part is absolutely insane.
You are arguing for these teams to not a sign a short GoR under the assumption they MAY have a chance to go P5. While I’m quite literally telling You one or two do, the rest have ZERO CHANCE this decade unless the PAC losing 6+ members. Why? Because it don’t pay.

And yes you did compare Maryland when you cited them as a reason teams shouldn’t sign this. Maryland as a program and situation is worlds different.
Click to expand...

You can argue with me all you want. However, I have one piece of evidence on my side. The MWC did exactly what I'm saying they would. You're the one trying to explain that not only am I wrong, but all the university presidents in the MWC are also wrong for not throwing away their previously agreed upon contract.
 
duckboy33 said:
You can argue with me all you want. However, I have one piece of evidence on my side. The MWC did exactly what I'm saying they would. You're the one trying to explain that not only am I wrong, but all the university presidents in the MWC are also wrong for not throwing away their previously agreed upon contract.
Click to expand...
You are the one continuing to argue with me. I did not once saying you were wrong about the MWC doing this. I'm saying it's stupid the MWC is. You then interject with the fantasy many of these teams could have a P5 out. That's simply not true for most. Things could absolutely change but the likelihood is slim to none.

And SDSU had no problem throwing away an agreed upon contract, which you seem to have no problem with. My whole point has been the MWC SHOULD protect itself from this happening. Not that they WILL.
 
ralphiewvu said:
You are the one continuing to argue with me. I did not once saying you were wrong about the MWC doing this. I'm saying it's stupid the MWC is. You then interject with the fantasy many of these teams could have a P5 out. That's simply not true for most. Things could absolutely change but the likelihood is slim to none.

And SDSU had no problem throwing away an agreed upon contract, which you seem to have no problem with. My whole point has been the MWC SHOULD protect itself from this happening. Not that they WILL.
Click to expand...

I'm not really arguing with you. I'm trying to explain to you why the MWC schools behaved in the way that they did. I know you won't admit it on this board but think about what's more likely: The university presidents and the MWC commissioner are morons or that you are possibly misreading the situation.
 
duckboy33 said:
I'm not really arguing with you. I'm trying to explain to you why the MWC schools behaved in the way that they did. I know you won't admit it on this board but think about what's more likely: The university presidents and the MWC commissioner are morons or that you possibly misread the situation.
Click to expand...
You are arguing with me, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise. While I'm using the whole spectrum of realignment to say what the MWC should do, you are arguing they shouldn't because of a slim to none chance many won't have. Then declaring victory because they are proving to be morons by not stopping this from being a yearly distraction.
 
ralphiewvu said:
You are arguing with me, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise. While I'm using the whole spectrum of realignment to say what the MWC should do, you are arguing they shouldn't because of a slim to none chance many won't have. Then declaring victory because they are proving to be morons by not stopping this from being a yearly distraction.
Click to expand...

So you're doubling down on the university presidents and MWC commissioner being morons. I kinda expected you would say that.

Just think for a second, 5 years ago if I told you that SMU was going to be a PAC 12 expansion candidate, would you have said that was realistic?
 
duckboy33 said:
So you're doubling down on the university presidents and MWC commissioner being morons. I kinda expected you would say that.

Just think for a second, 5 years ago if I told you that SMU was going to be a PAC 12 expansion candidate, would you have said that was realistic?
Click to expand...
Doubling Down? There is zero logical reason from preventing this from being a yearly distraction. But But But they may get a chance (that ain't coming this decade for most) to be in a P5. It's not doubling down but being logical.

There is a large difference in citing one G5 team compared to citing 1/2 a G5 conference. Being expansion candidates. Once again you are comparing apples and potatoes.
 
ralphiewvu said:
Doubling Down? There is zero logical reason from preventing this from being a yearly distraction. But But But they may get a chance (that ain't coming this decade for most) to be in a P5. It's not doubling down but being logical.

There is a large difference in citing one G5 team compared to citing 1/2 a G5 conference. Being expansion candidates. Once again you are comparing apples and potatoes.
Click to expand...

The logical reasoning has been presented many times to you but you've rejected it.

If I told you 5 years ago that SMU was a PAC 12 expansion candidate, you would have said that's not realistic. Fast forward 5 years, the landscape has changed and SMU is in prime position to get a PAC 12 invite if the PAC 12 gets their media deal done. The point is you don't know exactly how the landscape of college football is going to change. What is viewed as "unrealistic" today may become reality in the future. Fresno State's president has spoken many times about their desire to join the Big 12 or PAC 12. They've also made substantial investments into their facilities. They understand this dynamic. They know their window might not be in 2023 but they want to be able to move when the window opens because sometimes those windows don't stay open.

Or maybe the Fresno State president is just an idiot...
 
duckboy33 said:
The logical reasoning has been presented many times to you but you've rejected it.

If I told you 5 years ago that SMU was a PAC 12 expansion candidate, you would have said that's not realistic. Fast forward 5 years, the landscape has changed and SMU is in prime position to get a PAC 12 invite if the PAC 12 gets their media deal done. The point is you don't know exactly how the landscape of college football is going to change. What is viewed as "unrealistic" today may become reality in the future. Fresno State's president has spoken many times about their desire to join the Big 12 or PAC 12. They've also made substantial investments into their facilities. They understand this dynamic. They know their window might not be in 2023 but they want to be able to move when the window opens because sometimes those windows don't stay open.

Or maybe the Fresno State president is just an idiot...
Click to expand...
This is just utter BS though. You haven't presented any logical note. You have just stated because SDSU and SMU have a chance to move up, so does UNLV, Boise St, Fresno St ect so why sign anything. One team sure, the whole lot or most of the lot? It's just not happening this decade. This is exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. None of these teams are getting in the B12 this decade and maybe 2 are getting into the PAC and that's a BIG MAYBE. It's stupid to not discuss preventing this yearly distraction because of a pie in the sky shot.

Stop using one team as an example for all. The comparison once again is absurd.
 
ralphiewvu said:
This is just utter BS though. You haven't presented any logical note. You have just stated because SDSU and SMU have a chance to move up, so does UNLV, Boise St, Fresno St ect so why sign anything. One team sure, the whole lot or most of the lot? It's just not happening this decade. This is exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. None of these teams are getting in the B12 this decade and maybe 2 are getting into the PAC and that's a BIG MAYBE. It's stupid to not discuss preventing this yearly distraction because of a pie in the sky shot.

Stop using one team as an example for all. The comparison once again is absurd.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's certainly logical. You may disagree on the odds and the cost/benefit analysis of it but it's definitely logical. You're saying things in absolutes that you don't know to be true because it's impossible to know. As I was trying to illustrate earlier, 5 years ago you would have sworn that SMU had no chance of getting into the PAC 12.

There are multiple scenarios where some of those schools would receive invites. What happens if the PAC loses CU and Zona but media partners want them to have 12 teams for the extra inventory? What happens if the PAC holds steady but doesn't sign with ESPN? That means ESPN has no After Dark content besides BYU (MWC no longer has a contract with ESPN). Would ESPN and the Big 12's thinking about those teams change? It absolutely could.

Of course, I don't know how it will all play out. Nobody does, which is why the presidents decided on more flexibility. Because the only certainty is that more changes are coming.
 
duckboy33 said:
Oh, it's certainly logical. You may disagree on the odds and the cost/benefit analysis of it but it's definitely logical. You're saying things in absolutes that you don't know to be true because it's impossible to know. As I was trying to illustrate earlier, 5 years ago you would have sworn that SMU had no chance of getting into the PAC 12.

There are multiple scenarios where some of those schools would receive invites. What happens if the PAC loses CU and Zona but media partners want them to have 12 teams for the extra inventory? What happens if the PAC holds steady but doesn't sign with ESPN? That means ESPN has no After Dark content besides BYU (MWC no longer has a contract with ESPN). Would ESPN and the Big 12's thinking about those teams change? It absolutely could.

Of course, I don't know how it will all play out. Nobody does, which is why the presidents decided on more flexibility. Because the only certainty is that more changes are coming.
Click to expand...
Im using facts of the B12 media deal and the lack of a PAC 12 one to make these statements. It's impossible to know true, but using what we already there is very strong indications.

These scenarios you say aren't plausible given their current situation. The PAC can't get a good deal with the members they have. Yet you want to argue it's possible for them to said deal losing 2 P5 members and adding the likes of SDSU, SMU, Boise and UNLV? That's nuts. If they really wanted an after dark, they could get it with what they have now.

If the money isn't there, changes will be minimal. It's just that simple
 
ralphiewvu said:
Im using facts of the B12 media deal and the lack of a PAC 12 one to make these statements. It's impossible to know true, but using what we already there is very strong indications.

These scenarios you say aren't plausible given their current situation. The PAC can't get a good deal with the members they have. Yet you want to argue it's possible for them to said deal losing 2 P5 members and adding the likes of SDSU, SMU, Boise and UNLV? That's nuts. If they really wanted an after dark, they could get it with what they have now.

If the money isn't there, changes will be minimal. It's just that simple
Click to expand...

Here's the thing about the current situation, it changes. As I pointed out, 5 years ago SMU to the PAC wouldn't have been "plausible". And given how things are looking, I think there's a very reasonable possibility that the PAC 12's "current situation" could look different in the near future.

Hell, look at Disney/ESPN, their current situation is changing rapidly.
 
duckboy33 said:
Here's the thing about the current situation, it changes. As I pointed out, 5 years ago SMU to the PAC wouldn't have been "plausible". And given how things are looking, I think there's a very reasonable possibility that the PAC 12's "current situation" could look different in the near future.

Hell, look at Disney/ESPN, their current situation is changing rapidly.
Click to expand...
It changes, over time. The B12s current deal goes through 2030/2031 season. The pro rata clause is for (2) P5s only and thus far has only been confirmed by one network. The plausibility of the B12 adding even P5 teams let alone G5 ones is in question given likely some haircut will be needed by current members to accommodate.

The PAC 12 still doesn’t have a deal. When given the chance to add SDSU they held off. Yet you want to throw out something could happen that’ll grab them a good deal while adding multiple MWC members? It’s nuts.

Sure things can change. But could and will are two different things. And right now the will isn’t supported.
 
duckboy33 said:
So you're doubling down on the university presidents and MWC commissioner being morons. I kinda expected you would say that.

Just think for a second, 5 years ago if I told you that SMU was going to be a PAC 12 expansion candidate, would you have said that was realistic?
Click to expand...
He just needs a few more BUD bottles to hug... :nod:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top