Realignment Question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HOUCajun

I don’t like the idea of going west. Unless there is 7m to fund it. I doubt that will ever happen.

What i wish would happen but won’t, is for SBC/AAC to divide the teams into east and west. 1 could be called the sbc and the other the AAC. Or come up with new names. Create a scheduling alliance for basketball and other sports, and get a bowl to have the 2 conf champions play if no CFP invite is forthcoming.

They could be “sister conferences” and could even tie some revenue to their respective successes against each other. Travel costs and regional rivalries would flourish and Fans could easily travel to more away games.

Something like this probably won’t happen because everyone would
Prefer to step on others to get ahead instead of working together and thinking practically.

And we all hope 1 day to get the P4 invite and leave everyone else behind

---

That would be a more ideal scenario with a Western Conference that would look like this:
UL, Tulane, USM, Rice, TX State, UTSA
N. Texas, Ark State, Memphis, Tulsa, UAB, + 1 team in

The problem is the AAC is a market driven conference and would not likely agree. This is a lateral move for most schools although a better regional conference.

Tulane and Memphis have bigger ambitions as should UL. The PAC 7 as it currently stands is better than the SBC and the AAC, IMO, and would be better with UL, Texas State, Tulane and Memphis. It may take a couple of years for Tulane and Memphis to be able to financially leave the AAC, but the PAC will still be their only higher conference option and we would already be a member. Additionally, look for other members of the MWC to possibly join at some point.

The PAC should pay much more than $7M to attract the right members and maintain status as the top G5 conference. $7M is our floor for joining, certainly not our ceiling. Before its breakup, the PAC paid $33M to each member. Of course, they had major brands as members and have to replace those with lesser brands. How much lesser and what the networks will pay is the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonCajun

That would be a more ideal scenario with a Western Conference that would look like this:
UL, Tulane, USM, Rice, TX State, UTSA
N. Texas, Ark State, Memphis, Tulsa, UAB, + 1 team in

The problem is the AAC is a market driven conference and would not likely agree. This is a lateral move for most schools although a better regional conference.

Tulane and Memphis have bigger ambitions as should UL. The PAC 7 as it currently stands is better than the SBC and the AAC, IMO, and would be better with UL, Texas State, Tulane and Memphis. It may take a couple of years for Tulane and Memphis to be able to financially leave the AAC, but the PAC will still be their only higher conference option and we would already be a member. Additionally, look for other members of the MWC to possibly join at some point.

The PAC should pay much more than $7M to attract the right members and maintain status as the top G5 conference. $7M is our floor for joining, certainly not our ceiling. Before its breakup, the PAC paid $33M to each member. Of course, they had major brands as members and have to replace those with lesser brands. How much lesser and what the networks will pay is the question.

---

If I understand the current terms, each MW team gets about $4 million. I don't think the new PAC will command more than that.

sit tight and be happy for a great football year . . .

7 million is what Cal and Stanford left the PAC for, so obviously less than that is the hypothetical ceiling. And no real offers exist because there’s no media contract exists. Throw in a chunk of money is due the MWC, nothing is attractive about this except to MWC programs jumping ship.

Just good troll material on the SBC board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaginCajun77

That is the point I was attempting to make. If the PAC wants to get schools in the Central Time Zone on board there needs to be a media deal in place with specific payouts.

---

I would seriously consider a block of teams joining the PAC from CST of

Memphis
Tulane
Louisiana
Texas St.
UTSA
USF

money assumed to be decent, not some over the top "no brainier" amount, As long as everyone is getting equal shares. its has to be worth a hard look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balanced_view

I would seriously consider a block of teams joining the PAC from CST of

Memphis
Tulane
Louisiana
Texas St.
UTSA
USF

money assumed to be decent, not some over the top "no brainier" amount, As long as everyone is getting equal shares. its has to be worth a hard look.

---

Remember, we are only getting $2.5M in the SBC. How much more travel costs to go west instead of east? I think we are looking at 4 things:
1. Amount of additional revenue to make a move work. $2.5M isn't much in today's college football world.
2. Perception - The PAC has a higher level of perception than the SBC and would put UL in much better company. Despite the SBC improvement over the last couple of years and any improved conference rankings, the SBC has little interest to UL fans locally and to alumni nationally and it's overall all national perception is on a par with the MAC and CUSA. Watch UL get paired with a CUSA team in a bowl this year.
3. Future potential - UL will never move up to a P4 conference from the Sun Belt. It's only chance is thru the AAC or the PAC and the PAC may be the only available option. Has anyone checked with Texas State to gauge their interest in the PAC with UL as a travel partner?
4. This just may be the last opportunity for UL to move out of the Sun Belt and improve its standing. Reject now and as other schools join, lose any chance of joining. UL will certainly be at a crossroad in making this important decision regarding it's athletic future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonCajun

Remember, we are only getting $2.5M in the SBC. How much more travel costs to go west instead of east? I think we are looking at 4 things:
1. Amount of additional revenue to make a move work. $2.5M isn't much in today's college football world.
2. Perception - The PAC has a higher level of perception than the SBC and would put UL in much better company. Despite the SBC improvement over the last couple of years and any improved conference rankings, the SBC has little interest to UL fans locally and to alumni nationally and it's overall all national perception is on a par with the MAC and CUSA. Watch UL get paired with a CUSA team in a bowl this year.
3. Future potential - UL will never move up to a P4 conference from the Sun Belt. It's only chance is thru the AAC or the PAC and the PAC may be the only available option. Has anyone checked with Texas State to gauge their interest in the PAC with UL as a travel partner?
4. This just may be the last opportunity for UL to move out of the Sun Belt and improve its standing. Reject now and as other schools join, lose any chance of joining. UL will certainly be at a crossroad in making this important decision regarding it's athletic future.

---

IF, IF, IF this happens, and we get an invite, I sure hope the Athletic Dept has their head in the game this time

There are a lot of can'ts and shouldn'ts but when you take chances good things can happen.

Who would have predicted 3 years ago that the Colorado Buffaloes would have the 5th most eyeballs (in all of college football TV) watching their games in 2024?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balanced_view

I would seriously consider a block of teams joining the PAC from CST of

Memphis
Tulane
Louisiana
Texas St.
UTSA
USF

money assumed to be decent, not some over the top "no brainier" amount, As long as everyone is getting equal shares. its has to be worth a hard look.

---

I agree. FYI - USF is in the Eastern Time Zone.