San Diego State, Colorado State, Fresno State, and Boise State join PAC-12
They will be joining in 2026. Reported by ESPN.
Link:
link
65 Replies
D
D-Day
1y
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
Excited to join PAC12.
** Edited by HOO86 at 9/12/2024, 7:31:14 PM
Link:
Link
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
I could see a scenario where they become like the old Big East with some all sports including football and some basketball/olympic sports only.
The PAC has the opportunity to bring together top remaining brands from Mountain West and West Coast Conferences (maybe AAC also). If they got Gonzaga and Saint Mary’s it would boost their bball credentials and help them with contract negotiations. They have an opportunity here to do more than just survive.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
think they are done with the Mountain West. Gonzaga would be a good travel partner for WSU, and would give the conference some basketball moxie, but there is really no one else on the West coast that makes a basketball only addition besides them.
I think they are thinking bigger than just being another Mountain West. They have a bit of time before that have to get to 8, and Feb 1 looms pretty large on the horizon.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
poaching from a DI-FCS conference. In order for the Pac-X to comply with the agreement, a DI-FCS school would need to be able to start its 2-year transition from DI-FCS to DI-FBS and be considered a full DI-FBS member by the deadline. Also, the Pac-X would need to take into consideration that each conference may have different requirements on how much notice a school needs to give that it is leaving the conference.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 9/12/2024, 8:22:04 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
Once survival is set then it’s a matter of how big they want to get for numbers and states.
At this point the MTW has limited options for survival. They can really only pull from the FCS teams. If the PAC wants another 2-4 MTW teams then they will get them easily.
My pick for them to go big would be to soak up some more MTW and then merge with the AAC under the PAC brand. They could have 20-24 teams and cross country coverage with some decent sized markets. If they wanted to be very aggressive.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
not going after FCS schools. Looking at the forest through the trees, they are now set up to take the bottom left behinds of the ACC if that contract is not renewed.
Last I checked, ESPN and the ACC have not announced that extension to 2036, and if ESPN walks, there will be no backfill for the schools not invited to the Big 10, SEC, or B12. The PAC is now positioned to be the best of the rest conference if the worst case scenario of the ACC happens. (not a prediction, but until that contract is extended, it's a possibility).
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
C-USA schools, MAC schools, and Sun Belt schools may not want to join the Pac-X for whatever reason. At least there is always the possibility they want to join a conference that is closer to home or form a brand new conference. My underlying point is that it is in the Pac-X's best interest to get to 8 full members as quickly as possible to satisfy the agreement with the NCAA. Then the conference can consider poaching from conferences located east of the Mississippi River.
If the Pac-X can't fulfill its part of the agreement with the NCAA in time because it waited to try to poach from conferences east of the Mississippi River, then it runs the risk of losing both its DI-FBS status and NCAA automatic bids to most/all of the NCAA tournaments (including March Madness) because it may not have enough members, who played with each in another conference long enough, to fulfill the bylaw requirements for automatic bids. A perfect example is the Great West Conference which was originally founded as a DI football-only conference in 2004. It later switched to a multi-sport conference and eventually ceased to exist in 2013. Even after it decided to drop football, it failed because it could never have enough members remain in the conference long enough to satisfy the time requirement so it could receive automatic bids to the NCAA Tournaments.
31.3.4.2 Requirements -- National Collegiate Championship. [#] To be eligible for automatic qualification in a
National Collegiate Championship, a member conference must meet the following general requirements: (Adopted: 1/9/06
effective 8/1/06)
(a) Have at least six active members that sponsor the applicable sport in any division (Note: A provisional member in the
process of becoming an NCAA member may not be used to meet the requisite number.);
(b) The six active members must have conducted conference competition together for the preceding two years in the
applicable sport;
(c) There shall be no waivers of the two-year waiting period; and
(d) Any new member added to a conference that is eligible for an automatic bid shall be immediately eligible to represent
the conference as the automatic qualifier.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
expand outside the Mountain West, they would have included two more MW schools in this announcement. Tell me one single MW school that would not want to be included.
The PAC 6 is no longer desperate. They have basically all of the media value of the Mountain West already. The PAC 2 have already passed the threshold of survival, and in my view, they are clearly going for media value. There is very little media value left in the MW.
Don't think for one second that they woke up this morning and went "oh ****, we need two more schools". I assure you, they have been in discussions with other universities.
When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. The top universities in the G5 that have been passed over by the "power" conferences, are all in play. I think it's as simple of listing all of the remaining G5 universities that have been rumored as possible power conference teams, and which ones want out of their current conference.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
in the present environment that you think UNLV and New Mexico are candidates for the B12 shows that. If a school is not attractive to the ACC, it will not be attractive to the B12.
The mag7+ breaking away to form a new conference for media payout value has been discussed quite often on this board. The PAC is doing just that. Instead of looking at a map, one should look at the top G5 schools that want to play with the big boys, but are passed over for whatever reason.
USF, Tulane, Memphis, (pick a Texas school), and some sleepers like ECU, JMU, and a few others in in SBC. There might even be a couple in the MAC that would be interested, but that is my personal bias.
It's all about brands, football success, fan based, enrollment size, markets, and money. Can the PAC position themselves to get a media contract that sets them apart from the rest of the G5 with schools like that? I don't know definitively, but any of those schools would jump if the money is there.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
You stated, "Tell me one single MW school that would not want to be included." Is that not correct? Well I believe that New Mexico is one school that would not wanted to be included with the Pac-X ponzi scheme because it would prefer to be a member of the Big XII (assuming it has any desire to leave the MWC). Nowhere does my statement given any opinion on whether Big XII feels the same way or not because the statement is only looking at it from New Mexico's point of view.
WRT my statement about UNLV, I was giving you a potential reason as to why the Big XII may consider them. Given that the NHL, NFL, and MLB see value in having a franchise in Las Vegas, could be some of the same reasons a collegiate conference sees value too. Particularly as "big time college athletics" keeps shifting closer and closer to becoming semi-pro or professional athletics. Heck collegiate conferences have been using Las Vegas to host their conference basketball tournaments for years now which shows they see value. Now whether that value has been tapped or it has any untapped value remains to be seen.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
that thought process is biased in my humble opinion.
My statement stands, if the ACC and her fans do not think a school is a candidate for their conference, then they are not a candidate for the B12.
The new PAC will go for media value, not regionality. UNLV certainly is in a good sized market, but there is a lot of competition for the sports dollar and viewership in that town. There is a reason that the ACC is not clamoring to add them.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
reason which ends the discussion before it has a chance to get off the ground. It may even be where the ACC and the Big XII differ in its potential targets.
1. ACADEMICS
I believe UNLV's academic rankings are worse than L'ville's rankings. Even if UNLV is somehow ranked higher than L'ville, it probably still wouldn't be enough to shake off the perception people have about UNLV's academic standards. At this point in time, being a member of the AAU might be the only thing that would change people's perception about UNLV's academic standards.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
never considered them, or SDSU, or Boise state, or CSU, or Fresno State. It was a long standing tradition for those Universities with academics and Olympic sports.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
it is still a valid reason. If Cal and Stanford didn't have the academic reputation they have, then I can pretty much guarantee the ACC wouldn't have agreed to add them as members. Academics was probably the primary factor as to why the ACC said "No" to Oregon State and Wazzou. If the ACC really wanted to have a member in the state of CA, then there's about 10 or so other candidates the conference could have selected from. Heck some of those candidates are also members of the AAU (i.e. Caltech, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Cruz).
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
and the B12. It is one of the main reasons the B12 ended up with the hateful 8, and the ACC and PAC were not interested in inviting them to your conference. I most assuredly get the academic argument. Pretty sure WVU understands as well.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
because that statement implies it is no longer a valid reason. I'm pretty sure the ACC, Big Ten, and even the Ivy League would disagree with that statement.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
rejoining the Pac 2.0.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
convinced to rejoin the conference if the ACC were to collapse. I don't think Cal and Stanford have any desire to join the Pac 2.0 for academic reasons. Now if the Pac 2.0 had the same reputation as the Pac 1.0, then it would probably be a different story.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the absurdity that schools would want to leave the MWC and pay a lot of money to leave the conference only to join another conference that is essentially the MWC 2.0. I thought the article was eloquently written and raised quite a few good points (see example below).
"And for what? How can you possibly convince any rational person that this level of conference realignment — again, with more than $100 million being exchanged from one batch of mid-major schools to another — is anything more than a low-level Ponzi scheme?"
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
Hawai'i is perfectly content being a football-only member in the MWC and a member in the Big West for every other sport. New Mexico and Wyoming may be 2 other candidates because they would prefer to join the Big XII over the Pac-X.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
a DI-FBS conference for football, then it MUST have 8 full members by the given deadline. The other issue that may be at play here is the NCAA DI bylaws clearly state the requirements a conference must meet in order to qualify for automatic bids in the various NCAA tournaments. I believe the agreement has given the Pac-X a waiver, which is a huge deal for March Madness, assuming it is able to fulfill its end of the deal to remain a DI-FBS conference. Since the clock is ticking, the Pac-X probably cannot afford to not be aggressive until it has reached the goal of 8 full members by the given deadline.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
Yes they might be able to be a D! FBS but the powers in the big 4 are not going to give back an automatic bid to the power 5 and lose a slot. Also, most of the new guys come from the group of 5 members, so its a group of 5 conference.
The BIG thing, is if PAC 12 reconstitute, Oregon St and Wash St get all the legacy funding and trust and credits of the old conference and can share with the new members.
PAC 12 might not be a BIG 4, but with there resources and potential expansion candidates, it can really hurt the mountain west, american Sun Belt... create a huge gap and Pac 12 candidate gets the highest Group of 5 slot
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
the agreement is only focused on whether the Pac can remain a DI-FBS conference for football or not. I believe the Pac is hoping it can regain its power conference status, but everyone in the conference understands that it is a very long shot at best. It is very likely that the Pac will lose the money it is currently receiving as a power conference under the current FBS Playoff agreement once the agreement expires in a couple of years.
As far as whether the Pac can create a gap with the other Group of 6 conferences, I believe that is TBD. It may depend on what the ACC, Big XII, and now MWC do in terms of future expansion. If the MWC decides to expand to replace some or all of the members it is losing to the Pac, then it will create a domino effect. If these expansion moves only focus on the top programs in these other conferences, it could end up lessening the gap because the MWC's 4 replacements are equal to the 4 they just lost to the Pac.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
1y
Pac-14, or even Pac-16. The agreement with the NCAA clearly states that if the conference (regardless of what name it wants to use) wants to be considered a DI-FBS, then it MUST fulfill certain requirements. Based on that information, it is very obvious that having 8 full members by the deadline is the conference's primary goal right now.
Besides the "X" is clearly a placeholder for whatever number of members the conference wants to have which may or may not be 12. It is possible, maybe even very likely, that the conference owns the rights to the Pac-8, Pac-10, Pac-12, Pac-14, and Pac-16 names to give the conference the most flexibility possible.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
that the MWC leadership and administration did not entertain the idea of merging with Oregon State and Washington State under the PAC-12 branding. The idea was floated to them, and the MWC commissioner wrinkled her nose and acted like they were asking her to eat a big wet steamy bucket of turds, which, ironically, come autumn 2026, will be about what the MWC brand will be worth.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
agreement. If The PAC wanted to poach individual MWC schools, they would pay the poaching penalty. But if they were willing to add all 12 MWC schools, there be no penalties at all. So, yeah, the MWC was willing to do it if they all went to The PAC together. Poaching penalties stay in effect until 2027.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Getting away from the weak sisters.
Less mouths to feed/payouts to cover.
Bet the PAC doesn't go above 10, may stick at 8 or 9.
Vegas and 2 Texas schools makes sense.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
S
Stech
1y
are only making a fraction of the media money for 7 years, I was wondering if it is different from the others?
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
Power 4 branding for Cal and Stanford is big for them. Perception-wide. I dont know if Cal and Stanford want to be in a conference such as Fresno State, Boise State.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
I've seen nothing about their having any special adjustment to the bylaws or GOR. Their payout is set different, but only for the media deal, not anything else.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
to see if a Big XII invite comes.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
Apparently they don't want both
(In response to this post by reestuart)
Las Vegas State would've got in. ;)
Utah State, Idaho State, New Mexico State and San Jose State will be the next 4 to join the State 10.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
1y
established to satisfy The NCAA. The poaching penalties expire in 2027. If they still want UNLV, or whomever, they can add them then without paying a fee to The MWC. Looks like they are seeking to reach "eight" with some high value AAC teams, as long as they don't have to overspend.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
T
Truthahn
1y
Crush their enemies and see them driven before them, etc.
If they can neuter both the MWC and the AAC by pulling the top four from each, so that neither is still a peer, then they have their best outcome.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
1y
a Pacific based conference and Cal and Stanford end up in an Atlantic based conference.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
1y
Memphis they can have.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
USF too because of the rivalry. Unfortunately, I suspect the only way UCF will get on the ACC's radar is if it obtains AAU membership first.
(In response to this post by OrlandoHokie)
1y
He was emphasizing top level football options to be who the Big XII added. UCF was at the top if its game in football at the time, while USF was having down years. That's why USF was passed on. I'd like to see the ACC go ahead and pick up USF before someone else does. That's particularly important if FSU is hell bent on leaving.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
If USF doesn't have any "rivals" to help generate ratings, then they may end up being the red-headed stepchild in the conference.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
not have their own stadium. It's important for television to not have empty stadiums on national TV.
They have had brief success in football, and reside in a fertile recruiting ground. I think they could turn their sports programs around with good coaching, but that NIL money thing may hold them back.
They are AAU, and to some, that is still pretty important. As a b12 guy, I thought 2 in Florida would be better than one, as UCF could definitely use a travel partner for the non revs.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
was that their previous stadium? I ask because I thought UCF recently had a couple games where they played in a half empty stadium or where the stadium didn't reach 75% capacity for whatever reason. I don't know if those games were nationally or regionally televised games.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
that play in NFL stadiums, especially at the G5 level, do not draw the crowds thew would if they had on campus stadiums. UCF's stadium was built in 2007, before that they played in the Citrus Bowl.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
Because Las Vegas?
I can see why the PAC-whatever might, but they kinda need *anybody* at this point.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
1y
also would have thought the P12 takes them ahead of at least Colorado State--if not the other 3. The P12 has been playing football and basketball championships there already. It seems a natural for them.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
some money, have recently built a new stadium, has good attendance, and better television ratings. They certainly haven't been dominate in football, but neither has UNLV. It takes commitment to build a new stadium, and another team playing in an NFL stadium? Empty seats are not a good look for television.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
1y
is because the league thought it would be a destination location for visiting fans to watch their team play. Could the same logic work at the collegiate level?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
championship game to Vegas. He likes KC for the basketball tournament, but no one but the Texas schools like Dallas.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
home football games exclusively in the new Raiders' stadium. So it may be too early to tell if visiting college football fans will be willing to embrace the destination location. I remember when the Big 8 used to hold its conference basketball tournaments in Kemper Arena. At one point I even considered Kemper Arena to be synonymous with the Big 8 like MSG is with the Big East.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
than home markets. I would imagine more people want to watch CSU than UNLV. Even market-wise, Denver/CO is bigger than Vegas/NV.
Las Vegas makes geographic sense, but I'm not sure UNLV sports make much sense...unless you're desperate, which it seems the PAC may need to be given the requirement 8 members.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
1y
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
not have a direct bearing on the ACC or B12, If you are a school anywhere in the G5, you do not want to be left behind.
The media money part I will find most interesting, as those details are not being reported.
(In response to this post by HOO86)