AAC vs BIG XII

[TURVS71]

So, would you stay in AAC where the chances of winning are pretty good or do you accept an invitation to the BIG XII where it would probably not be as easy to win it. Will the money difference be that big to take that opportunity? Thoughts?

[Ruski]

Before UCF/Cincy/Houston jumped, I was honestly starting to love this underdog conference. But now without them, the conference is starting to get pretty bleak.

You gotta jump if given the chance. Not sure we'd ever win another conference basketball game but it'd be worth it

[tpstulane]

Before UCF/Cincy/Houston jumped, I was honestly starting to love this underdog conference. But now without them, the conference is starting to get pretty bleak.

You gotta jump if given the chance. Not sure we'd ever win another conference basketball game but it'd be worth it

Exactly. Same feelings. Losing those 3 weakens at least the National perception of the Conf and G5 overall. We have to move up. We’re in a great spot here in the South and could really flourish in a move up.

[anEngineer]

While moving up makes it harder to win, you get better players and coaches with which to do it. More money (a lot more) gives you many more options on improving anything. Playing P5 teams for 75% of your games is much more interesting. The bottom line is that we all know there is HUGE P5 bias and being inside the bias is better than being outside.

[winwave]

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IF THE BIG 12 OFFERS YOU TAKE IT. The money would definitely be much bigger and that affords us the opportunity to hire better coaches and of course we would be much more attractive to better recruits thus enabling ourselves to win in the conference.

To be honest we shouldn't have threads or even conversations about this. It makes us look scared. We need to be all in on wanting to move up.

[chigoyboy]

Saw on twitter that we are the PAC 12's 4th target and are supposedly 1 vote short of an invite, have 7 but need 8.... take that for what its worth though.

[Wave755]

We just say "yes," the next realignment will probably be the last for years to come, period. Either we get on the last train out of the station, or we are condemned to irrelevancy along with the likes of ULALA, USM, UTEP, N. Texas, UTSA, etc. Just say, "yes," even to the PAC 12 since this will lift us above the "regional" G5 schools and place us on the same plane as Stanford, Cal & the like.

[HoustonWave]

Saw on twitter that we are the PAC 12's 4th target and are supposedly 1 vote short of an invite, have 7 but need 8.... take that for what its worth though.

The report is we have "at least" 7 votes, presumably out of 10, not 12. Supposedly the PAC 12 expansion vote is tomorrow, with SDSU and SMU locks, and a strong move toward Colorado State and a "mystery" school. As has been mentioned, Boise, Fresno and UNLV are supposedly not in the PAC equation, nor is Rice--so I think that leaves us as the "mystery" school. There is also a lot of talk about CSU getting an invite if Colorado leaves the PAC12, but I don't think that is necessarily correct. CU and CSU have a much healthier relationship than say Tulane and LSU, and I can see both of them in the PAC. They usually play each other and share the Front Range TV market and fan support almost exactly 50/50. They also have both added new and successful head coaches and should both have good years ahead of them. Oregon just came out with a vote of confidence for the PAC, which might keep the Four Corner teams in the PAC.

What is driving the talk about Tulane and the Big 12? If the Big 12 can't get the Four Corner schools, will it try to block the PAC effort to expand into the CTZ?

[Wave755]

Saw on twitter that we are the PAC 12's 4th target and are supposedly 1 vote short of an invite, have 7 but need 8.... take that for what its worth though.

The report is we have "at least" 7 votes, presumably out of 10, not 12. Supposedly the PAC 12 expansion vote is tomorrow, with SDSU and SMU locks, and a strong move toward Colorado State and a "mystery" school. As has been mentioned, Boise, Fresno and UNLV are supposedly not in the PAC equation, nor is Rice--so I think that leaves us as the "mystery" school. There is also a lot of talk about CSU getting an invite if Colorado leaves the PAC12, but I don't think that is necessarily correct. CU and CSU have a much healthier relationship than say Tulane and LSU, and I can see both of them in the PAC. They usually play each other and share the Front Range TV market and fan support almost exactly 50/50. They also have both added new and successful head coaches and should both have good years ahead of them. Oregon just came out with a vote of confidence for the PAC, which might keep the Four Corner teams in the PAC.

What is driving the talk about Tulane and the Big 12? If the Big 12 can't get the Four Corner schools, will it try to block the PAC effort to expand into the CTZ?

It will be great if we can get off of the "children's table" for Div. 1 football and instead dine with the big boys. Our academic status, the City of New Orleans & an apparent commitment to completive status demonstrated at the Cotton Bowl have us well positioned to step up to the P5. Things could get really exciting this week.

[RobertM320]

Seems that the eighth vote for Tulane is there, its just going to be contingent on whether or not the 4th school can also get 8 votes. They'll take 2 or 4, but they won't take 3.

[greenie78]

Seems that the eighth vote for Tulane is there, its just going to be contingent on whether or not the 4th school can also get 8 votes. They'll take 2 or 4, but they won't take 3.

That sucks for us. I think CSU would be the school, but not sure.

[HoustonWave]

Seems that the eighth vote for Tulane is there, its just going to be contingent on whether or not the 4th school can also get 8 votes. They'll take 2 or 4, but they won't take 3.

That's very interesting. Even if the PAC is confident of keeping the Four Corner schools, long term, they need more TV eyeballs east of the Rockies. SMU alone won't cut it, for expanding the PAC into the CTZ. They need at least two CTZ teams, and that's including the fact that even though CU and CSU are MTZ, they both fan interest in the CTZ world.

[HoustonWave]

So, would you stay in AAC where the chances of winning are pretty good or do you accept an invitation to the BIG XII where it would probably not be as easy to win it. Will the money difference be that big to take that opportunity? Thoughts?

I think it's a slam dunk that we take either a PAC or Big 12 offer--even if the money isn't initially that big a step-up. We may have another big year in 2023, but we will eventually wither in the AACUSA, from a recruiting and fan support perspective. Can you even imagine the attendance for home games with UNT or Charlotte, or FAU--as compared to any of the PAC or Big 12 teams?

[anEngineer]

Seems that the eighth vote for Tulane is there, its just going to be contingent on whether or not the 4th school can also get 8 votes. They'll take 2 or 4, but they won't take 3.

That sucks for us. I think CSU would be the school, but not sure.

I know football is the driver here and somewhat, basketball, but baseball with SMU has to be an issue. PAC baseball is a big deal and SMU creates an odd number of programs with a dead weekend series for everyone. It's a situation where an odd number of schools actually works.

[HoustonWave]

Seems that the eighth vote for Tulane is there, its just going to be contingent on whether or not the 4th school can also get 8 votes. They'll take 2 or 4, but they won't take 3.

That sucks for us. I think CSU would be the school, but not sure.

I know football is the driver here and somewhat, basketball, but baseball with SMU has to be an issue. PAC baseball is a big deal and SMU creates an odd number of programs with a dead weekend series for everyone. It's a situation where an odd number of schools actually works.

If baseball is a problem, I'm pretty sure SMU will quickly start-up a baseball program. There is a lot of baseball talent in the Metroplex.

[DfromCT]

Maybe the PAC 12 is looking for two non-baseball playing members to join and that's why Dannen is letting our baseball program go to hell in a handbasket.

Seriously, though, there should be absolutely no doubt that if the PAC or the Big 12 offered we should be on it like white on rice. CUSAAC sucks. Period. I would rather be in the SBC, particularly after SMU leaves.

[Ruski]

Interesting that the PAC is looking at CSU instead of Memphis.

[golfnut69]

Interesting that the PAC is looking at CSU instead of Memphis.

I think Memphis State's use of "prop 48' recruiting has come back to haunt them

[TURVS71]

All great responses. If this comes around:

-How soon would the switch be accomplished
-How much is the buyout, if any, to get out of the AAC
-Is the Administration willing to pay such a buyout
-Will Tulane be asked to sign an agreement to commit to SIGNIFICANT facility improvements/additions

[DfromCT]

All great responses. If this comes around:

-How soon would the switch be accomplished
-How much is the buyout, if any, to get out of the AAC
-Is the Administration willing to pay such a buyout
-Will Tulane be asked to sign an agreement to commit to SIGNIFICANT facility improvements/additions

UCF is paying $12 million to leave a year early. That's going to be paid over 12 equal payments to the league from 2025 to 2036.

[golfnut69]

espn's way too early 2023 preseason ranking...big12 has 4 teams...the AAC has 2....no mention of a Cincy, Houston or a UCF
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... all-top-25

[DfromCT]

espn's way too early 2023 preseason ranking...big12 has 4 teams...the AAC has 2....no mention of a Cincy, Houston or a UCF
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... all-top-25

I'm shocked at UTSA being included. I've read they're close to the bottom of FBS in returning starters.

[HoustonWave]

One consideration. How ever many new teams are invited to the PAC, they almost surely won't get a full revenue share for some time. That will give Kliavkoff leverage to up the revenue take for the PAC12 legacy schools--thereby helping him get those schools at least equal to the Big 12 revenue take per school. So, there will be twice the leverage benefit with four new schools as opposed to two new schools. Kliavkoff's current mission 1 has to be trying to keep the remaining PAC 10 in the tent--and he has a better chance of doing that with four new schools taking lesser shares.

[RobertM320]

One consideration. How ever many new teams are invited to the PAC, they almost surely won't get a full revenue share for some time. That will give Kliavkoff leverage to up the revenue take for the PAC12 legacy schools--thereby helping him get those schools at least equal to the Big 12 revenue take per school. So, there will be twice the leverage benefit with four new schools as opposed to two new schools. Kliavkoff's current mission 1 has to be trying to keep the remaining PAC 10 in the tent--and he has a better chance of doing that with four new schools taking lesser shares.

I guess if the PAC12 members were to get $32M a year with USC and UCLA, they could always add 4 schools and give us each $16M a year. Keeps the current schools at their level, and no total new expense. And we'd still be getting more than double what we get in AAC, Also, are we required to do some things in the AAC that we might not in the PAC? Like do our own TV production? I have no idea, just asking.

[Aberzombie1892]

One consideration. How ever many new teams are invited to the PAC, they almost surely won't get a full revenue share for some time. That will give Kliavkoff leverage to up the revenue take for the PAC12 legacy schools--thereby helping him get those schools at least equal to the Big 12 revenue take per school. So, there will be twice the leverage benefit with four new schools as opposed to two new schools. Kliavkoff's current mission 1 has to be trying to keep the remaining PAC 10 in the tent--and he has a better chance of doing that with four new schools taking lesser shares.

I guess if the PAC12 members were to get $32M a year with USC and UCLA, they could always add 4 schools and give us each $16M a year. Keeps the current schools at their level, and no total new expense. And we'd still be getting more than double what we get in AAC, Also, are we required to do some things in the AAC that we might not in the PAC? Like do our own TV production? I have no idea, just asking.

The PAC 12 would have made a lot more than $32M from media if they kept UCLA/USC. It probably would have been in the $40-45M range.