okaydo said:

---

Source tells @FOS that Sacramento's local politicians and business leaders are planning to launch a campaign to help get Sacramento State into the Pac-12 or Mountain West.

— Amanda Christovich (@achristovichh) September 12, 2024

---

That makes sense for Sac State because all of their sports are currently in the Big Sky Conference. Even a MWC that only has SJSU, Nevada, Utah State, Wyoming, and New Mexico remaining would be a better place for Sac State.

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I really don't think winning the ACC this year or next (already highly improbable) is what changes the equation. Being a flash in the pan when most of our history is filled with mediocre and worse results is a huge insurmountable obstacle.

What is more important is for Cal and Stanford marketing to convince Fox that th Bay Area has a ton of B1G fans and alumni in the area and that Cal and Stanford are capable of drawing a large number of viewers when added to the conference.

We can't pin our hopes on simply winning which might not even happen. What we can do though is show them steps Cal and Stanford are taking to improve in investment into their football programs and equally important, growing the college football fanbase in this area. At that point. Fox can view us as an investment - get us for cheap and get a solid ROI in the years ahead. When Cal is good to great, we have proven to draw eyeballs.

---

ESPN already saw all that and is paying $80 million a year for Calford.

The reason we got an offer of ZERO from Fox is: 1) UW and Oregon had been lobbying for nearly a year and applied when we didn't despite B1G presidents hinting in the press they wanted us to apply and 2) Christ/Knowlton really pissed off Fox Sports COO, who calls the shots, by trying to block his alma mater, UCLA, from going to the B1G and the B1G Network that he personally created. Christ badmouthed his whole idea saying it was particularly bad for "women athletes." Getting the regents and the Governor involved…. If we had succeeded UCLA would have been separated from their main rival USC, with USC getting the huge B1G payout and UCLA stuck in Kliavkoff's middling PAC-11. We we failed we still got the Regents to agree to Calimony payment s from UCLA (which their rival does not have to pay). So after UW and Oregon got in and the Four Corners schools jumped to the Big-12, we asked if we could get into the B1G and what Fox would pay us and the answer was a big fat "NO, we will pay you NOTHING."

We were VERY lucky we got into the ACC, we almost didn't. If we hadn't we'd be with the Beavers and Cougs now.

Knowlton and Wilcox agreeing to a home and home series with Oregon State this year could come back to bite us. They still have a good team and their fan base will be very motivated as they seem to focus a lot of their ire on us.

---

I don't buy point #2 for the reason you just articulated. If the Calimony upset the Fox COO, he would have offered to pay something for at least Cal so UCLA would get out of the Calimony. What you're arguing is that the Fox COO cut off his nose to spite his face. If Cal was worth more than $0 and he decided to offer nothing becuase he was upset that UCLA had to pay the Calimony, then it's his fault UCLA has to pay that money.

---

He's not saying it was Calimony that upset the Fox guy, it was trying to block UCLA's move to the B1G. The theory here is that if we'd just tried to get into the B1G too rather than block the whole thing it might have been different.

---

Exactly.

We will probably never know what would have happened if we had tried to use our leverage to get into the B1G instead of trying block UCLA, but I have friends whose families are big UCLA donors (were at Wooden's bedside when he passed) and they know Silverman (who lives 5 to 10 minutes from the UCLA campus) and they said he was really pissed at Cal for Christ's actions.

https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/bios/on-air/mark-silverman/

BearSD said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Source tells @FOS that Sacramento's local politicians and business leaders are planning to launch a campaign to help get Sacramento State into the Pac-12 or Mountain West.

— Amanda Christovich (@achristovichh) September 12, 2024

---

That makes sense for Sac State because all of their sports are currently in the Big Sky Conference. Even a MWC that only has SJSU, Nevada, Utah State, Wyoming, and New Mexico remaining would be a better place for Sac State.

---

UC Davis, Sac State and Cal Poly may look to move up, leave the Big Sky and join the MW if the money will support it.

If the MWC doesn't get enough members and Hawaii isn't invited to the PAC, they may go independent as they have their own TV network, have the week zero and 13th game exemptions to offer and have a monopoly on the late late window.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Source tells @FOS that Sacramento's local politicians and business leaders are planning to launch a campaign to help get Sacramento State into the Pac-12 or Mountain West.

— Amanda Christovich (@achristovichh) September 12, 2024

---

That makes sense for Sac State because all of their sports are currently in the Big Sky Conference. Even a MWC that only has SJSU, Nevada, Utah State, Wyoming, and New Mexico remaining would be a better place for Sac State.

---

UC Davis, Sac State and Cal Poly may look to move up, leave the Big Sky and join the MW if the money will support it.

---

Sac State has more incentive to move because all of their sports are in the Big Sky, while Davis and Cal Poly are in the Big West except for football.

Notre Dame reminds me of LBJ's crack about a certain politician

" If you were drowning 8 feet out in the river, SOB'd throw you a five foot rope and say he went more than half way with you."

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Totally agree that winning is 100% necessary. My point though is that more wins these next two years is not sufficient to seal any deal. We have to prove that we are setting up our programs for long-term success instead of just collecting paychecks and trying to catch lightening in a bottle like we did with Tedford. Any outsized success this year is 100% due to support from Calegends and not from Cal admin. If all three (wins, Calegends, Cal admin) align, then there would be no question that more wins and eyeballs will follow for Cal football.

Also - it will be very interesting to see what the view ship numbers are for this week's game against SDSU. Hopefully we can show value by getting 1m+ viewers. If not this week than let's see what the view ship numbers are vs the lesser ACC teams. Good to see what viewership Cal brings to the table when the competition isnt Miami/FSU.

So glad we got out of pac-12 where our viewership numbers were penciled in as zeros!

---

Cal-Auburn drew more than 1 million viewers, and that's despite being on ESPN2 and up against a lot of competition in the time slot. Second only to the Alabama game for cable broadcasts.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

Of course, that's with Auburn involved. Let's see what happens when we play some lesser brand names.

---

Surprisingly, that is about half the number of people that watched last year's game. As a reminder that game kicked off at 7:30 PM pst on ESPN.

But any game not on the ACC Network is a win though with regards to ratings.

---

Yup, but there was less competition in the time slot last year. And ESPN probably gets better ratings in general than ESPN2.

---

One thing about the upcoming SDSU game: there will be very little competition in the time slot. The only other FBS game in the time slot is NM State vs. Fresno State on TruTV, which is basically no competition at all vs. an ESPN game. So hopefully Cal is still able to draw decent ratings even though it's not an exciting matchup for a casual fan. People just leave ESPN on all night.

https://mattsarzsports.com/Schedule/Weekly/football2024/3

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I really don't think winning the ACC this year or next (already highly improbable) is what changes the equation. Being a flash in the pan when most of our history is filled with mediocre and worse results is a huge insurmountable obstacle.

What is more important is for Cal and Stanford marketing to convince Fox that th Bay Area has a ton of B1G fans and alumni in the area and that Cal and Stanford are capable of drawing a large number of viewers when added to the conference.

We can't pin our hopes on simply winning which might not even happen. What we can do though is show them steps Cal and Stanford are taking to improve in investment into their football programs and equally important, growing the college football fanbase in this area. At that point. Fox can view us as an investment - get us for cheap and get a solid ROI in the years ahead. When Cal is good to great, we have proven to draw eyeballs.

---

ESPN already saw all that and is paying $80 million a year for Calford.

The reason we got an offer of ZERO from Fox is: 1) UW and Oregon had been lobbying for nearly a year and applied when we didn't despite B1G presidents hinting in the press they wanted us to apply and 2) Christ/Knowlton really pissed off Fox Sports COO, who calls the shots, by trying to block his alma mater, UCLA, from going to the B1G and the B1G Network that he personally created. Christ badmouthed his whole idea saying it was particularly bad for "women athletes." Getting the regents and the Governor involved…. If we had succeeded UCLA would have been separated from their main rival USC, with USC getting the huge B1G payout and UCLA stuck in Kliavkoff's middling PAC-11. We we failed we still got the Regents to agree to Calimony payment s from UCLA (which their rival does not have to pay). So after UW and Oregon got in and the Four Corners schools jumped to the Big-12, we asked if we could get into the B1G and what Fox would pay us and the answer was a big fat "NO, we will pay you NOTHING."

We were VERY lucky we got into the ACC, we almost didn't. If we hadn't we'd be with the Beavers and Cougs now.

Knowlton and Wilcox agreeing to a home and home series with Oregon State this year could come back to bite us. They still have a good team and their fan base will be very motivated as they seem to focus a lot of their ire on us.

---

I don't buy point #2 for the reason you just articulated. If the Calimony upset the Fox COO, he would have offered to pay something for at least Cal so UCLA would get out of the Calimony. What you're arguing is that the Fox COO cut off his nose to spite his face. If Cal was worth more than $0 and he decided to offer nothing becuase he was upset that UCLA had to pay the Calimony, then it's his fault UCLA has to pay that money.

---

He's not saying it was Calimony that upset the Fox guy, it was trying to block UCLA's move to the B1G. The theory here is that if we'd just tried to get into the B1G too rather than block the whole thing it might have been different.

---

And I am saying that if his motivation was about defending UCLA, then making sure Cal was not invited to the Big Ten knowing that doing so would make the Regents force UCLA to lose money was an irrational choice. He allegedly knowingly hurt the very thing he was trying to protect? I don't buy it.

It's far more rational that Fox Sports made a business decision and they looked at Cal and Standford football and said they don't see them adding any value over the next 6 years. That's as long as their contract with the Big Ten lasts.

movielover said:

---

ESPN: Sources: Boise State among four schools set to join Pac-12

"Boise State, Colorado State, San Diego State and Fresno State have applied for Pac-12 membership to begin in the 2026-27 academic year, sources said.

"They would join Oregon State and Washington State, the conference's two remaining school following its collapse last summer."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41226997/sources-boise-state-four-schools-set-join-pac-12

---

We dodged a bullet.

Thank you Stanford and Notre Dame!

VolunteerReverie said:

---

In all honesty, it would be in the best interest of the California schools, Oregon, and Washington to return to the Pac-12. Eventually, the exorbitant amount of travel will take its toll on the student athletes at these schools.

---

What is this student-athlete you speak of?

Econ141 said:

---

I really don't think winning the ACC this year or next (already highly improbable) is what changes the equation. Being a flash in the pan when most of our history is filled with mediocre and worse results is a huge insurmountable obstacle.

What is more important is for Cal and Stanford marketing to convince Fox that th Bay Area has a ton of B1G fans and alumni in the area and that Cal and Stanford are capable of drawing a large number of viewers when added to the conference.

We can't pin our hopes on simply winning which might not even happen. What we can do though is show them steps Cal and Stanford are taking to improve in investment into their football programs and equally important, growing the college football fanbase in this area. At that point. Fox can view us as an investment - get us for cheap and get a solid ROI in the years ahead. When Cal is good to great, we have proven to draw eyeballs.

---

Right. If it was about winning UCLA wouldn't be in the picture at all as they are just as pathetic as we are.

They haven't been good in football since 1998.

Econ141 said:

---

What makes you think it is a 3 way relationship outside of ND vouching for us and Stanford to get into the ACC? My concern is that ND and Stanford are chummy and we are a third wheel. If those two can get B1G invites, we may be left out.

---

Maybe CC saying they were helping, and comments to that effect by Jim Phillips in a zoom with Cal donors.

And yes, we could be left out when push comes to shove; thus the comment about football winning more. , Furd at this moment provides little value with football being so down, and whatever Notre Dame provides, having Furd take much of any media share drags that down substantially.

berserkeley said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I really don't think winning the ACC this year or next (already highly improbable) is what changes the equation. Being a flash in the pan when most of our history is filled with mediocre and worse results is a huge insurmountable obstacle.

What is more important is for Cal and Stanford marketing to convince Fox that th Bay Area has a ton of B1G fans and alumni in the area and that Cal and Stanford are capable of drawing a large number of viewers when added to the conference.

We can't pin our hopes on simply winning which might not even happen. What we can do though is show them steps Cal and Stanford are taking to improve in investment into their football programs and equally important, growing the college football fanbase in this area. At that point. Fox can view us as an investment - get us for cheap and get a solid ROI in the years ahead. When Cal is good to great, we have proven to draw eyeballs.

---

ESPN already saw all that and is paying $80 million a year for Calford.

The reason we got an offer of ZERO from Fox is: 1) UW and Oregon had been lobbying for nearly a year and applied when we didn't despite B1G presidents hinting in the press they wanted us to apply and 2) Christ/Knowlton really pissed off Fox Sports COO, who calls the shots, by trying to block his alma mater, UCLA, from going to the B1G and the B1G Network that he personally created. Christ badmouthed his whole idea saying it was particularly bad for "women athletes." Getting the regents and the Governor involved…. If we had succeeded UCLA would have been separated from their main rival USC, with USC getting the huge B1G payout and UCLA stuck in Kliavkoff's middling PAC-11. We we failed we still got the Regents to agree to Calimony payment s from UCLA (which their rival does not have to pay). So after UW and Oregon got in and the Four Corners schools jumped to the Big-12, we asked if we could get into the B1G and what Fox would pay us and the answer was a big fat "NO, we will pay you NOTHING."

We were VERY lucky we got into the ACC, we almost didn't. If we hadn't we'd be with the Beavers and Cougs now.

Knowlton and Wilcox agreeing to a home and home series with Oregon State this year could come back to bite us. They still have a good team and their fan base will be very motivated as they seem to focus a lot of their ire on us.

---

I don't buy point #2 for the reason you just articulated. If the Calimony upset the Fox COO, he would have offered to pay something for at least Cal so UCLA would get out of the Calimony. What you're arguing is that the Fox COO cut off his nose to spite his face. If Cal was worth more than $0 and he decided to offer nothing becuase he was upset that UCLA had to pay the Calimony, then it's his fault UCLA has to pay that money.

---

He's not saying it was Calimony that upset the Fox guy, it was trying to block UCLA's move to the B1G. The theory here is that if we'd just tried to get into the B1G too rather than block the whole thing it might have been different.

---

And I am saying that if his motivation was about defending UCLA, then making sure Cal was not invited to the Big Ten knowing that doing so would make the Regents force UCLA to lose money was an irrational choice. He allegedly knowingly hurt the very thing he was trying to protect? I don't buy it.

It's far more rational that Fox Sports made a business decision and they looked at Cal and Standford football and said they don't see them adding any value over the next 6 years. That's as long as their contract with the Big Ten lasts.

---

From what I know he doesn't care so much about Calimony, it was getting his UCLA team onto his network and he was pissed Christ tried to block that.

Besides, Calimony was already decided upon long before we asked (after the breakup) and it is based on revenue and there is no way Cal was going into the B1G at full payout at that point like UCLA, it would have been gradual like Oregon and Washington got, so UCLA would be paying Calimony anyway.

Again, the offer was not $40 million like ESPN is paying, it was not $10 million (what we accepted from the ACC and what the new PAC-8 hope to get), it was ZERO. The old MWC contract was $5 million per school. Zero is not a credible offer, pickle ball is getting paid $millions, zero for a P5 major university football team is a FU because we are pissed at what you tried to do.

It's purely speculative that he didn't care that denying Cal would force UCLA to pay Calimony and that he actually valued Cal and Stanford at something the Big Ten, Cal, and Stanford would have considered and decided not to make that offer out of spite and petttiness.

When the ACC emerged as a landing spot, the insiders on this board with the most direct involvement shared that the Big Ten was not interested in adding Cal and Stanford at poverty shares (like we took with the ACC) because they were afraid we wouldn't be able to compete.

The entire basis of your sepculation appears to be that because Fox offered $0 instead of some lowball like $5M, Silverman must have been acting out of pettiness, but there are other, more plausible, explanations. Fox Sports was only being asked to bid on the next 6 years of Cal and Stanford football and, from that vantage point, the value they appeared to add wasn't anywhere near the money it would take to make a deal happen so why make an offer at all? If Fox knew that Big Ten wouldn't accept an offer below, say, $25M per year and Fox was no where near that number, why would they go on record and offer $12M? I think they would have made no offer before they made an offer in the $5-10M range.

And if he was really trying to give the FU to Cal, he would have offered money to bring in just Stanford, but he also offered $0 for Stanford as an FU to Cal? That doesn't make sense.

This conference should grab UNLV for destination and betting reasons

How many Sac facilities are Pac-X worthy?

Was Rose Gilbert at his bedside?

movielover said:

---

How many Sac facilities are Pac-X worthy?

---

I assume that Sac would be applying to the MWC as a replacement for the teams joining Pac-X. So the relevant question is how well does Sac's athletic department compare to the likes of SJSU. Other than football, Sac State (and UC Davis, for that matter) can probably catch up to that level, if they want to.

BearSD said:

---

movielover said:

---

How many Sac facilities are Pac-X worthy?

---

I assume that Sac would be applying to the MWC as a replacement for the teams joining Pac-X. So the relevant question is how well does Sac's athletic department compare to the likes of SJSU. Other than football, Sac State (and UC Davis, for that matter) can probably catch up to that level, if they want to.

---

The question is really do they want to. The jump from FCS to FBS is huge in terms of scholarships, operating costs, and facilities. And uncertainty in regards to whether g5 is even viable anymore when direct payments to players is implemented. I'd think they a lot of G5 schools would want to look to dropping to FCS and not the other way around.

Looking at Sac State's finances - they have a budget of 36 million, 22 of which comes from institutional support, 10 million from student fees, with only 300k from ticket sales and 600k from donations.

The smallest budget in the MWC is SJSU at 39 million, the. The rest are in the mid 40's. A lot of MAC schools are in the mid 30's similar to Sac State, but the COL around Ohio is was cheaper and they are probably not flying to most opponents, unless it's a OOC buy game.

BearSD said:

---

movielover said:

---

How many Sac facilities are Pac-X worthy?

---

I assume that Sac would be applying to the MWC as a replacement for the teams joining Pac-X. So the relevant question is how well does Sac's athletic department compare to the likes of SJSU. Other than football, Sac State (and UC Davis, for that matter) can probably catch up to that level, if they want to.

---

The Aggies appear huge steps ahead of Sac.

- The brand new $50 M Edwards Family Athletics Center (high performance and training)
- New and expandable UC Davis Health Stadium
- Existing multipurpose Pavilion (Rec Hall), which seats 6,000 - 7,000
- Schaal Aquatic Center - newer and expanded
- Dobbins Stadium (baseball)
- new dedicated field hockey facility

Sac's The Nest, built in the 1950s, has a seating capacity of 1,100. This is for DI basketball and other sports.

Their young President Luke Wood and UFC Hall of Famer Urijah are developing an MMA program.

movielover said:

---

BearSD said:

---

movielover said:

---

How many Sac facilities are Pac-X worthy?

---

I assume that Sac would be applying to the MWC as a replacement for the teams joining Pac-X. So the relevant question is how well does Sac's athletic department compare to the likes of SJSU. Other than football, Sac State (and UC Davis, for that matter) can probably catch up to that level, if they want to.

---

The Aggies appear huge steps ahead of Sac.

- The brand new $50 M Edwards Family Athletics Center (high performance and training)
- New and expandable UC Davis Health Stadium
- Existing multipurpose Pavilion (Rec Hall), which seats 6,000 - 7,000
- Schaal Aquatic Center - newer and expanded
- Dobbins Stadium (baseball)
- new dedicated field hockey facility

Sac's The Nest, built in the 1950s, has a seating capacity of 1,100. This is for DI basketball and other sports.

Their young President Luke Wood and UFC Hall of Famer Urijah are developing an MMA program.

---

Davis should really consider dropping football though. They currently are funded by $26 million/yr in student fees. That is ridiculously high in comparison to anywhere else.

Makes zero sense to move up a level and incur more expenses but be less competitive and for menial extra revenue. MWC TV contract is going to be greatly reduced and they only pull $5million per team now.

UC Davis could have an even stronger non-FB athletics program if they re-routed some of that student money and still lower fees significantly.

dimitrig said:

---

VolunteerReverie said:

---

In all honesty, it would be in the best interest of the California schools, Oregon, and Washington to return to the Pac-12. Eventually, the exorbitant amount of travel will take its toll on the student athletes at these schools.

---

What is this student-athlete you speak of?

---

The athletes in sports that aren't football, basketball (and increasingly women's volleyball). The students that are playing for love of a game and/or a scholarship and aren't making the school any revenue or getting NIL money.

My sense is the Ags wouldn't move laterally to an imploding conference.

Davis has a long football tradition. They didn't build a football stadium for lacrosse.

Looks like messy divorce, she got the house and now she wants my dog.......

Did the departing Pac-12 membership realize they'd forfeit TV / NCAA monies to the PX?

The old football stadium (Toomey Field) was build right at the corner were campus met college town. UC Davis Health Stadium was built out in a large open area for such a potential future. pic.twitter.com/tQeklHld4X

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) September 13, 2024

I would live to see Cal return to the Pac.

I could care less about Stanford.

This is great!

movielover said:

---

Did the departing Pac-12 membership realize they'd forfeit TV / NCAA monies to the PX?

---

IIRC is was to settle the OSU and WSU lawsuits

ninetyfourbear said:

---

movielover said:

---

Did the departing Pac-12 membership realize they'd forfeit TV / NCAA monies to the PX?

---

IIRC is was to settle the OSU and WSU lawsuits

---

Plus we didn't have a great case as the precedent was set when USC and UCLA departed and our attorneys all argued they had forfeited their right to their PAC-12 shares and have a seat on the executive committee. That is the main reason we fought so hard to have a vote to liquidate the PAC-12 and block WSU and OSU from continuing it. I said t the time WSU and OSU could easily have more money than us in the short run (two years). No need to look back, the ACC and our ESPN affiliation is looking very good for us right now.

Canzano: Pac-12 preparing to take a second bite of expansion apple

University of Memphis and Tulane University are top targets.

movielover said:

---

Canzano: Pac-12 preparing to take a second bite of expansion apple

University of Memphis and Tulane University are top targets.

---

You have to take ol' John with a grain of salt. He was thoroughly misled in 2022 and 2023 when the Pac-12 disintegrated, because his sources were sunshine pumpers at OSU and WSU. Example: Oregon remains "way on board" with Pac-12, per source.

He probably still has the same sources, so you can assume OSU and WSU *want* Memphis and Tulane to join them, but I would not assume more than that.

movielover said:

---

Canzano: Pac-12 preparing to take a second bite of expansion apple

University of Memphis and Tulane University are top targets.

---

Makes sense. Article I read indicates that FedEx is gifting $25 million over 5 years to Memphis' NIL fund.

Trying to poach the best of the G5 leagues to create the new "premier" G5 conference that can consistently make the playoff seems like what OSU and WSU are going for here. It's their best play.

For the likes of Memphis, they probably see that the American Athletic Conference is a sinking ship (most of the other top programs have been poached in recent years), so I could see that consolidation of G5 "power" looking good to them too.

Bearly Clad said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

Agreed. Not well handed by the P2. This line of strategy only works under the very optimistic view that the new Pac6 will eventually be a power conference and they want the higher TV revenue split between a smaller number of schools. Meh, everybody is shooting for the moon in CFB. Just look at CalFurd.

---

See, I couldn't disagree more, the MWC bungled this one. To begin with, all the P2 wanted was an extension on the scheduling agreement but MW played hardball and asked for a significant raise on the already exorbitant $14MM scheduling fee which comes out to about $1MM/game (about what the richest schools have to pay FCS schools for noncon bloodbath games). Second, the MW announced that if there was to be a merger it would be the MW absorbing OSU/WSU and not a merger into a new PAC,l that would have been to the benefit of all involved.

So OSU/WSU said "**** it" and decided to use their war chest to buy out the most desirable pieces of the MWC while they still can. They just need 2 more schools now to be considered a legitimate conference by the CFP committee. That means they could let teams come to them and plead their case or look for a couple more schools around the country. Memphis has been floated, as has UCF, UNT, the Dakota schools if they want to jump up to FBS, possibly Idaho back to the FBS, the Montana schools, UNLV, Army, Navy, Air Force, USF, and some others.

The value of that is that under the PAC banner and with the best pieces of the MWC/AAC/Sun Belt/whomever, they are more desirable contractually than the MWC, not even close to the P4 but they could likely get $10MM/year per school which would double the MWC payout.

The other massive piece is this: they're not trying to be P5 again, they're trying to make a "middle 1" conference. The highest rated G5 conference winner gets a playoff autobid and with the schools they're reportedly adding plus a Memphis and another solid poach they'd be far and away the best non P4 conference and a lock for that playoff spot and the money that comes with it.

It's the best of a bad situation kind of deal but that's the road map to some semblance of financial and competitive stability for WSU and OSU. Then if the ACC gets blown up they'd gladly take Cal, Stanford, and some of the leftovers; same with the B12. They're also in a prime position to be one of the major conferences when the P2 alienates most of the country and the media execs finally realize that the regionalism, rivalries, and tradition are what drives the sport and that the NFL D-League setup only has so much staying power

---

Frankly I believe this is positioning this to be the partner for the ACC if 5 or so teams go to the SEC / Big 10. They would simply merge the two conferences together and have a 16 or 20 team conference. Take the best of the rest for now, get to 10, and wait until the next go round. Then have an east / west division. That would be essentially what the Big 12 is today - the leftovers.

philly1121 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Canzano: Pac-12 preparing to take a second bite of expansion apple

University of Memphis and Tulane University are top targets.

---

Makes sense. Article I read indicates that FedEx is gifting $25 million over 5 years to Memphis' NIL fund.

---

If true, I'm curious how FedEx can justify this as a good business decision. Sure, Joe BigShot who owns a dozen car dealerships can do whatever he darn well pleases, but FedEx is a publicly traded company and it's hard to imagine the business benefit of such an expenditure.