Not official, but word out of Tucson is they are following with an official announcement this week.



I believe this one.

If they stop at 14, Utah has screwed this whole thing up for them long term.

For USU's sake I hope the 4 corners schools all head over to the Big XII.

If I were any team in the PAC 12 I would be gone. The big 12 commissioner is doing a great job solidifying that conference.

The cleanest thing for everyone would be a quick death the pac. If the death blow isn’t dealt, then PAC fills with SDSU, SMU, maybe Fresno or something… they owe a bunch of exit fees only to see the tv money dry up in a few years when Washington, ASU, Utah go off somewhere else… at that point they likely won’t be able to attract more MW teams. So the others come back? Moving slow is the only chance the pac12 has of staying alive, but it looks bleak for the conference. Imma make me some popcorn

flying_scotsman2.0 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 4:18 pm

The cleanest thing for everyone would be a quick death the pac. If the death blow isn’t dealt, then PAC fills with SDSU, SMU, maybe Fresno or something… they owe a bunch of exit fees only to see the tv money dry up in a few years when Washington, ASU, Utah go off somewhere else… at that point they likely won’t be able to attract more MW teams. So the others come back? Moving slow is the only chance the pac12 has of staying alive, but it looks bleak for the conference. Imma make me some popcorn

The only problem is that even if all of the "4 corners" schools leave, there are still 6 in the PAC-12, including Oregon and Washington. Those are the biggest brands outside of LA. They may look to add 6, but I am not sure which 6.

Is USU a top 6 brand?

It appears the B1G has no desire to go after Oregon and Washington right now, so the PAC will likely remain intact.

I also don't know why SMU would join the PAC in that future iteration.

NowhereLandAggie wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 4:44 pm

flying_scotsman2.0 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 4:18 pm

The cleanest thing for everyone would be a quick death the pac. If the death blow isn’t dealt, then PAC fills with SDSU, SMU, maybe Fresno or something… they owe a bunch of exit fees only to see the tv money dry up in a few years when Washington, ASU, Utah go off somewhere else… at that point they likely won’t be able to attract more MW teams. So the others come back? Moving slow is the only chance the pac12 has of staying alive, but it looks bleak for the conference. Imma make me some popcorn

The only problem is that even if all of the "4 corners" schools leave, there are still 6 in the PAC-12, including Oregon and Washington. Those are the biggest brands outside of LA. They may look to add 6, but I am not sure which 6.

Is USU a top 6 brand?

It appears the B1G has no desire to go after Oregon and Washington right now, so the PAC will likely remain intact.

I also don't know why SMU would join the PAC in that future iteration.

USU being top 6 depends on how much they care about Academics and how far east they are willing to go. IF they still care about academics like the Pac12 always has, and they only go after R1 or near R1 schools, then USU might be considered.

Also, how far east are they willing to go, will they take Memphis and Tulane?

If they do care about academics, how important are athletics. Does Rice get in with academics despite having poor athletics?

If they want to stay west and pretend to care about academics while having a good product on the field, we MAY be top 6...

I am not counting on it, esspecially if Utah is still in the Pac.

Our best hope is that the Pac is so unattractive, that No one else wants to pony up the exit fees. The Pac gets stuck at 6 teams and has to fold and the left overs are forced to go independent or join the MWC.

Again not counting on it.

Looks like the Big10 could be adding Florida State and Clemson.

Washington and Oregon more likely to join Arizona and Colorado.

We’d then have a Pac6 of Utah, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, and Washington State.

There is a path for 2025 for them by adding SDSU, UNLV, Colorado St, Boise State.

However, they need to find 2 schools to join for 2024 to stay afloat til some of the MW joins them in 25.

Utah not going to Big12 really kills us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MWC needs to send invites immediately to Washington State and Oregon State, the panic is set in and the PAC is toast. There is no longer any incentive to join them with all the marquee institutions leaving, no media deal and no real penalties for leaving early. Whereas the MWC positioned itself well with the hefty exit fees. Well done Hair.

Why do we keep call them the 4 corners schools? Every time I hear that I think Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. Are we just saying 3 of the 4 corners schools?

treesap32 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 7:00 pm

Why do we keep call them the 4 corners schools? Every time I hear that I think Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. Are we just saying 3 of the 4 corners schools?

UNM to the BXII you heard it hear first

ViAggie wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 7:01 pm

treesap32 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 7:00 pm

Why do we keep call them the 4 corners schools? Every time I hear that I think Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. Are we just saying 3 of the 4 corners schools?

UNM to the BXII you heard it hear first

That's why it's messing with my mind. Probably my OCD.

Cheecho6 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 6:23 pm

Looks like the Big10 could be adding Florida State and Clemson.

Washington and Oregon more likely to join Arizona and Colorado.

We’d then have a Pac6 of Utah, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, and Washington State.

There is a path for 2025 for them by adding SDSU, UNLV, Colorado St, Boise State.

However, they need to find 2 schools to join for 2024 to stay afloat til some of the MW joins them in 25.

Utah not going to Big12 really kills us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Oregon and Washington leave at that point it honestly makes sense to just merge the remaining PAC with the MWC. That would be a very solid conference and could get a decent media deal. Utah would probably fight tooth and nail though.

Some rumors the PNW schools are going to the B1G.

Aggie84025 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 7:07 pm

Cheecho6 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 6:23 pm

Looks like the Big10 could be adding Florida State and Clemson.

Washington and Oregon more likely to join Arizona and Colorado.

We’d then have a Pac6 of Utah, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, and Washington State.

There is a path for 2025 for them by adding SDSU, UNLV, Colorado St, Boise State.

However, they need to find 2 schools to join for 2024 to stay afloat til some of the MW joins them in 25.

Utah not going to Big12 really kills us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Oregon and Washington leave at that point it honestly makes sense to just merge the remaining PAC with the MWC. That would be a very solid conference and could get a decent media deal. Utah would probably fight tooth and nail though.

I like this scenario. MWC ads remaining PAC schools that want to join and lets the pukes go swing in independence. They won’t be able to swallow their pride.

ViAggie wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 6:59 pm

MWC needs to send invites immediately to Washington State and Oregon State, the panic is set in and the PAC is toast. There is no longer any incentive to join them with all the marquee institutions leaving, no media deal and no real penalties for leaving early. Whereas the MWC positioned itself well with the hefty exit fees. Well done Hair.

If only Arizona gets an invite this week to Big 12 include an invite to Arizona State to MWC.

I know it may seem like an impossibility but I would really love to see the MWC leadership come together and decide to stick together. To any outside inquiries the answer should be all or nothing.

This would really put the remnants of the PAC in a tight spot.

Aglicious wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 10:24 pm

I know it may seem like an impossibility but I would really love to see the MWC leadership come together and decide to stick together. To any outside inquiries the answer should be all or nothing.

This would really put the remnants of the PAC in a tight spot.

Two words:

Boazy and the SuckDoggies.

USU78 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 10:31 pm

Aglicious wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 10:24 pm

I know it may seem like an impossibility but I would really love to see the MWC leadership come together and decide to stick together. To any outside inquiries the answer should be all or nothing.

This would really put the remnants of the PAC in a tight spot.

Two words:

Boazy and the SuckDoggies.

I know. I know. Nevada and Fresno St. already proved once that we are surrounded by back stabbers. I just wish they could see how much stronger we could all be if we acted together instead of always in the interest of our own school and no one else.

The PAC must kill the MW to survive.

treesap32 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 7:00 pm

Why do we keep call them the 4 corners schools? Every time I hear that I think Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. Are we just saying 3 of the 4 corners schools?

The media coined the term, and I don't want to type all four schools.

treesap32 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 7:00 pm

Why do we keep call them the 4 corners schools? Every time I hear that I think Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. Are we just saying 3 of the 4 corners schools?

It’s New Mexico State actually.

Aglicious wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 11:08 pm

USU78 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 10:31 pm

Aglicious wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 10:24 pm

I know it may seem like an impossibility but I would really love to see the MWC leadership come together and decide to stick together. To any outside inquiries the answer should be all or nothing.

This would really put the remnants of the PAC in a tight spot.

Two words:

Boazy and the SuckDoggies.

I know. I know. Nevada and Fresno St. already proved once that we are surrounded by back stabbers. I just wish they could see how much stronger we could all be if we acted together instead of always in the interest of our own school and no one else.

Since USU backstabbed Idaho, NMSU, UTSA, and Texas State I don't trust you guys either. College sports is a business and schools will make business decisions. The MW is a marriage of convenience.

However, things have a way of working out. I think it will be okay..

nvspuds wrote: ↑

July 31st, 2023, 8:35 am

Aglicious wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 11:08 pm

USU78 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 10:31 pm

Aglicious wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 10:24 pm

I know it may seem like an impossibility but I would really love to see the MWC leadership come together and decide to stick together. To any outside inquiries the answer should be all or nothing.

This would really put the remnants of the PAC in a tight spot.

Two words:

Boazy and the SuckDoggies.

I know. I know. Nevada and Fresno St. already proved once that we are surrounded by back stabbers. I just wish they could see how much stronger we could all be if we acted together instead of always in the interest of our own school and no one else.

Since USU backstabbed Idaho, NMSU, UTSA, and Texas State I don't trust you guys either. College sports is a business and schools will make business decisions. The MW is a marriage of convenience.

However, things have a way of working out. I think it will be okay..

Excellent point. We only feel like the rest of the world is agasinst us.

Yossarian wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 11:20 pm

The PAC must kill the MW to survive.

If it does, it won't be the PAC.

If they couldn't get a media rights deal done with Arizona, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, how are they going to get one done with (say) SDSU, UNLV, CSU and Boise - especially with the latter four being on the hook for an aggregate $136 million in exit fees - and with every remaining program looking to bail at the earliest opportunity.

The teams that end up in the rump PAC won't get nearly enough revenues from any rights deal to live in the manner in which they've become accustomed. The MWC teams they could draw will have to balance their (known) exit fees against the (unknown) revenue they might get from the watered-down PAC. SMU isn't going to tip anybody's balance.

Recall that there was once a Power Six, including the Big East before it was raided by the ACC. Now there's a Power Five, and when the dust settles there will be a Power Four, and there won't be a predominantly western league among them.

THe one thing that the MWC has going for it is the huge buyout of 34MM if a team leaves early. I think schools are going to be really hesitant to go the PAC with that high buyout as well as the uncertainty of the PAC media deal. The stupidity of the PAC leadership in this whole situation is mind boggling. With Arizona now leaving they have lost 1/3 of their conference and have not made any invitations.

OKAggie wrote: ↑

July 31st, 2023, 9:15 am

Yossarian wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 11:20 pm

The PAC must kill the MW to survive.

If it does, it won't be the PAC.

If they couldn't get a media rights deal done with Arizona, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, how are they going to get one done with (say) SDSU, UNLV, CSU and Boise - especially with the latter four being on the hook for an aggregate $136 million in exit fees - and with every remaining program looking to bail at the earliest opportunity.

The teams that end up in the rump PAC won't get nearly enough revenues from any rights deal to live in the manner in which they've become accustomed. The MWC teams they could draw will have to balance their (known) exit fees against the (unknown) revenue they might get from the watered-down PAC. SMU isn't going to tip anybody's balance.

Recall that there was once a Power Six, including the Big East before it was raided by the ACC. Now there's a Power Five, and when the dust settles there will be a Power Four, and there won't be a predominantly western league among them.

I think this ^^ is probably (at least somewhat) true.

The problem is that the (next) media rights deal for the MWC left-overs (plus UTEP, NMSU, etc...whoever we add to backfill against the loss of BSU, SDSU, CSU, FSU) will be much worse than that of even the "rump PAC".

instead of being a two-tiered system for west coast programming, in this scenario there will be three (or at least 2.5): 1- West coast games by teams now in P5 conferences (UCLA, USC, UC, UA, Oregon?, Wash? etc); 2- "rump PAC"; and 3- MWC-light.

Once our media deal is up for renegotiation, WE may not be able to live in the manner in which WE'VE become accustomed. Granted, we won't be paying 34M in exit fees, but I'd wager a pretty penny that in this (worst-case) scenario, the BSUs and SDSUs that end up with the PAC will end up being better off than the MWC-light (i.e. USU).

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but to me it looks like dark days might be ahead...

nvspuds wrote: ↑

July 31st, 2023, 8:35 am

Aglicious wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 11:08 pm

USU78 wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 10:31 pm

Aglicious wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 10:24 pm

I know it may seem like an impossibility but I would really love to see the MWC leadership come together and decide to stick together. To any outside inquiries the answer should be all or nothing.

This would really put the remnants of the PAC in a tight spot.

Two words:

Boazy and the SuckDoggies.

I know. I know. Nevada and Fresno St. already proved once that we are surrounded by back stabbers. I just wish they could see how much stronger we could all be if we acted together instead of always in the interest of our own school and no one else.

Since USU backstabbed Idaho, NMSU, UTSA, and Texas State I don't trust you guys either. College sports is a business and schools will make business decisions. The MW is a marriage of convenience.

However, things have a way of working out. I think it will be okay..

Yours is convenient revisionist history. Teams leave conferences all the time. But what Nevada and Fresno St. did during “The Project” was much different. With BYU in tow the WAC university presidents voted to stay together. The ink wasn’t even dry on the agreement when Thompson learned about the plot and invited USU to bolt. USU said no honoring the agreement. Nevada and Fresno buckled and said yes and left the rest of the WAC hanging out to dry.

No revisionist history at all. Fresno and Nevada looked out for their own interests and didn't owe you anything. There was a vote to increase the exit fee. There was never anything that 'bound' anyone to the WAC. A better opportunity arose and the departing schools took advantage.

Karl Benson did not get signatures from all the schools about the exit fee so even it wasn't binding. That is why FSU and Nevada were able to negotiate a lower price to leave. They paid the exit fee.

When you left the WAC you had a better opportunity and you took it.

There was nothing collegial or kum ba yah about that version of the WAC..Just as there is no collegial feelings in this version of the MW.

You want us all to be communal and the same but the schools are all free market capitalists as far as athletics are concerned.

Money, money changes everything.

ShowMeAggie wrote: ↑

July 31st, 2023, 9:58 am

OKAggie wrote: ↑

July 31st, 2023, 9:15 am

Yossarian wrote: ↑

July 30th, 2023, 11:20 pm

The PAC must kill the MW to survive.

If it does, it won't be the PAC.

If they couldn't get a media rights deal done with Arizona, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, how are they going to get one done with (say) SDSU, UNLV, CSU and Boise - especially with the latter four being on the hook for an aggregate $136 million in exit fees - and with every remaining program looking to bail at the earliest opportunity.

The teams that end up in the rump PAC won't get nearly enough revenues from any rights deal to live in the manner in which they've become accustomed. The MWC teams they could draw will have to balance their (known) exit fees against the (unknown) revenue they might get from the watered-down PAC. SMU isn't going to tip anybody's balance.

Recall that there was once a Power Six, including the Big East before it was raided by the ACC. Now there's a Power Five, and when the dust settles there will be a Power Four, and there won't be a predominantly western league among them.

I think this ^^ is probably (at least somewhat) true.

The problem is that the (next) media rights deal for the MWC left-overs (plus UTEP, NMSU, etc...whoever we add to backfill against the loss of BSU, SDSU, CSU, FSU) will be much worse than that of even the "rump PAC".

instead of being a two-tiered system for west coast programming, in this scenario there will be three (or at least 2.5): 1- West coast games by teams now in P5 conferences (UCLA, USC, UC, UA, Oregon?, Wash? etc); 2- "rump PAC"; and 3- MWC-light.

Once our media deal is up for renegotiation, WE may not be able to live in the manner in which WE'VE become accustomed. Granted, we won't be paying 34M in exit fees, but I'd wager a pretty penny that in this (worst-case) scenario, the BSUs and SDSUs that end up with the PAC will end up being better off than the MWC-light (i.e. USU).

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but to me it looks like dark days might be ahead...

Hopefully MWC teams have enough foresight and patience to not jump at the PAC 12 for the name only. If that's the case, the MWC may well end up being the takers and can create a "Pacific West" conference with the current MWC members, and the handful of PAC members that are left (that don't want to go Indy). That conference would likely demand more than either the "rump PAC" or the MWC-light.

Will BSU, UNLV, and SDSU be able to think that through? Doubtful, but hopefully.

nvspuds wrote: ↑

July 31st, 2023, 10:28 am

No revisionist history at all. Fresno and Nevada looked out for their own interests and didn't owe you anything. There was a vote to increase the exit fee. There was never anything that 'bound' anyone to the WAC. A better opportunity arose and the departing schools took advantage.

Karl Benson did not get signatures from all the schools about the exit fee so even it wasn't binding. That is why FSU and Nevada were able to negotiate a lower price to leave. They paid the exit fee.

When you left the WAC you had a better opportunity and you took it.

There was nothing collegial or kum ba yah about that version of the WAC..Just as there is no collegial feelings in this version of the MW.

You want us all to be communal and the same but the schools are all free market capitalists as far as athletics are concerned.

Money, money changes everything.

Fresno and Nevada had an obligation to honor their agreement. They didn’t. Yes, when USU had the opportunity to leave the WAC it took it. But USU went through the front door. Nevada and Fresno slinked through the back door and then to add insult to injury welched on paying the $5 million exit fee they owed. The amount was ultimately negotiated down with the provision that both teams stay in the conference through July 1, 2012.

Only part of the WAC resolution was in regards to increasing the exit fee on any school that elected to leave the WAC prior to July 1, 2016. The purpose of the resolution was to give assurances to BYU that if it jumped to the WAC it wouldn’t be left alone on an island for at least 5 years. The question re: the binding nature of the exit fee arose because the resolution was void if BYU didn’t join the conference by September 1, 2010. Regardless Fresno and Nevada had already jumped ship by that time.

And yes even without Nevada’s signature the resolution was binding as only three-fourths of the presidents needed to agree to it on the August 13 phone call. All eight agreed. The resolution called for each president to sign the agreement and return it but stated that their written affirmation was not necessary for the agreement to be enforceable. Nevada’s Glick didn’t sign and return the agreement but that was a moot point. Don’t try to bluff me on the terms of the agreement. I’ve got a .pdf copy of it. There is no honor among thieves.

Now back to the OP. If Washington St., Oregon St., Stanford and Cal are the only remaining PAC teams I highly doubt that the MWC would even then have the upper hand. I believe that MWC teams and some others will rush to backfill the PAC. The question is which teams. UNLV, CSU, BSU, Fresno St. and SDS all have the upper hand on New Mexico, USU, Nevada, SJS and Wyoming. USU’s only hope would be if the PAC wanted to retain a toe-hold in the Utah market. It very well could be that Nevada and USU will be back in a lower tier conference again with the likes of UTEP, North Dakota St. (or the Montana schools) and New Mexico St. Wouldn’t that be a thrill?

There was no binding agreement..There was a vote to increase the exit fee. Nevada was going to be obligated to the 5 million dollar fee because of the majority vote ( they would have left anyway). They had the 5 million.

The project was never a binding agreement that schools would never leave. Even your president said the 5 million would bankrupt Nevada, who had never hid their desire to leave the WAC. He figured the fee would keep everybody. Sounds familiar to the MW these days.

Was Nevada leaving a nice thing to do? No, but not a surprise. They left Boise behind in the Big Sky. They left them behind in the Big West. They left you behind in the Big West and the WAC. Boise left both us behind in the WAC. Now we are all together again until schools start leaving other schools behind.

You are welcome to your high horse. I just see schools doing what is best for themselves.

We've been through this. We think Fresno and Nevada screwed us. Spuds feels they had their fingers crossed behind their back . In reality the biggest mistake USU made was not screwing over byu Fresno Nevada and everyone else when we got the first invite...but in reality, it is the utes who screwed everyone over by ratting out the plan.

I do sense that you guys hate a whole bunch of schools and their fans..I feel pretty comfy occupying a spot in that pantheon of evil..

nvspuds wrote: ↑

July 31st, 2023, 1:11 pm

There was no binding agreement..There was a vote to increase the exit fee. Nevada was going to be obligated to the 5 million dollar fee because of the majority vote ( they would have left anyway). They had the 5 million.

The project was never a binding agreement that schools would never leave. Even your president said the 5 million would bankrupt Nevada, who had never hid their desire to leave the WAC. He figured the fee would keep everybody. Sounds familiar to the MW these days.

Was Nevada leaving a nice thing to do? No, but not a surprise. They left Boise behind in the Big Sky. They left them behind in the Big West. They left you behind in the Big West and the WAC. Boise left both us behind in the WAC. Now we are all together again until schools start leaving other schools behind.

You are welcome to your high horse. I just see schools doing what is best for themselves.

Yes there certainly was a binding resolution and as I said it pertained to more than just the exit fee. Yes, it was thought that the $5 million exit fee would hold Nevada and Fresno St. just as it would hold all other WAC members. Especially since only 4 days elapsed between both schools agreeing to the resolution and then the two schools agreeing to join the MWC.

Yes, schools are certainly in it for themselves. But in the cooperative that is an athletic conference there should be a certain level of trust netween the players. Nevada and Fresno agreeing by vote to “The Project” only to immediately turn around and violate the essence of the agreement was IMO low rent. If ever in the future Utah State receives certain assurances from Nevada or Fresno the Aggies would be well served to expect that the assurances will be violated and to protect themselves in that event.

nvspuds wrote: ↑

July 31st, 2023, 2:26 pm

I do sense that you guys hate a whole bunch of schools and their fans..I feel pretty comfy occupying a spot in that pantheon of evil..

For most of us, I think hate is reserved for utah and yBu. Within the MWC, we generally despise the trucker school (stupid unequal revenue split) and SDSU more and more. There is generally a healthy dislike of other schools (I think this is where Nevada probably fits along with Wyoming and CSU). And there is a general ambivalence for most other schools within the conference most of the time (we generally don't really think all that much about SJSU).

You never call anybody but Nevada and Fresno dishonorable thieves, though..We got that going for us.