|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 16, 2023 22:39:23 GMT -5
Was the Big 12 showing interest in SDSU? I can't imagine SDSU helps increase the TV revenue per school which has been offered to the PAC 12. Yes - they have talked, but nothing serious (is what I have heard). If Colorado was to bolt to the B12 (and only them) - the PAC will invite SDSU instantly. If the PAC stays intact (all 10) - then it seems like a good shot that SDSU (and probably SMU) will be invited anyway. I think they like their chances - but the delay of the PAC TV contract past this month is going to cost SDSU real money. I could see the B12 having some interest - but per their TV contract with ESPN - only current P5 schools joining the B12 would increase the $'s so that each school gets the same amount (making the 4 corner schools as no brainers for the B12 being interested). I don't know that the B12 could invite SDSU and get the same money - unless they were to have them with an unequal share? That said - there seems to be a lot of noise about UConn and the Big 12 (also not a P5 school) - so I don't know how that works in terms of money - other than the B12 thinking they can make it up with basketball. I believe SDSU has a strong basketball program - but nothing like UConn/Gonzaga? SDSU getting a one month extension to exit the league could save them around $16M. They still have until the end of the month. Not a lot of negotiating power here for SDSU - but there may be a settlement to be had that could save SDSU some money. My feeling on SDSU and the Big 12 is that I think it's possible they could get an invite but only if they're coming with at least one P5 school (e.g. Colorado, Arizona) at the same time and ESPN and Fox sign off on adding them to the conference. I don't think it's impossible that ESPN and Fox would agree if, say, three of the Pac-12 Four Corners schools came too, so the networks wouldn't need to pay the Pac-12. UConn is a weird case. They aren't a P5 school, but they were part of the Big East when it was a power conference. And they have arguably the most successful men's basketball program of the last 25 years.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 16, 2023 23:25:49 GMT -5
Lol, I was explaining conference realignment to my sister, and she was like, "So the Big Ten has 10 teams, and the Big 12 has 12?" I just laughed.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jun 17, 2023 5:59:39 GMT -5
Lol, I was explaining conference realignment to my sister, and she was like, "So the Big Ten has 10 teams, and the Big 12 has 12?" I just laughed. It does, IMO, say something about the leadership of both conferences that they chose to go with the word "BIG" to idenitify their organizations. I understand naming a conference "Mid-Atlantic." "Mountain Wesst" makes sense. So does "Sun Belt" and "Atlantic Coast Conference" and "Pacific Athletic Conference." But some "leaders" at "institutions of higher learning" just sat around one day and said, "screw it, let's just call it BIG and a number." And then they can't even bother to change the name when the number changes. (Raising hand frantically) "Oh, Oh, I know, I know. Let's spell BIG with a '1' instead of an 'I'"
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 17, 2023 9:41:31 GMT -5
Lol, I was explaining conference realignment to my sister, and she was like, "So the Big Ten has 10 teams, and the Big 12 has 12?" I just laughed. It does, IMO, say something about the leadership of both conferences that they chose to go with the word "BIG" to idenitify their organizations. I understand naming a conference "Mid-Atlantic." "Mountain West" makes sense. So does "Sun Belt" and "Atlantic Coast Conference" and "Pacific Athletic Conference." But some "leaders" at "institutions of higher learning" just sat around one day and said, "screw it, let's just call it BIG and a number." And then they can't even bother to change the name when the number changes. (Raising hand frantically) "Oh, Oh, I know, I know. Let's spell BIG with a '1' instead of an 'I'"I refuse to refer to the Big Ten as the "B1G." It's just so pompous and annoying. Though now that I think about it, the Big Ten is also the conference that laughably called its divisions "Legends" and "Leaders" for a while, so I guess it's pretty on brand for them.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 20, 2023 12:43:09 GMT -5
Lol, apparently SDSU asked for an extension on the deadline to announce its intention to leave but wanted the Mountain West to give it a one-month extension I guess because they're waiting to see if the Pac-12 signs a new TV deal in July. The Mountain West has no reason to do that. After thinking about this some more, I think what probably happened was that San Diego State was trying to have it both ways. They sent their letter to the other 11 Mountain West presidents and the commissioner, which is required in the bylaws to resign. The idea is that they could later claim that this letter was their notice if an invite to a P5 comes after the June 30 deadline and avoid paying the higher exit fees. But by not making it an "official" notice, they could claim that they never withdrew if an invite never comes. The Mountain West responded by accepting their resignation and starting the procedures to remove them from the conference. This forced SDSU to clarify that the first letter wasn't the official notice, but the Mountain West rejects that claim. So if SDSU was trying to have it both way, the Mountain West seems to have countered them. If they really just wanted answers on their questions, they could have just called to ask or not sent the letter to every single president to avoid a situation where the Mountain West could (correctly, in my view) interpret the letter as the official notice of resignation. It's hard to say for sure without seeing the letter, but based on the bylaws, if it said they intend to resign and was sent to all the presidents, then I think it counts. I'm not totally sure if SDSU was trying to have it both ways, they're just incompetent, or both. But I don't think they anticipated that the Mountain West would respond by just accepting their resignation and starting the termination proceedings. This now means that SDSU is theoretically without a home after this upcoming season. If they get an invite to a P5, then it probably works out. But if they don't, they could be in a tough spot. They also have lost a lot of leverage if, say, the Pac-12 wants them to take a lower share of the TV money.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 20, 2023 13:27:02 GMT -5
Lol, apparently SDSU asked for an extension on the deadline to announce its intention to leave but wanted the Mountain West to give it a one-month extension I guess because they're waiting to see if the Pac-12 signs a new TV deal in July. The Mountain West has no reason to do that. After thinking about this some more, I think what probably happened was that San Diego State was trying to have it both ways. They sent their letter to the other 11 Mountain West presidents and the commissioner, which is required in the bylaws to resign. The idea is that they could later claim that this letter was their notice if an invite to a P5 comes after the June 30 deadline and avoid paying the higher exit fees. But by not making it an "official" notice, they could claim that they never withdrew if an invite never comes. The Mountain West responded by accepting their resignation and starting the procedures to remove them from the conference. This forced SDSU to clarify that the first letter wasn't the official notice, but the Mountain West rejects that claim. So if SDSU was trying to have it both way, the Mountain West seems to have countered them. If they really just wanted answers on their questions, they could have just called to ask or not sent the letter to every single president to avoid a situation where the Mountain West could (correctly, in my view) interpret the letter as the official notice of resignation. It's hard to say for sure without seeing the letter, but based on the bylaws, if it said they intend to resign and was sent to all the presidents, then I think it counts. I'm not totally sure if SDSU was trying to have it both ways, they're just incompetent, or both. But I don't think they anticipated that the Mountain West would respond by just accepting their resignation and starting the termination proceedings. This now means that SDSU is theoretically without a home after this upcoming season. If they get an invite to a P5, then it probably works out. But if they don't, they could be in a tough spot. They also have lost a lot of leverage if, say, the Pac-12 wants them to take a lower share of the TV money. This morning report that I read said that the MWC will not extend the deadline for withdrawing. I don't think the MWC has accepted a resignation - nor should they. The MWC made the obvious decision not extend the deadline. SDSU wants to avoid paying the full $32M if they decide to change conferences after this year by giving notice after 6/30. They will have to pay $16M if they give notice before 6/30. MWC would rather have the $32M if SDSU leaves and are not going to give them grace. To accept the resignation now could potentially cost the MWC $16M - they don't want to do that. In addition - SDSU wanted a payment plan to pay the $16M - and the MWC said 'no' - it is due as a lump sum. It looks very likely that SDSU isn't going to get a p5 offer before 6/30. I am sure they are in discussions with the P12 and B12 - it would be in either of those conferences to work with SDSU if interested - to give them reliable information on a potential invite. Not sure how this one goes - SDSU is in a bind here.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 20, 2023 13:31:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 20, 2023 13:39:12 GMT -5
I think the Mountain West is cutting off SDSU from trying to have it both ways (counting this letter as the official notice in the event that a P5 invite comes after the deadline while also being able to claim that they never gave notice to withdraw if the invite never comes). The MWC can also withhold SDSU's annual distribution, which is around $6 million from what I can gather. And this eliminates a lot of SDSU's leverage. So if a P5 invite never comes, SDSU may be forced to come crawling back to the MWC (I doubt they'd want to go to the AAC), and the MWC may get concessions to let them back in. I'm sure SDSU wouldn't be very happy about this, but if they don't get a P5 invite, I'm not sure what options they really have. I guess they could go to the AAC, but they'd still be out the exit fee, and they'd be doing a lot of extra traveling. Independence and the Big West would likely have even more problems.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 20, 2023 13:48:27 GMT -5
The San Diego Union Tribune had a front-page article on this, which I thought was pretty good.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 20, 2023 14:36:19 GMT -5
I think the Mountain West is cutting off SDSU from trying to have it both ways (counting this letter as the official notice in the event that a P5 invite comes after the deadline while also being able to claim that they never gave notice to withdraw if the invite never comes). The MWC can also withhold SDSU's annual distribution, which is around $6 million from what I can gather. And this eliminates a lot of SDSU's leverage. So if a P5 invite never comes, SDSU may be forced to come crawling back to the MWC (I doubt they'd want to go to the AAC), and the MWC may get concessions to let them back in. I'm sure SDSU wouldn't be very happy about this, but if they don't get a P5 invite, I'm not sure what options they really have. I guess they could go to the AAC, but they'd still be out the exit fee, and they'd be doing a lot of extra traveling. Independence and the Big West would likely have even more problems. Other than trying to extract something from SDSU coming back to the conference - why would the MWC kick them out now? 1 of three things can happen: 1) MWC effectively kicks SDSU out of the conference by interpreting and accepting the letter from SDSU as them leaving. SDSU would owe the MWC ~ $16M as an exit fee and they would go to court (legal settlement) on the money the conference owes SDSU. 2) They view the letter as asking for an extension of 1 month (7/31) - deny the request. SDSU ends up getting an offer in July and then gives notice to leave the MWC. Then, instead of only getting $16M from SDSU - the MWC gets $34M. Everything else is basically the same as #1. 3) Same as #2, but SDSU doesn't exit the league in July as there is no invite to another conference to begin in 2024-25. In which case - SDSU stays in the conference as before. Seems to me - #1 is the worst outcome of the 3 for the MWC? Why would they want to interpret the letter as a resignation letter - when they seem better off in treating it as a letter asking to extending the deadline - for which they say no?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 20, 2023 15:14:04 GMT -5
I think the Mountain West is cutting off SDSU from trying to have it both ways (counting this letter as the official notice in the event that a P5 invite comes after the deadline while also being able to claim that they never gave notice to withdraw if the invite never comes). The MWC can also withhold SDSU's annual distribution, which is around $6 million from what I can gather. And this eliminates a lot of SDSU's leverage. So if a P5 invite never comes, SDSU may be forced to come crawling back to the MWC (I doubt they'd want to go to the AAC), and the MWC may get concessions to let them back in. I'm sure SDSU wouldn't be very happy about this, but if they don't get a P5 invite, I'm not sure what options they really have. I guess they could go to the AAC, but they'd still be out the exit fee, and they'd be doing a lot of extra traveling. Independence and the Big West would likely have even more problems. Other than trying to extract something from SDSU coming back to the conference - why would the MWC kick them out now? 1 of three things can happen: 1) MWC effectively kicks SDSU out of the conference by interpreting and accepting the letter from SDSU as them leaving. SDSU would owe the MWC ~ $16M as an exit fee and they would go to court (legal settlement) on the money the conference owes SDSU. 2) They view the letter as asking for an extension of 1 month (7/31) - deny the request. SDSU ends up getting an offer in July and then gives notice to leave the MWC. Then, instead of only getting $16M from SDSU - the MWC gets $34M. Everything else is basically the same as #1. 3) Same as #2, but SDSU doesn't exit the league in July as there is no invite to another conference to begin in 2024-25. In which case - SDSU stays in the conference as before. Seems to me - #1 is the worst outcome of the 3 for the MWC? Why would they want to interpret the letter as a resignation letter - when they seem better off in treating it as a letter asking to extending the deadline - for which they say no? With 2, SDSU would likely claim that they did give notice with the June letter. And with 3, SDSU would try to avoid paying the exit fee altogether despite giving notice that they were leaving, which incurs the fee. With 1, the MWC can immediately withhold the next distribution, which is set to be paid in the new few weeks from what I understand. And they eliminate a lot of SDSU's leverage in the event that they don't get a P5 invite. SDSU also asked that the MWC not withhold that distribution, so it seems that they may have wanted to get the money while keeping their options open. The MWC will now withhold the money and apply it to SDSU's exit fees rather than needing to chase it down after it was already distributed. I guess the MWC doesn't think it's realistic to actually get the $34 million, so they're doing what they can to ensure that they get the $17 million and increase their leverage over SDSU. Edit: Also, the SDSU president has been removed from the MWC board of directors. Not sure how much they care about that.
|
|
|
Post by jgoodson on Jun 20, 2023 15:21:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jun 20, 2023 18:30:24 GMT -5
why do you need Purdue when you have Illinois, Indiana, Notre Dame in all the same basic market? Anyone that thinks Notre Dame is the same basic market just because of location, doesn't understand Notre Dame fandom at all. And I know this is old, but couldn't let that go twice. Not even a Notre Dame fan and even I understand they aren't a just a geo-located market. Just wow at anyone thinking they are. you are totally missing the point. it wasn't about Notre Dame it's about teh fact existing Big 10 schools (like Purdue and INdiana) are really not that big of draws. not just Rutgers and Maryland as well. you could delete Purdue and Iowa from the B1G contract, and I would be the value of a TV deal would INCREASE for the remaining schools on a per school basis
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jun 20, 2023 18:32:10 GMT -5
SDSU is sweating this out. may not get a formal binding offer from anyone by June 30, lol
really? expecting the Mountain West to grant an extension, when they know it's just to bide time before they leave.
|
|
|
Post by brooselee on Jun 20, 2023 19:44:23 GMT -5
Maybe the conference is taking the approach that….if you don’t want to be here then we don’t want you to be here either.
The new commish is not a long time MWC employee so she has no love or affinity for SDSU. SDSU is just part of the MWC. They are no better or no worse. If any other conference members were to act like SDSU, they would be treated the same way.
SDSU thinks they deserve special treatment. Others think otherwise.
Period. End of story.
|
|