The Realignment Options from the Pac-6 and Mountain West Perspective.

[Catprint]

The Realignment Options from the Pac-6 and Mountain West Perspective.

Everyone knows the latest news from the Pac-2 may have massive consequences on the Western FBS and FCS football conferences. I know there is already a long post on Bobcat Nation (which I only perused a few of the comments) with speculations about the options and what people think about moving up and budgets and past history, etc. I have limited inside knowledge (meaning none) and am not a football conference realignment guru (I think no such person exists). However, I think there are only a limited number of rational options. But I am driving to Denver (actually my wife is driving) for vacation and I was bored so I wanted to provide a list of the most plausible options laid out with the pros and cons from the Pac-6 and MWC perspectives. I am not looking at it from any other team's point of view or whether FCS teams have the money to make the move or which teams might even accept an invite if offered. So choose what you think the Pac-6 and MWC will do.

Pac – 6 (or is it the Pac-2 still?) options to acquire two more members

Option 1: Take two more teams from the Mountain West
This option seems like the easiest path to success and one that marginally successful MWC teams might be open to. At this point, the Mountain West is at risk of surviving. Teams such as Nevada, UNLV and San Jose State are likely already making overtures to the Pac-6 to join the current MWC defectors.
• Pros: Easy to do; same geography; familiarity; simple scheduling
• Cons: Already skipped over them; not particularly good teams; Other than UNLV not large TV markets not already covered.
• Likeliness: Seems like one of two more likely options.

Option 2: Take two FBS teams from Conference USA
The Conference USA has teams closer to the geography of the Pac 6. Not an exact match but close. Specifically, the most likely choices are UTEP and New Mexico State. Other options include Sam Houston and Louisiana Tech. But….
• Pros: Geographic proximity; Already FBS, Some scheduling synergy.
• Cons: All of the teams close in geography are basically terrible teams or new to the FBS. They would not be a positive addition to the Pac-6 and would drag down the conference. It would make the low chances the Pac-8 would be awarded Power 5 standing even less likely.
• Odds: Probably equal to option 1.

Option 3: Steal two FBS teams from another Group of 5 Conference
Outside of Conference USA, there are three Group of 5 conferences: Sun Belt; MAC; and American Athletic Conference. But let’s be honest here, The MAC is a pathetic example of an FBS conference. The teams frequently lose to FCS teams (even Kent State losing to St Francis last week) and are not even as good as the MVFC or the Big Sky. There is no chance the Pac-6 would take any teams from the MAC. The Sun Belt is simply too far away in all likelihood. That leaves AAC teams like Rice, North Texas, or Tulsa as options. Are any of these teams really any better for the new Pac-8 than is UTEP or New Mexico State?
• Pros: Can cherry pick the better teams in AAC or MAC if Pac-6 wants to go outside of the region like
• Cons: Long travel. Different Time zones. No connection to the other teams in the Pac-6. AAC has one of the best Group of 5 current TV revenue distributions.
• Odds: Honestly seems likely option if the Pac-6 wants to avoid bottom feeders but will be hard to pull in these schools.

Option 4: Upgrade two teams from FCS
Bring in NDSU or SDSU or maybe MSU and UM. How about Idaho? They took Oregon to the wire.
• Pros: Good teams that actually might be able to compete in the Pac-2/6/8.
• Cons: Too far away; Other than NDSU, not really sure any of these teams can compete regularly; FCS teams? really?
• Odds: Will not happen because the Pac-6 isn’t about to have an FCS team join them. The Pac-6 has displaced dreams that the CFP will accept the newly formed Pac-8 as a Power 5 Conference.

Option 5: Redissolve because the Pac-6 cannot find two other teams to join.
Maybe no one will accept an invitation? Maybe the Pac-6 isn’t willing to go after bottom feeders or FCS teams. Maybe they will decide that it is beneath them to accept bad teams. Maybe their potential TV contract will be so low that it makes no sense for any other teams.
• Odds: Almost zero but then we can’t say anything is out of the realm of possibilities.

Option 6: Offer a huge sum of money (from the Old Pac-12 funds held by the Pac-2) to entice two teams in the Big 12.
Is this even possible? The Pac-2 has a huge stash of money. I mean, the Big 12 has 16 teams. That is a ridiculous. Is that money that good? Yes, it is. Possible targets are BYU, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State. None of these teams belong in the Big 12 in my opinion.
• Pros: Pulls some high quality Big 12 teams into the reformed Pac-8; Gives some teams in the Big 12 a realistic chance to win a conference championship which they don’t have in the Big 12 with 16 teams.
• Cons: No set TV contract; other teams might see it as a step backwards; the money is the issue.
• Odds: Will not happen

Mountain West Options for the Future

Option 1: Steal teams from Conference USA or the AAC before Pac-6 steals them
How about a preemptive strike by going after teams that might be attractive to the Pac-6? Offer them incentives to come into the Mountain West. Teams like UTEP, New Mexico State, Rice, North Texas.
• Pros: Move quickly and it helps keep the Mountain West together. Get the better FBS teams available. Geographic Proximity.
• Cons: Way too many.
• Odds: Might be a great idea but execution will be difficult. Seems highly unlikely.

Option 2: Steal teams from C-USA or AAC after Pac-6 goes to the Pac 8
This leaves MWC pulling teams from the Conference USA or AAC who are even lower on the totem pole. Likely teams like Rice or North Texas. I do not think teams from the MAC or the Sun Belt are options for the MWC.
• Pros: FBS teams; some geographic proximity. Easy to make happen.
• Cons: MWC thinks they are top of the Group of 5. Don’t want poor teams added to what is now already a sub par conference. Not a good financial decision for anyone.
• Odds: Fairly high. I think most likely choice

Option 3: Offer invites to Top 4 FCS teams in the region
This is Sam Herder’s and other commentators’ thoughts. Mountain West decides to bring in the best from the FCS – NDSU, SDSU, MSU and UM. These teams would be more competitive than say New Mexico or UTEP. These teams have the basic financial prowess. They have a deep fan base, one that is superior to many of the Mountain West teams.
• Pros: Strong teams; great fan bases; geographic proximity; will be competitive.
• Cons: The Mountain West sees themselves as the best of the Group of Five and they don’t need to add FCS teams (Even though Nevada and Boise State were once in the Big Sky as FCS teams). The TV markets of these teams are small, which reduces the ability to negotiate a strong TV contract which seems to be the driving force.
• Odds: Maybe the third most likely option but not the first choice. Simply too many hurdles.

Option 4: Offer a bid to only 2 of top FCS teams
Variation where only NDSU and SDSU get invites.
• Pros: Pulling the best of the FCS. Lessens the risk of too many FCS teams at one time
• Cons: Same as above
• Odds: If option 3 is not attractive to the MWC, then this option really provides no benefits. I don’t see it happening.

Option 5: Offer a bid to larger TV market FCS teams in the region.
Take teams like UC Davis or Sac State. They are already in large TV markets. These teams are typically competitive in the Big Sky. Fits the footprint of San Jose State and covers the loss of Fresno State.
• Pros: Large TV markets; good FCS teams
• Cons: FCS teams; not the best FCS teams; Some repetition in TV markets; Poor fan bases. These teams are going to have to stretch to produce $5 million to jump to FBS.
• Odds: It seems to make no sense so that makes it maybe the more attractive option.

Option 6: Hold their Cards
The Mountain West might simply decide to hold for a year or two at 8 teams. They don’t have to do anything immediately and they can evaluate the marketplace.
• Pros: Wait for things to shake out. See what other teams do so the MWC doesn’t make a huge mistake.
• Cons: This is the decision they initially took when they thought they held all the power over the PAC-2. The Mountain West looked firm in its commitment to each other. Then suddenly four of the MWC teams break from the pack. This was totally unexpected. So, the remaining teams in the MWC might think they need to move on from the MWC or else they will end up like Oregon State and Washington did this year. Doing nothing is what the Pac-12 did and the result is obvious.
• Odds: Nope

Of course, I have no crystal ball and frankly, few saw this coming. Seems to me the most likely scenarios for A) the Pac-6 takes Option 2 or 3 - poaches two other FBS teams from Conference USA or AAC and B) The Mountain West will be forced to add at least 2 teams and maybe four. They will be scraping the bottom of the FBS so their choices will be limited but seems like sticking with current FBS teams will be the route they will choose because it just isn't in their blood to move up lowly FCS teams and their are huge money, logistic and integration issues.

What options do you think will be chosen by the Pac-6 and the MWC from their perspective?

[Bobcat Sig]

The PAC needs at least two more teams to be eligible for the CFP. I’m guessing they didn’t like the remaining available teams in the MWC, so they’re likely looking to poach from somewhere else or are still negotiating with additional teams for their departure.

If I’m the MWC; I’ve already called Leon and the gris. Both are perfect fits for a MWC.

As for the likes of SHSU; they don’t belong in the FBS. Sure, they enjoyed success as the FCS - mainly at our expense - but their facilities pale in comparison to that of
The remaining MWC, the Cats, and the gris. Therefore, they should stay in whatever conference they’re wallowing in now. I don’t think they belong in the MWC at all.

[MSU01]

Another thing to consider is that I highly doubt the Pac-12 will find two more teams to get to the minimum of eight and then call it good. I think they'll want 10-12 teams in order to get back closer to what they were before the breakup. The MWC also can't afford to "stand pat" since Hawaii is a football-only member and they'll be below the eight team minimum in most other sports. Here's what makes the most sense to me as to a prediction of what will ultimately happen:

1) The Pac-12 raids the AAC and/or MWC for more teams. I predict they take at least four of these five: UNLV, Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, Rice
2) The Mountain West goes after New Mexico State and UTEP to fill out its football roster and also potentially considers some regional non-football schools like Grand Canyon and Utah Valley to lean into its more recent success as a basketball conference. No FCS teams are added (yet).
3) A couple years down the line, the G5 conferences shift around and merge into "megaconferences" as a potential G5 playoff system takes shape.
4) When (3) happens, the top remaining FCS teams finally get their shot at moving up to a level at which they've proven they can compete.

[94VegasCat]

Realignment talk is has been around since the Dead Sea was only sick. (Love ya Bob Green)

We’re on to Mercyhurst.



I truly mean no disrespect to any posters on here. You guys all gave tremendously well thought out ideas. I’ve been on BN for 20 years now and I’d bet there are discussions about moving up on the first 5 pages of BN. I guarantee that moving up was discussed within the first 5 threads on egris.

[MSU01]

Realignment talk is has been around since the Dead Sea was only sick. (Love ya Bob Green)

We’re on to Mercyhurst.



I truly mean no disrespect to any posters on here. You guys all gave tremendously well thought out ideas. I’ve been on BN for 20 years now and I’d bet there are discussions about moving up on the first 5 pages of BN. I guarantee that moving up was discussed within the first 5 threads on egris.

I'd rather talk about realignment than where in the range of 50-70 points MSU's margin of victory over Mercyhurst will fall. But the general realignment discussion should likely go in the College Athletics forum unless there's a thread specifically devoted to how it affects MSU.

[Prodigal Cat]

Realignment talk is has been around since the Dead Sea was only sick. (Love ya Bob Green)

We’re on to Mercyhurst.



I truly mean no disrespect to any posters on here. You guys all gave tremendously well thought out ideas. I’ve been on BN for 20 years now and I’d bet there are discussions about moving up on the first 5 pages of BN. I guarantee that moving up was discussed within the first 5 threads on egris.

No doubt there has been lots of talk. What happened this week though changes the narrative dramatically. It’s the first time in 20 years where I think the possibility of the Montana schools at least getting an invite is greater than 50%. Wyoming, Utah State, Nevada are good peer institutions. Also if the MWC were able to get Gonzaga and Grand Canyon along with UNLV and UNM would be a fantastic basketball conference.

[BelgradeBobcat]

What about the possibility of a full merger between the MWC and the 6-Pac? I think right now there's a lot of waiting and seeing and the very faint hope that Cal and Stanford come back (I think there's zero chance but you never know). With the new editions, Washington State and Oregon State will be outvoted and the other four should have no problem accepting their old mates back in the fold.

[Montanabob]

What about the possibility of a full merger between the MWC and the 6-Pac? I think right now there's a lot of waiting and seeing and the very faint hope that Cal and Stanford come back (I think there's zero chance but you never know). With the new editions, Washington State and Oregon State will be outvoted and the other four should have no problem accepting their old mates back in the fold.

0 chance

[Cataholic]

The Realignment Options from the Pac-6 and Mountain West Perspective.

Everyone knows the latest news from the Pac-2 may have massive consequences on the Western FBS and FCS football conferences. I know there is already a long post on Bobcat Nation (which I only perused a few of the comments) with speculations about the options and what people think about moving up and budgets and past history, etc. I have limited inside knowledge (meaning none) and am not a football conference realignment guru (I think no such person exists). However, I think there are only a limited number of rational options. But I am driving to Denver (actually my wife is driving) for vacation and I was bored so I wanted to provide a list of the most plausible options laid out with the pros and cons from the Pac-6 and MWC perspectives. I am not looking at it from any other team's point of view or whether FCS teams have the money to make the move or which teams might even accept an invite if offered. So choose what you think the Pac-6 and MWC will do.

Pac – 6 (or is it the Pac-2 still?) options to acquire two more members

Option 1: Take two more teams from the Mountain West
This option seems like the easiest path to success and one that marginally successful MWC teams might be open to. At this point, the Mountain West is at risk of surviving. Teams such as Nevada, UNLV and San Jose State are likely already making overtures to the Pac-6 to join the current MWC defectors.
• Pros: Easy to do; same geography; familiarity; simple scheduling
• Cons: Already skipped over them; not particularly good teams; Other than UNLV not large TV markets not already covered.
• Likeliness: Seems like one of two more likely options.

Option 2: Take two FBS teams from Conference USA
The Conference USA has teams closer to the geography of the Pac 6. Not an exact match but close. Specifically, the most likely choices are UTEP and New Mexico State. Other options include Sam Houston and Louisiana Tech. But….
• Pros: Geographic proximity; Already FBS, Some scheduling synergy.
• Cons: All of the teams close in geography are basically terrible teams or new to the FBS. They would not be a positive addition to the Pac-6 and would drag down the conference. It would make the low chances the Pac-8 would be awarded Power 5 standing even less likely.
• Odds: Probably equal to option 1.

Option 3: Steal two FBS teams from another Group of 5 Conference
Outside of Conference USA, there are three Group of 5 conferences: Sun Belt; MAC; and American Athletic Conference. But let’s be honest here, The MAC is a pathetic example of an FBS conference. The teams frequently lose to FCS teams (even Kent State losing to St Francis last week) and are not even as good as the MVFC or the Big Sky. There is no chance the Pac-6 would take any teams from the MAC. The Sun Belt is simply too far away in all likelihood. That leaves AAC teams like Rice, North Texas, or Tulsa as options. Are any of these teams really any better for the new Pac-8 than is UTEP or New Mexico State?
• Pros: Can cherry pick the better teams in AAC or MAC if Pac-6 wants to go outside of the region like
• Cons: Long travel. Different Time zones. No connection to the other teams in the Pac-6. AAC has one of the best Group of 5 current TV revenue distributions.
• Odds: Honestly seems likely option if the Pac-6 wants to avoid bottom feeders but will be hard to pull in these schools.

Option 4: Upgrade two teams from FCS
Bring in NDSU or SDSU or maybe MSU and UM. How about Idaho? They took Oregon to the wire.
• Pros: Good teams that actually might be able to compete in the Pac-2/6/8.
• Cons: Too far away; Other than NDSU, not really sure any of these teams can compete regularly; FCS teams? really?
• Odds: Will not happen because the Pac-6 isn’t about to have an FCS team join them. The Pac-6 has displaced dreams that the CFP will accept the newly formed Pac-8 as a Power 5 Conference.

Option 5: Redissolve because the Pac-6 cannot find two other teams to join.
Maybe no one will accept an invitation? Maybe the Pac-6 isn’t willing to go after bottom feeders or FCS teams. Maybe they will decide that it is beneath them to accept bad teams. Maybe their potential TV contract will be so low that it makes no sense for any other teams.
• Odds: Almost zero but then we can’t say anything is out of the realm of possibilities.

Option 6: Offer a huge sum of money (from the Old Pac-12 funds held by the Pac-2) to entice two teams in the Big 12.
Is this even possible? The Pac-2 has a huge stash of money. I mean, the Big 12 has 16 teams. That is a ridiculous. Is that money that good? Yes, it is. Possible targets are BYU, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State. None of these teams belong in the Big 12 in my opinion.
• Pros: Pulls some high quality Big 12 teams into the reformed Pac-8; Gives some teams in the Big 12 a realistic chance to win a conference championship which they don’t have in the Big 12 with 16 teams.
• Cons: No set TV contract; other teams might see it as a step backwards; the money is the issue.
• Odds: Will not happen

Mountain West Options for the Future

Option 1: Steal teams from Conference USA or the AAC before Pac-6 steals them
How about a preemptive strike by going after teams that might be attractive to the Pac-6? Offer them incentives to come into the Mountain West. Teams like UTEP, New Mexico State, Rice, North Texas.
• Pros: Move quickly and it helps keep the Mountain West together. Get the better FBS teams available. Geographic Proximity.
• Cons: Way too many.
• Odds: Might be a great idea but execution will be difficult. Seems highly unlikely.

Option 2: Steal teams from C-USA or AAC after Pac-6 goes to the Pac 8
This leaves MWC pulling teams from the Conference USA or AAC who are even lower on the totem pole. Likely teams like Rice or North Texas. I do not think teams from the MAC or the Sun Belt are options for the MWC.
• Pros: FBS teams; some geographic proximity. Easy to make happen.
• Cons: MWC thinks they are top of the Group of 5. Don’t want poor teams added to what is now already a sub par conference. Not a good financial decision for anyone.
• Odds: Fairly high. I think most likely choice

Option 3: Offer invites to Top 4 FCS teams in the region
This is Sam Herder’s and other commentators’ thoughts. Mountain West decides to bring in the best from the FCS – NDSU, SDSU, MSU and UM. These teams would be more competitive than say New Mexico or UTEP. These teams have the basic financial prowess. They have a deep fan base, one that is superior to many of the Mountain West teams.
• Pros: Strong teams; great fan bases; geographic proximity; will be competitive.
• Cons: The Mountain West sees themselves as the best of the Group of Five and they don’t need to add FCS teams (Even though Nevada and Boise State were once in the Big Sky as FCS teams). The TV markets of these teams are small, which reduces the ability to negotiate a strong TV contract which seems to be the driving force.
• Odds: Maybe the third most likely option but not the first choice. Simply too many hurdles.

Option 4: Offer a bid to only 2 of top FCS teams
Variation where only NDSU and SDSU get invites.
• Pros: Pulling the best of the FCS. Lessens the risk of too many FCS teams at one time
• Cons: Same as above
• Odds: If option 3 is not attractive to the MWC, then this option really provides no benefits. I don’t see it happening.

Option 5: Offer a bid to larger TV market FCS teams in the region.
Take teams like UC Davis or Sac State. They are already in large TV markets. These teams are typically competitive in the Big Sky. Fits the footprint of San Jose State and covers the loss of Fresno State.
• Pros: Large TV markets; good FCS teams
• Cons: FCS teams; not the best FCS teams; Some repetition in TV markets; Poor fan bases. These teams are going to have to stretch to produce $5 million to jump to FBS.
• Odds: It seems to make no sense so that makes it maybe the more attractive option.

Option 6: Hold their Cards
The Mountain West might simply decide to hold for a year or two at 8 teams. They don’t have to do anything immediately and they can evaluate the marketplace.
• Pros: Wait for things to shake out. See what other teams do so the MWC doesn’t make a huge mistake.
• Cons: This is the decision they initially took when they thought they held all the power over the PAC-2. The Mountain West looked firm in its commitment to each other. Then suddenly four of the MWC teams break from the pack. This was totally unexpected. So, the remaining teams in the MWC might think they need to move on from the MWC or else they will end up like Oregon State and Washington did this year. Doing nothing is what the Pac-12 did and the result is obvious.
• Odds: Nope

Of course, I have no crystal ball and frankly, few saw this coming. Seems to me the most likely scenarios for A) the Pac-6 takes Option 2 or 3 - poaches two other FBS teams from Conference USA or AAC and B) The Mountain West will be forced to add at least 2 teams and maybe four. They will be scraping the bottom of the FBS so their choices will be limited but seems like sticking with current FBS teams will be the route they will choose because it just isn't in their blood to move up lowly FCS teams and their are huge money, logistic and integration issues.

What options do you think will be chosen by the Pac-6 and the MWC from their perspective?

Appreciate the write up. I am sure it took a lot of time!

As for the PAC 6, I think Option 1 probably has a 95% chance of happening. The remaining 5% is spread among the other options. Not sure if you mapped out the miles of the Pac6 in relation to NM State and UTEP, but they seem like a really far trip to Pullman or Corvallis. I am thinking the Pac will poach UNLV, Nevada and possibly San Jose State for TV market.

As for the Mountain West, I just can’t see any real desire to add anyone except the following: MSU, UM, NDSU, SDSU, New Mexico State and UTEP. TV markets are a big deal and that hurts the FCS teams appeal, but former FCS schools had lower TV markets with similar school size. That group includes Marshal, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Sam Houston State, etc.

[Cataholic]

What about the possibility of a full merger between the MWC and the 6-Pac? I think right now there's a lot of waiting and seeing and the very faint hope that Cal and Stanford come back (I think there's zero chance but you never know). With the new editions, Washington State and Oregon State will be outvoted and the other four should have no problem accepting their old mates back in the fold.

It is my understanding that those discussions have already taken place and failed.

[technoCat]

The Realignment Options from the Pac-6 and Mountain West Perspective.

Everyone knows the latest news from the Pac-2 may have massive consequences on the Western FBS and FCS football conferences. I know there is already a long post on Bobcat Nation (which I only perused a few of the comments) with speculations about the options and what people think about moving up and budgets and past history, etc. I have limited inside knowledge (meaning none) and am not a football conference realignment guru (I think no such person exists). However, I think there are only a limited number of rational options. But I am driving to Denver (actually my wife is driving) for vacation and I was bored so I wanted to provide a list of the most plausible options laid out with the pros and cons from the Pac-6 and MWC perspectives. I am not looking at it from any other team's point of view or whether FCS teams have the money to make the move or which teams might even accept an invite if offered. So choose what you think the Pac-6 and MWC will do.

Pac – 6 (or is it the Pac-2 still?) options to acquire two more members

Option 1: Take two more teams from the Mountain West
This option seems like the easiest path to success and one that marginally successful MWC teams might be open to. At this point, the Mountain West is at risk of surviving. Teams such as Nevada, UNLV and San Jose State are likely already making overtures to the Pac-6 to join the current MWC defectors.
• Pros: Easy to do; same geography; familiarity; simple scheduling
• Cons: Already skipped over them; not particularly good teams; Other than UNLV not large TV markets not already covered.
• Likeliness: Seems like one of two more likely options.

Option 2: Take two FBS teams from Conference USA
The Conference USA has teams closer to the geography of the Pac 6. Not an exact match but close. Specifically, the most likely choices are UTEP and New Mexico State. Other options include Sam Houston and Louisiana Tech. But….
• Pros: Geographic proximity; Already FBS, Some scheduling synergy.
• Cons: All of the teams close in geography are basically terrible teams or new to the FBS. They would not be a positive addition to the Pac-6 and would drag down the conference. It would make the low chances the Pac-8 would be awarded Power 5 standing even less likely.
• Odds: Probably equal to option 1.

Option 3: Steal two FBS teams from another Group of 5 Conference
Outside of Conference USA, there are three Group of 5 conferences: Sun Belt; MAC; and American Athletic Conference. But let’s be honest here, The MAC is a pathetic example of an FBS conference. The teams frequently lose to FCS teams (even Kent State losing to St Francis last week) and are not even as good as the MVFC or the Big Sky. There is no chance the Pac-6 would take any teams from the MAC. The Sun Belt is simply too far away in all likelihood. That leaves AAC teams like Rice, North Texas, or Tulsa as options. Are any of these teams really any better for the new Pac-8 than is UTEP or New Mexico State?
• Pros: Can cherry pick the better teams in AAC or MAC if Pac-6 wants to go outside of the region like
• Cons: Long travel. Different Time zones. No connection to the other teams in the Pac-6. AAC has one of the best Group of 5 current TV revenue distributions.
• Odds: Honestly seems likely option if the Pac-6 wants to avoid bottom feeders but will be hard to pull in these schools.

Option 4: Upgrade two teams from FCS
Bring in NDSU or SDSU or maybe MSU and UM. How about Idaho? They took Oregon to the wire.
• Pros: Good teams that actually might be able to compete in the Pac-2/6/8.
• Cons: Too far away; Other than NDSU, not really sure any of these teams can compete regularly; FCS teams? really?
• Odds: Will not happen because the Pac-6 isn’t about to have an FCS team join them. The Pac-6 has displaced dreams that the CFP will accept the newly formed Pac-8 as a Power 5 Conference.

Option 5: Redissolve because the Pac-6 cannot find two other teams to join.
Maybe no one will accept an invitation? Maybe the Pac-6 isn’t willing to go after bottom feeders or FCS teams. Maybe they will decide that it is beneath them to accept bad teams. Maybe their potential TV contract will be so low that it makes no sense for any other teams.
• Odds: Almost zero but then we can’t say anything is out of the realm of possibilities.

Option 6: Offer a huge sum of money (from the Old Pac-12 funds held by the Pac-2) to entice two teams in the Big 12.
Is this even possible? The Pac-2 has a huge stash of money. I mean, the Big 12 has 16 teams. That is a ridiculous. Is that money that good? Yes, it is. Possible targets are BYU, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State. None of these teams belong in the Big 12 in my opinion.
• Pros: Pulls some high quality Big 12 teams into the reformed Pac-8; Gives some teams in the Big 12 a realistic chance to win a conference championship which they don’t have in the Big 12 with 16 teams.
• Cons: No set TV contract; other teams might see it as a step backwards; the money is the issue.
• Odds: Will not happen

Mountain West Options for the Future

Option 1: Steal teams from Conference USA or the AAC before Pac-6 steals them
How about a preemptive strike by going after teams that might be attractive to the Pac-6? Offer them incentives to come into the Mountain West. Teams like UTEP, New Mexico State, Rice, North Texas.
• Pros: Move quickly and it helps keep the Mountain West together. Get the better FBS teams available. Geographic Proximity.
• Cons: Way too many.
• Odds: Might be a great idea but execution will be difficult. Seems highly unlikely.

Option 2: Steal teams from C-USA or AAC after Pac-6 goes to the Pac 8
This leaves MWC pulling teams from the Conference USA or AAC who are even lower on the totem pole. Likely teams like Rice or North Texas. I do not think teams from the MAC or the Sun Belt are options for the MWC.
• Pros: FBS teams; some geographic proximity. Easy to make happen.
• Cons: MWC thinks they are top of the Group of 5. Don’t want poor teams added to what is now already a sub par conference. Not a good financial decision for anyone.
• Odds: Fairly high. I think most likely choice

Option 3: Offer invites to Top 4 FCS teams in the region
This is Sam Herder’s and other commentators’ thoughts. Mountain West decides to bring in the best from the FCS – NDSU, SDSU, MSU and UM. These teams would be more competitive than say New Mexico or UTEP. These teams have the basic financial prowess. They have a deep fan base, one that is superior to many of the Mountain West teams.
• Pros: Strong teams; great fan bases; geographic proximity; will be competitive.
• Cons: The Mountain West sees themselves as the best of the Group of Five and they don’t need to add FCS teams (Even though Nevada and Boise State were once in the Big Sky as FCS teams). The TV markets of these teams are small, which reduces the ability to negotiate a strong TV contract which seems to be the driving force.
• Odds: Maybe the third most likely option but not the first choice. Simply too many hurdles.

Option 4: Offer a bid to only 2 of top FCS teams
Variation where only NDSU and SDSU get invites.
• Pros: Pulling the best of the FCS. Lessens the risk of too many FCS teams at one time
• Cons: Same as above
• Odds: If option 3 is not attractive to the MWC, then this option really provides no benefits. I don’t see it happening.

Option 5: Offer a bid to larger TV market FCS teams in the region.
Take teams like UC Davis or Sac State. They are already in large TV markets. These teams are typically competitive in the Big Sky. Fits the footprint of San Jose State and covers the loss of Fresno State.
• Pros: Large TV markets; good FCS teams
• Cons: FCS teams; not the best FCS teams; Some repetition in TV markets; Poor fan bases. These teams are going to have to stretch to produce $5 million to jump to FBS.
• Odds: It seems to make no sense so that makes it maybe the more attractive option.

Option 6: Hold their Cards
The Mountain West might simply decide to hold for a year or two at 8 teams. They don’t have to do anything immediately and they can evaluate the marketplace.
• Pros: Wait for things to shake out. See what other teams do so the MWC doesn’t make a huge mistake.
• Cons: This is the decision they initially took when they thought they held all the power over the PAC-2. The Mountain West looked firm in its commitment to each other. Then suddenly four of the MWC teams break from the pack. This was totally unexpected. So, the remaining teams in the MWC might think they need to move on from the MWC or else they will end up like Oregon State and Washington did this year. Doing nothing is what the Pac-12 did and the result is obvious.
• Odds: Nope

Of course, I have no crystal ball and frankly, few saw this coming. Seems to me the most likely scenarios for A) the Pac-6 takes Option 2 or 3 - poaches two other FBS teams from Conference USA or AAC and B) The Mountain West will be forced to add at least 2 teams and maybe four. They will be scraping the bottom of the FBS so their choices will be limited but seems like sticking with current FBS teams will be the route they will choose because it just isn't in their blood to move up lowly FCS teams and their are huge money, logistic and integration issues.

What options do you think will be chosen by the Pac-6 and the MWC from their perspective?

Appreciate the write up. I am sure it took a lot of time!

As for the PAC 6, I think Option 1 probably has a 95% chance of happening. The remaining 5% is spread among the other options. Not sure if you mapped out the miles of the Pac6 in relation to NM State and UTEP, but they seem like a really far trip to Pullman or Corvallis. I am thinking the Pac will poach UNLV, Nevada and possibly San Jose State for TV market.

As for the Mountain West, I just can’t see any real desire to add anyone except the following: MSU, UM, NDSU, SDSU, New Mexico State and UTEP. TV markets are a big deal and that hurts the FCS teams appeal, but former FCS schools had lower TV markets with similar school size. That group includes Marshal, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Sam Houston State, etc.

I wonder what exactly the expected viewership of "the big 4" looks like against other teams considering the lack of competition. We might be a smaller pond than UNLV but we're not competing with the Raiders for instance.

[BelgradeBobcat]

I always find this map interesting. We're within a great big empty when comes to FBS football...which is really good for the FCS programs in the empty.

[BobCatFan]

The big Sky will lose two teams. Sac State and IC Davies. They have the population and tv audience size.

[Cataholic]

The big Sky will lose two teams. Sac State and IC Davies. They have the population and tv audience size.

Just curious, but have you ever visited either stadium? And do you really think more people are watching either team on TV in those areas? Especially when a nearby Stanford, San Jose State, Fresno or Cal is playing? I am guessing our Montana ratings are actually higher than either schools games.

[Cataholic]

The Realignment Options from the Pac-6 and Mountain West Perspective.

Everyone knows the latest news from the Pac-2 may have massive consequences on the Western FBS and FCS football conferences. I know there is already a long post on Bobcat Nation (which I only perused a few of the comments) with speculations about the options and what people think about moving up and budgets and past history, etc. I have limited inside knowledge (meaning none) and am not a football conference realignment guru (I think no such person exists). However, I think there are only a limited number of rational options. But I am driving to Denver (actually my wife is driving) for vacation and I was bored so I wanted to provide a list of the most plausible options laid out with the pros and cons from the Pac-6 and MWC perspectives. I am not looking at it from any other team's point of view or whether FCS teams have the money to make the move or which teams might even accept an invite if offered. So choose what you think the Pac-6 and MWC will do.

Pac – 6 (or is it the Pac-2 still?) options to acquire two more members

Option 1: Take two more teams from the Mountain West
This option seems like the easiest path to success and one that marginally successful MWC teams might be open to. At this point, the Mountain West is at risk of surviving. Teams such as Nevada, UNLV and San Jose State are likely already making overtures to the Pac-6 to join the current MWC defectors.
• Pros: Easy to do; same geography; familiarity; simple scheduling
• Cons: Already skipped over them; not particularly good teams; Other than UNLV not large TV markets not already covered.
• Likeliness: Seems like one of two more likely options.

Option 2: Take two FBS teams from Conference USA
The Conference USA has teams closer to the geography of the Pac 6. Not an exact match but close. Specifically, the most likely choices are UTEP and New Mexico State. Other options include Sam Houston and Louisiana Tech. But….
• Pros: Geographic proximity; Already FBS, Some scheduling synergy.
• Cons: All of the teams close in geography are basically terrible teams or new to the FBS. They would not be a positive addition to the Pac-6 and would drag down the conference. It would make the low chances the Pac-8 would be awarded Power 5 standing even less likely.
• Odds: Probably equal to option 1.

Option 3: Steal two FBS teams from another Group of 5 Conference
Outside of Conference USA, there are three Group of 5 conferences: Sun Belt; MAC; and American Athletic Conference. But let’s be honest here, The MAC is a pathetic example of an FBS conference. The teams frequently lose to FCS teams (even Kent State losing to St Francis last week) and are not even as good as the MVFC or the Big Sky. There is no chance the Pac-6 would take any teams from the MAC. The Sun Belt is simply too far away in all likelihood. That leaves AAC teams like Rice, North Texas, or Tulsa as options. Are any of these teams really any better for the new Pac-8 than is UTEP or New Mexico State?
• Pros: Can cherry pick the better teams in AAC or MAC if Pac-6 wants to go outside of the region like
• Cons: Long travel. Different Time zones. No connection to the other teams in the Pac-6. AAC has one of the best Group of 5 current TV revenue distributions.
• Odds: Honestly seems likely option if the Pac-6 wants to avoid bottom feeders but will be hard to pull in these schools.

Option 4: Upgrade two teams from FCS
Bring in NDSU or SDSU or maybe MSU and UM. How about Idaho? They took Oregon to the wire.
• Pros: Good teams that actually might be able to compete in the Pac-2/6/8.
• Cons: Too far away; Other than NDSU, not really sure any of these teams can compete regularly; FCS teams? really?
• Odds: Will not happen because the Pac-6 isn’t about to have an FCS team join them. The Pac-6 has displaced dreams that the CFP will accept the newly formed Pac-8 as a Power 5 Conference.

Option 5: Redissolve because the Pac-6 cannot find two other teams to join.
Maybe no one will accept an invitation? Maybe the Pac-6 isn’t willing to go after bottom feeders or FCS teams. Maybe they will decide that it is beneath them to accept bad teams. Maybe their potential TV contract will be so low that it makes no sense for any other teams.
• Odds: Almost zero but then we can’t say anything is out of the realm of possibilities.

Option 6: Offer a huge sum of money (from the Old Pac-12 funds held by the Pac-2) to entice two teams in the Big 12.
Is this even possible? The Pac-2 has a huge stash of money. I mean, the Big 12 has 16 teams. That is a ridiculous. Is that money that good? Yes, it is. Possible targets are BYU, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State. None of these teams belong in the Big 12 in my opinion.
• Pros: Pulls some high quality Big 12 teams into the reformed Pac-8; Gives some teams in the Big 12 a realistic chance to win a conference championship which they don’t have in the Big 12 with 16 teams.
• Cons: No set TV contract; other teams might see it as a step backwards; the money is the issue.
• Odds: Will not happen

Mountain West Options for the Future

Option 1: Steal teams from Conference USA or the AAC before Pac-6 steals them
How about a preemptive strike by going after teams that might be attractive to the Pac-6? Offer them incentives to come into the Mountain West. Teams like UTEP, New Mexico State, Rice, North Texas.
• Pros: Move quickly and it helps keep the Mountain West together. Get the better FBS teams available. Geographic Proximity.
• Cons: Way too many.
• Odds: Might be a great idea but execution will be difficult. Seems highly unlikely.

Option 2: Steal teams from C-USA or AAC after Pac-6 goes to the Pac 8
This leaves MWC pulling teams from the Conference USA or AAC who are even lower on the totem pole. Likely teams like Rice or North Texas. I do not think teams from the MAC or the Sun Belt are options for the MWC.
• Pros: FBS teams; some geographic proximity. Easy to make happen.
• Cons: MWC thinks they are top of the Group of 5. Don’t want poor teams added to what is now already a sub par conference. Not a good financial decision for anyone.
• Odds: Fairly high. I think most likely choice

Option 3: Offer invites to Top 4 FCS teams in the region
This is Sam Herder’s and other commentators’ thoughts. Mountain West decides to bring in the best from the FCS – NDSU, SDSU, MSU and UM. These teams would be more competitive than say New Mexico or UTEP. These teams have the basic financial prowess. They have a deep fan base, one that is superior to many of the Mountain West teams.
• Pros: Strong teams; great fan bases; geographic proximity; will be competitive.
• Cons: The Mountain West sees themselves as the best of the Group of Five and they don’t need to add FCS teams (Even though Nevada and Boise State were once in the Big Sky as FCS teams). The TV markets of these teams are small, which reduces the ability to negotiate a strong TV contract which seems to be the driving force.
• Odds: Maybe the third most likely option but not the first choice. Simply too many hurdles.

Option 4: Offer a bid to only 2 of top FCS teams
Variation where only NDSU and SDSU get invites.
• Pros: Pulling the best of the FCS. Lessens the risk of too many FCS teams at one time
• Cons: Same as above
• Odds: If option 3 is not attractive to the MWC, then this option really provides no benefits. I don’t see it happening.

Option 5: Offer a bid to larger TV market FCS teams in the region.
Take teams like UC Davis or Sac State. They are already in large TV markets. These teams are typically competitive in the Big Sky. Fits the footprint of San Jose State and covers the loss of Fresno State.
• Pros: Large TV markets; good FCS teams
• Cons: FCS teams; not the best FCS teams; Some repetition in TV markets; Poor fan bases. These teams are going to have to stretch to produce $5 million to jump to FBS.
• Odds: It seems to make no sense so that makes it maybe the more attractive option.

Option 6: Hold their Cards
The Mountain West might simply decide to hold for a year or two at 8 teams. They don’t have to do anything immediately and they can evaluate the marketplace.
• Pros: Wait for things to shake out. See what other teams do so the MWC doesn’t make a huge mistake.
• Cons: This is the decision they initially took when they thought they held all the power over the PAC-2. The Mountain West looked firm in its commitment to each other. Then suddenly four of the MWC teams break from the pack. This was totally unexpected. So, the remaining teams in the MWC might think they need to move on from the MWC or else they will end up like Oregon State and Washington did this year. Doing nothing is what the Pac-12 did and the result is obvious.
• Odds: Nope

Of course, I have no crystal ball and frankly, few saw this coming. Seems to me the most likely scenarios for A) the Pac-6 takes Option 2 or 3 - poaches two other FBS teams from Conference USA or AAC and B) The Mountain West will be forced to add at least 2 teams and maybe four. They will be scraping the bottom of the FBS so their choices will be limited but seems like sticking with current FBS teams will be the route they will choose because it just isn't in their blood to move up lowly FCS teams and their are huge money, logistic and integration issues.

What options do you think will be chosen by the Pac-6 and the MWC from their perspective?

Appreciate the write up. I am sure it took a lot of time!

As for the PAC 6, I think Option 1 probably has a 95% chance of happening. The remaining 5% is spread among the other options. Not sure if you mapped out the miles of the Pac6 in relation to NM State and UTEP, but they seem like a really far trip to Pullman or Corvallis. I am thinking the Pac will poach UNLV, Nevada and possibly San Jose State for TV market.

As for the Mountain West, I just can’t see any real desire to add anyone except the following: MSU, UM, NDSU, SDSU, New Mexico State and UTEP. TV markets are a big deal and that hurts the FCS teams appeal, but former FCS schools had lower TV markets with similar school size. That group includes Marshal, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Sam Houston State, etc.

I wonder what exactly the expected viewership of "the big 4" looks like against other teams considering the lack of competition. We might be a smaller pond than UNLV but we're not competing with the Raiders for instance.

I am guessing that UM and MSU “share of the smaller pond” is greater than many FBS schools “share of a larger pond”. In other words, more interested viewers in Montana than markets like Sacramento or Las Cruces, NM.

[Catprint]

A few points regarding some comments made:

1) The realignment is happening and not because anyone at Bobcat Nation is bringing the topic to the forefront.

2) No matter the decisions made, the realignment of the MWC will affect the FCS and in particular UM and MSU. Either we get an invite or the MWC makes other decisions that lock out MSU/UM for many years. Whether we want to move up and whether it will be beneficial are simply different topics. It will have massive effects on scheduling; travel; distribution of playoff funds; TV revenue and more.

3) There is a true difference between the largest TV markets and largest football viewing markets. For example, Pocatello/Idaho Falls is the 155th largest market while Bozeman/Butte is 186th( https://mymediajobs.com/market-rankings). But does anyone who has any football realignment input (College Presidents; Athletic Directors; Conference Commissioners, etc.) think Pocatello is a better TV market for football than Butte/Bozeman. Not a chance. The problem is the difficulty in measuring football watching market sizes in the smaller markets.

4) Has anyone read or heard any evidence that Pac-6 will want to be a 10 or 12 team conference? I understand the thought but they will have their hands full with just 6 new teams. Suppose they could just go for broke and hope for the best TV contract possible.

5) MWC will be on life support if the Pac-6 poaches a couple of more teams. The TV revenue money difference between the AAC and the MWC is too large for the MWC to poach those teams. This is why option 3 (FCS teams) is a higher probability than at first glance. I do not see ANY AAC teams going to the Mountain West.

[Long Time Cat]

The first part of Your 5th point makes complete sense but I do think that NMSU and UTEP make the most sense as the place to start to backfill the MWC before they poach the FCS. They are not that great in football, but some natural rivalry exists there with each other because they’re not too far apart, and you would think between New Mexico State and the University of New Mexico there would be some rivalry. Since both schools are already FBS I would think that’s an advantage as well. El Paso has almost 700,000 people so that’s a pretty big media market. Las Cruces not really any bigger than the Gallatin Valley.

[Camo_Cat]

So, one of the things I have not really heard discussed in all the realignment/move-up talk is the fee that was instituted last year for schools moving from FCS to FBS. I believe that the NCAA increased the "move-up" fee to $5 million. Regardless of whether or not MSU or dUMb gets an invite to the Mountain West, is either school willing or capable of coming up with that kind of cash?? In this day of mass realignment, would the NCAA still require that fee, or would they waive it to protect conferences like the Pac 12, Mountain West, and Conference USA?

[technoCat]

So, one of the things I have not really heard discussed in all the realignment/move-up talk is the fee that was instituted last year for schools moving from FCS to FBS. I believe that the NCAA increased the "move-up" fee to $5 million. Regardless of whether or not MSU or dUMb gets an invite to the Mountain West, is either school willing or capable of coming up with that kind of cash?? In this day of mass realignment, would the NCAA still require that fee, or would they waive it to protect conferences like the Pac 12, Mountain West, and Conference USA?

I imagine the MWC would help pay that with the massive pile of cash they're getting from the Pac-2.

[coloradocat]

So, one of the things I have not really heard discussed in all the realignment/move-up talk is the fee that was instituted last year for schools moving from FCS to FBS. I believe that the NCAA increased the "move-up" fee to $5 million. Regardless of whether or not MSU or dUMb gets an invite to the Mountain West, is either school willing or capable of coming up with that kind of cash?? In this day of mass realignment, would the NCAA still require that fee, or would they waive it to protect conferences like the Pac 12, Mountain West, and Conference USA?

I've heard it mentioned in some articles that the MWC would cover the move up fee with the money they get from the teams jumping to the PAC. There was one article that even talked about the teams getting a signing bonus.