Both the MWC and PAC are ugly other than BSU and SDSU. I don't really get why all of this is going on. Neither conference is great.
I agree with you. I do not think either conference will get a leg up on the other, or the other Mid-Major conferences either. They will be all be viewed as Mid-Majors. None of these conferences will land huge TV deals or private equity partnerships.
Two things at play as this MWC/PAC realignment appears to be: (1) conference/partnership perception, and (2) geography. I think the $$ is a wash, maybe advantage MWC in the short-term, if they get all their Fees owed under contract. It could be Pac-12 somewhat in the long-term, if they can pull out Silicon valley money.
I sort of see the P12 coming in with Ore St. and Wash St. being (thinking they are) the "Big Hats," sort of analogous to the 1st iteration of the B-12. Initially, it sounded great with the B-12 adding Texas and the other SWC remnants, but after about 5 years of good competition, Texas, OU, and the B-12 South sort of incrementally took over the conference. The "Big Hats" moved the championship games. Longhorn Network got a special deal. Eventully, the B-12 North teams bolted with A&M even bolting the B-12 South going to the SEC. For the B-12 North, a few years in there was growing dissatisfaction--sort of an unequal partnership, where States of Texas/OK dominated.
I wonder if some of same fears were in play in the PAC offers. MWC teams that stayed may have concluded they don't need the "Big Hats" or a NoCal/NW centered conference. They were more comfortable with their known partners, reforming with closer geography in adding closer schools with exposure in Texas, and maintaining same basic partnership with the added benefit of Exit Fees. Except for CSU, they essentially keep the same identity they had in old WAC. BYU and Utah have been gone for years, but the others are sort of set. San Jose St. is the MWC team last geographical. They must have been po'd not to be appraoched by the Pac12 early on. I like the MWC adding UTEP. They can play with 7 until 2026, but they probably add 2 more school giving them a 10 team football league.
Geography can be huge. Personally, I thought the P-12N downfall (Colorado, Nebraska, Missou) was eventually the inability to recruit Texas, as they could in the Big-8. All of a sudden with the split conferences, many great lower tier Texas players (generally Texas, A&M, OKLA, and SEC got most of the Blue Chips) that CU,NEB and Missue could lure (plus compete) stayed in the Southern division. Eventually, the RG3's, Tech's players, and others 2nd Tier Texas recruits stayed in the B-12 South so their parents could watch them play 4-7 times a year. I think the MWC teams that stayed did so to keep their footprints and the one's that bolted except SDSU/CSU are betting on a NW/NoCal footprint or doing it their own way. I thought UNLV would bolt, as they could recruit So-Cal with SDSU but they wanted to stay put. With UNLV staying in the MWC, they keep the Vegas tie-in. I wonder where the PAC-12 championships will be--Silicon valley is maybe my guess.
