Football Home Game
Sat, August 30, 2025
Sat, August 30, 2025
Basketball Home Game (MyUtahTV)
Wed, February 19, 2025 @ 7:30 pm
Wed, February 19, 2025 @ 7:30 pm
Texas St. Pac 12
-
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: October 31st, 2022, 12:25 pm
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 2507 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
Yeah, in all the factors (Budgets, TV Viewership, On Field/Court Success, etc.) , Utah State was probably the third/fourth best option. If we had a President and AD hired sooner we might have been.3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 1:08 pmGeneral consensus would definitely have Utah State at the very bottom of the Defecting 5. I'm pleased to see we're not.Bullnamed_gus wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 12:46 pmScreenshot 2025-01-16 124109.png
here is all the data you need to see why leaving the rest of the MWC was a homerun
Fresno is going to quickly become an anchor if they're not careful.
Regardless, Attaching ourselves with BSU/SDSU/WSU and OSU is much better than partnering the alternative.
- These users thanked the author Bullnamed_gus for the post (total 2):
- 3rdGenAggie • ncs53
-
- Posts: 8914
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 467 times
- Been thanked: 6344 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
I will acknowledge Texas State may be the best option at this point, and if that’s what it is, we’ll all have to live with it.2004AG wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 2:48 pmBecause we are disappointed that 8th team isn’t a little higher on the rung. Like Tulane and memphis.Naked Bull Rider wrote:And you're still in a better place today than you'd be in the MWC. So why all the disappointment bro?UStater wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 1:57 pmNot a single post that you quoted says they can do better. People are just disappointed that this is the best the new Pac can draw. It's not that deep bro.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 1:10 pmI'll concede when those voicing their displeasure or lack of enthusiasm recognize that there aren't any other options and that the PAC won't even be a conference until they hit 8.UStater wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 12:42 pmFrom all the posts I am reading, no one is "pissing and moaning". Having a real conversation about the state of our future conference and stating that people had higher expectations for our new conference is exactly what a fan message board is for. From what I am reading, from both sides of the conversation, people have been really level-headed and both sides have brought up valid points. I for one am not excited at all about adding Texas St. and if you take the time to read peoples comments... it's not so much about Texas st. but more about what this add means for the state of this round of expansions.
If we didn't get the invite, we'd be in a league with Grand Canyon, Northern Illinois, and El Paso. Does that excite you?
I also think we have different definitions of pissing and moaning because these are literal quotes from this thread:
ineptimusprime wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 12:45 amThere’s not a damn thing that anyone could say that would get me excited about Texas St. They will be the proverbial turd in the punch bowl.aceofspadeskb wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 8:22 amThis actually DOES move the meter for me....the wrong direction.It's fine if you're unhappy about the situation. I'm not taking issue with that. I'm taking issue with the negativity paired with the failure (by some) to recognize that we are officially out of alternatives and that the timeline for adding more attractive programs hinges on Texas St. becoming a full time member now.Section_L_Aggie wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 10:05 amCall me crazy but my gut says this isn’t gonna happen. No way a conference that was able to pull Gonzaga does this.
We are in a better place than we were a few months ago, even with the Bobcats. We are not in a position to complain.
If you disagree with that logic, please go out and sign a better institution today. I'll pay for the lunch, the pen, and the paper you ink the deal on.
And if Texas state is the best we can do, I’d prefer to make it a really good ball conference and include Nevada New Mexico and unlv. .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let’s be clear — I would MUCH rather be in the new Pac-12 than the remaining MW with the leftovers + UTEP et al. I am simply bemoaning the fact that we could have been in a really awesome “consolidated” conference with BSU, CSU, FSU, Wazzu, OSU, UNM, Wyoming, Nevada, Gonzaga, etc. without having to pay ANY buyouts, penalties, legal fees fighting these issues, etc. If the PAC-12 hadn’t underestimated Gloria and overplayed its hand. I really think the PAC2 (and then PAC6) thought they could take any MW school at any time if they wanted to (so went shopping to the AAC schools first) and totally underestimated Gloria’s ability to weaponize the penalties and buyouts to stabilize her conference. If we hadn’t have left, the PAC-12 would have been (I can't express myself without swearing).
The only school that needed to die on the vine for this to happen was SJSU, and I’d gladly offer them as tribute because they’ve done it to themselves (AFA would find a soft landing in the AAC).
I like the rivalries we have in the MW, especially in basketball. I like getting to watch my school play conference road games in some of the best venues in college basketball like Viejas, the Pit, and even Lawlor and the Thomas & Mack. I like being associated with Western peer academic institutions with similar levels of accomplishment.
I have ZERO interest in being in a conference that spans the country with schools that mean nothing to me and that have accomplished NOTHING athletically in either major sport. Memphis and St Mary’s are the only teams I’d rather be in a conference with that are even on the board more than I’d like to have UNM, Nevada, and Wyoming back.
I hope the addition of a central time zone team like Texas State excites the TV folks a lot more than it excites me, because if we gave up the awesome rivalries we have to be in a conference with Texas State and end up with a sub $10 mil per team TV deal, we’ve lost the plot.
- These users thanked the author ineptimusprime for the post (total 5):
- Naked Bull Rider • AgTime • ProvoAggie • aggieguy13 • 2004AG
- Naked Bull Rider
- Posts: 676
- Joined: July 10th, 2015, 11:15 am
- Has thanked: 122 times
- Been thanked: 290 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
UNLV was a target and they said no. They were a bigger priority to the PAC han USU and they've since doubled-down with the Mountain West. Memphis and Tulane were also targets and said no. Likely because they know they could jump ship in 2027 for a fraction of the price, if the offer still stands.
Nevada was in all liklihood never a target, as the PAC had their sights set on UNLV. God only knows if New Mexico was considered.
The fact is, no one on this board works in the PAC offices or the athletic departments of these schools you've mentioned. You don't know how proactive or passive the PAC has been in talking to schools or if those schools could even afford to pay their buy-outs if they were invited. You just ASSUME that we could have had New Mexico or someone else in favor of Texas St.
At this point in time, it is a safe bet that the PAC has exhausted all of their options to get to 8. I'm sorry you don't like the best available option for #8, but we should count our blessings that we're not on the other side of this equation.
-
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: October 31st, 2022, 12:25 pm
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 2507 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
UNLV is still very much in play. like Memphis, they never said "No never" they said, "not right now with the current facts we have" (I understand why the AAC school said that, I have no idea why UNLV did)Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:12 pmUNLV was a target and they said no. They were a bigger priority to the PAC han USU and they've since doubled-down with the Mountain West. Memphis and Tulane were also targets and said no. Likely because they know they could jump ship in 2027 for a fraction of the price, if the offer still stands.
Nevada was in all liklihood never a target, as the PAC had their sights set on UNLV. God only knows if New Mexico was considered.
The fact is, no one on this board works in the PAC offices or the athletic departments of these schools you've mentioned. You don't know how proactive or passive the PAC has been in talking to schools or if those schools could even afford to pay their buy-outs if they were invited. You just ASSUME that we could have had New Mexico or someone else in favor of Texas St.
At this point in time, it is safe to assume the PAC has exhausted all of their options to get to 8. I'm sorry you don't like the best available option for #8, but we should count our blessings that we're not on the other side of this equation.
- These users thanked the author Bullnamed_gus for the post:
- Naked Bull Rider
- Naked Bull Rider
- Posts: 676
- Joined: July 10th, 2015, 11:15 am
- Has thanked: 122 times
- Been thanked: 290 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
There's a lot of truth to this. We will have to see how these legal challenges play out between the MWC and PAC, but I wouldn't be surprised if UNLV takes the extra money that the MWC throws their way from the departed member's penalties and uses it to fund their own buyout. That would be ideal.Bullnamed_gus wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:15 pmUNLV is still very much in play. like Memphis, they never said "No never" they said, "not right now with the current facts we have" (I understand why the AAC school said that, I have no idea why UNLV did)Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:12 pmUNLV was a target and they said no. They were a bigger priority to the PAC han USU and they've since doubled-down with the Mountain West. Memphis and Tulane were also targets and said no. Likely because they know they could jump ship in 2027 for a fraction of the price, if the offer still stands.
Nevada was in all liklihood never a target, as the PAC had their sights set on UNLV. God only knows if New Mexico was considered.
The fact is, no one on this board works in the PAC offices or the athletic departments of these schools you've mentioned. You don't know how proactive or passive the PAC has been in talking to schools or if those schools could even afford to pay their buy-outs if they were invited. You just ASSUME that we could have had New Mexico or someone else in favor of Texas St.
At this point in time, it is safe to assume the PAC has exhausted all of their options to get to 8. I'm sorry you don't like the best available option for #8, but we should count our blessings that we're not on the other side of this equation.
I also want to go on record stating that my preferred vision aligns with nearly everyone else. I would have preferred the reverse merger or even some combination that left out SJSU and Hawaii. Egos from both conference offices couldn't allow the most logical solution to unfold, so now we are in a pissing contest hoping to draw talent from places as far away as South Florida. I much prefer the regional makeup and wish cooler heads would've prevailed.
Now that we're in the situation we are in, I'm at least happy we find ourselves in a league with Wazzu, Oregon St., Boise St., SDSU, Colorado St., Fresno St., Gonzaga, and Texas St. It is so much better than a leftovers MWC + Northern Illisnois, Grand Canyon, and UTEP.
-
- Posts: 8914
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 467 times
- Been thanked: 6344 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
Honest question, have you looked at Texas State's athletic history? If not wanting a team that's played in two bowl games in its entire history and hasn't played in the NCAA tournament since 1997 (with two all-time appearances) is me "big timing," then fine. I'm big timing. I don't think they've accomplished enough on the field of play in either major sport to be associated with any of the other Pac-12 members. Shoot me. We have played in 17 bowl games and 24 NCAA tournaments (qualified for 25). And we aren't even the most decorated Pac-12 school.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 11:01 am
To those Aggie fans out there beating their chests and trying to "big time" other programs when it comes to expansion hypotheticals, kindly remind yourself that no one wanted us. We've been competitive enought in the revenue sports, but we weren't top of anyone's list.
Texas State is a school that sounds great in theory -- and then when you look under the hood? WOOF.
I get it, they are cheap, a warm body, solve a problem, and may, sadly, be the best available option when their "potential" is considered. Like you, I am much happier to be where we are than where we could have been, but the whole (I can't express myself without swearing) that people have is that it never had to be this way. Yes, we are crying over the spilled milk. But that's what message board are for.
- These users thanked the author ineptimusprime for the post (total 4):
- gomretat • Naked Bull Rider • UStater • 2004AG
- Naked Bull Rider
- Posts: 676
- Joined: July 10th, 2015, 11:15 am
- Has thanked: 122 times
- Been thanked: 290 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
Fair question, indeed.ineptimusprime wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:22 pmHonest question, have you looked at Texas State's athletic history? If not wanting a team that's played in two bowl games in its entire history and hasn't played in the NCAA tournament since 1997 is me "big timing," then fine. I'm big timing. I don't think they've accomplished enough on the field of play in either major sport to be associated with any of the other Pac-12 members. Shoot me.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 11:01 am
To those Aggie fans out there beating their chests and trying to "big time" other programs when it comes to expansion hypotheticals, kindly remind yourself that no one wanted us. We've been competitive enought in the revenue sports, but we weren't top of anyone's list.
Texas State is a school that sounds great in theory -- and then when you look under the hood? WOOF.
They have only been FBS since 2012. The two bowl games you mentioned were 2023 and 2024 and they won both. They are trending in the right direction and if the PAC makes them commit to a high level spending requirement like they are holding the rest of us to, then facilities / coaching hires / and hopefully W/L records should also improve.
By comparison, UTSA has also only been FBS since 2012. They had quicker success on the football field and became a media darling during the AAC's latest expansion, but I'll give you a few reasons why I think Texas State has a bigger upside than UTSA:
1. Texas State has a much higher endowment (approximately 30% more)
2. Texas State has a bigger student body
3. Texas State is sandwiched between two large media markets
4. Texas State has a nice stadium located on their beautiful campus
Number 4 is probably not that relevant, but I traveled to watch Utah State play UTSA in the Alamodome during our final year in the WAC, and it was sad. The tailgate was weak and there were no students there cheering on the Roadrunners, likely because they play football 20 miles away from their campus.
- These users thanked the author Naked Bull Rider for the post (total 2):
- AggieFBObsession • Full
-
- Posts: 8914
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 467 times
- Been thanked: 6344 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
Yes, they have "potential" and they are in Texas. These are the selling points. I just don't really buy the first (especially in basketball) and don't care about the second because I am not a TV executive. I value regionality and strong basketball. Because we will ALWAYS be a football have not. I don't like UTSA either.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:34 pmFair question, indeed.ineptimusprime wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:22 pmHonest question, have you looked at Texas State's athletic history? If not wanting a team that's played in two bowl games in its entire history and hasn't played in the NCAA tournament since 1997 is me "big timing," then fine. I'm big timing. I don't think they've accomplished enough on the field of play in either major sport to be associated with any of the other Pac-12 members. Shoot me.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 11:01 am
To those Aggie fans out there beating their chests and trying to "big time" other programs when it comes to expansion hypotheticals, kindly remind yourself that no one wanted us. We've been competitive enought in the revenue sports, but we weren't top of anyone's list.
Texas State is a school that sounds great in theory -- and then when you look under the hood? WOOF.
They have only been FBS since 2012. The two bowl games you mentioned were 2023 and 2024 and they won both. They are trending in the right direction and if the PAC makes them commit to a high level spending requirement like they are holding the rest of us to, then facilities / coaching hires / and hopefully W/L records should also improve.
By comparison, UTSA has also only been FBS since 2012. They had quicker success on the football field and became a media darling during the AAC's latest expansion, but I'll give you a few reasons why I think Texas State has a bigger upside than UTSA:
1. Texas State has a much higher endowment (approximately 30% more)
2. Texas State has a bigger student body
3. Texas State is sandwiched between two large media markets
4. Texas State has a nice stadium located on their beautiful campus
Number 4 is probably not that relevant, but I traveled to watch Utah State play UTSA in the Alamodome during our final year in the WAC, and it was sad. The tailgate was weak and there were no students there cheering on the Roadrunners, likely because they play football 20 miles away from their campus.
If I were in charge, the teams under consideration that I consider somewhat realistic would be, in something like this order: Memphis, UNM, Nevada, UNLV, UNT, St. Mary's, Wichita St., Wyoming. No other realistic options do anything for me. If we're desperate and the MW teams are a dead letter, I'd ask WSU and OSU to use some of the $50 million dollars they just got from the Rose Bowl to help UNT with the buyout and then add UNT for all sports, St. Mary's for olympics, and then monitor the landscape and try to further pillage the AAC later when buyouts dip. Texas State is just Wazzu and OSU cheaping out on rebuilding their conference.
The fact that we are potentially going with the bargain option (and Wazzu and OSU are hoarding their newfound sheckles) suggests to me that the TV deal is going to be a disappointment. If there were signs that deal was going to pay even $15 million per school, I don't think we'd be bargain shopping for Texas State. I am beginning to worry it'll be $10 million or less per school.
-
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: October 31st, 2022, 12:25 pm
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 2507 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
Just so you are aware, the 50m rosebowl money was already calculated in their "war chest" so that money isnt "new" or anything.ineptimusprime wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:36 pmYes, they have "potential" and they are in Texas. These are the selling points. I just don't really buy the first (especially in basketball) and don't care about the second because I am not a TV executive. I value regionality and strong basketball. Because we will ALWAYS be a football have not. I don't like UTSA either.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:34 pmFair question, indeed.ineptimusprime wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:22 pmHonest question, have you looked at Texas State's athletic history? If not wanting a team that's played in two bowl games in its entire history and hasn't played in the NCAA tournament since 1997 is me "big timing," then fine. I'm big timing. I don't think they've accomplished enough on the field of play in either major sport to be associated with any of the other Pac-12 members. Shoot me.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 11:01 am
To those Aggie fans out there beating their chests and trying to "big time" other programs when it comes to expansion hypotheticals, kindly remind yourself that no one wanted us. We've been competitive enought in the revenue sports, but we weren't top of anyone's list.
Texas State is a school that sounds great in theory -- and then when you look under the hood? WOOF.
They have only been FBS since 2012. The two bowl games you mentioned were 2023 and 2024 and they won both. They are trending in the right direction and if the PAC makes them commit to a high level spending requirement like they are holding the rest of us to, then facilities / coaching hires / and hopefully W/L records should also improve.
By comparison, UTSA has also only been FBS since 2012. They had quicker success on the football field and became a media darling during the AAC's latest expansion, but I'll give you a few reasons why I think Texas State has a bigger upside than UTSA:
1. Texas State has a much higher endowment (approximately 30% more)
2. Texas State has a bigger student body
3. Texas State is sandwiched between two large media markets
4. Texas State has a nice stadium located on their beautiful campus
Number 4 is probably not that relevant, but I traveled to watch Utah State play UTSA in the Alamodome during our final year in the WAC, and it was sad. The tailgate was weak and there were no students there cheering on the Roadrunners, likely because they play football 20 miles away from their campus.
If I were in charge, the teams under consideration that I consider somewhat realistic would be, in something like this order: Memphis, UNM, Nevada, UNLV, UNT, St. Mary's, Wichita St., Wyoming. No other realistic options do anything for me. If we're desperate and the MW teams are a dead letter, I'd ask WSU and OSU to use some of the $50 million dollars they just got from the Rose Bowl to help UNT with the buyout and then add UNT for all sports, St. Mary's for olympics, and then monitor the landscape and try to further pillage the AAC later when buyouts dip. Texas State is just Wazzu and OSU cheaping out on rebuilding their conference.
The fact that we are potentially going with the bargain option (and Wazzu and OSU are hoarding their newfound sheckles) suggests to me that the TV deal is going to be a disappointment. If there were signs that deal was going to pay even $15 million per school, I don't think we'd be bargain shopping for Texas State. I am beginning to worry it'll be $10 million or less per school.
- Naked Bull Rider
- Posts: 676
- Joined: July 10th, 2015, 11:15 am
- Has thanked: 122 times
- Been thanked: 290 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
I get it. I also value regionality. I don't want to be in a conference with schools in Florida, Tennessee, and Louisiana. I also know it's hard when we've been having great basketball teams and appreciate being in a league with other historically great basketball programs like UNLV, Nevada, and UNM.ineptimusprime wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:36 pmYes, they have "potential" and they are in Texas. These are the selling points. I just don't really buy the first (especially in basketball) and don't care about the second because I am not a TV executive. I value regionality and strong basketball. Because we will ALWAYS be a football have not. I don't like UTSA either.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:34 pmFair question, indeed.ineptimusprime wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:22 pmHonest question, have you looked at Texas State's athletic history? If not wanting a team that's played in two bowl games in its entire history and hasn't played in the NCAA tournament since 1997 is me "big timing," then fine. I'm big timing. I don't think they've accomplished enough on the field of play in either major sport to be associated with any of the other Pac-12 members. Shoot me.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 11:01 am
To those Aggie fans out there beating their chests and trying to "big time" other programs when it comes to expansion hypotheticals, kindly remind yourself that no one wanted us. We've been competitive enought in the revenue sports, but we weren't top of anyone's list.
Texas State is a school that sounds great in theory -- and then when you look under the hood? WOOF.
They have only been FBS since 2012. The two bowl games you mentioned were 2023 and 2024 and they won both. They are trending in the right direction and if the PAC makes them commit to a high level spending requirement like they are holding the rest of us to, then facilities / coaching hires / and hopefully W/L records should also improve.
By comparison, UTSA has also only been FBS since 2012. They had quicker success on the football field and became a media darling during the AAC's latest expansion, but I'll give you a few reasons why I think Texas State has a bigger upside than UTSA:
1. Texas State has a much higher endowment (approximately 30% more)
2. Texas State has a bigger student body
3. Texas State is sandwiched between two large media markets
4. Texas State has a nice stadium located on their beautiful campus
Number 4 is probably not that relevant, but I traveled to watch Utah State play UTSA in the Alamodome during our final year in the WAC, and it was sad. The tailgate was weak and there were no students there cheering on the Roadrunners, likely because they play football 20 miles away from their campus.
If I were in charge, the teams under consideration that I consider somewhat realistic would be, in something like this order: Memphis, UNM, Nevada, UNLV, UNT, St. Mary's, Wichita St., Wyoming. No other realistic options do anything for me. If we're desperate and the MW teams are a dead letter, I'd ask WSU and OSU to use some of the $50 million dollars they just got from the Rose Bowl to help UNT with the buyout and then add UNT for all sports, St. Mary's for olympics, and then monitor the landscape and try to pillage the AAC later.
The problem is that while basketball is fun, it doesn't drive the revenue. Football broadcasting rights are the money maker.
If the folks at the PAC offices think that they can negotiate a better media deal by having a footprint in Texas, then so be it.
I also don't understand why the so-called "war chest" that Wazzu and OSU allegedly have isn't being used to help offset buyout fees, but based on Diana's interviews it sounds like everyone is paying their own way. If they foot the bill for tens of millions just to add Memphis, they'd have a mutiny on their hands with all the MWC defectors. There's also the chance that Memphis probably still wouldn't join as the 8th, even if they didn't have to spend a dime, if they aren't coming with a travel partner. The PAC has shown that they aren't willing to pony up the dough to buyout one AAC team, let alone two.
- These users thanked the author Naked Bull Rider for the post:
- AggieFBObsession
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
One reason OSU and WSU are probably not sharing the war chest is because they cannot afford to. They are so far in debt that they need to turn over every cushion they can scrounging for all the nickels and dimes they can find.
- These users thanked the author bwcrc for the post (total 3):
- Naked Bull Rider • aggies22 • CacheCow
- ProvoAggie
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15461
- Joined: June 14th, 2010, 1:00 am
- Location: Provo, Utah
- Has thanked: 1662 times
- Been thanked: 3634 times
- Contact:
- 2004AG
- Posts: 13451
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
- Has thanked: 1025 times
- Been thanked: 1898 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
^^^^^^^^^Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:12 pmUNLV was a target and they said no. They were a bigger priority to the PAC han USU and they've since doubled-down with the Mountain West. Memphis and Tulane were also targets and said no. Likely because they know they could jump ship in 2027 for a fraction of the price, if the offer still stands.
Nevada was in all liklihood never a target, as the PAC had their sights set on UNLV. God only knows if New Mexico was considered.
The fact is, no one on this board works in the PAC offices or the athletic departments of these schools you've mentioned. You don't know how proactive or passive the PAC has been in talking to schools or if those schools could even afford to pay their buy-outs if they were invited. You just ASSUME that we could have had New Mexico or someone else in favor of Texas St.
At this point in time, it is a safe bet that the PAC has exhausted all of their options to get to 8. I'm sorry you don't like the best available option for #8, but we should count our blessings that we're not on the other side of this equation.
Basically what Prime said above.
Don't get me wrong. I'd much rather be in our situation that one of the teams left in the MW. I'm counting our blessings. It is what it is. Just a little bummed we couldn't upgrade more than Texas State, but if that's the best we can do, so be it. Oh well. Even the SEC has Vanderbilt.
I guess in hindsight, the Pac X should have crippled the MW to the point UNLV, New Mexico and Nevada had no choice but to come. (Air Force to AAC).
Assuming and desktop-QB'ing is basically is why a message board exists. So yeah, we are all speculating and assuming based on bits of pieces we are able to glean.
- These users thanked the author 2004AG for the post:
- Naked Bull Rider
- 2004AG
- Posts: 13451
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
- Has thanked: 1025 times
- Been thanked: 1898 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
Right. I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore. We all wish the #8 team was better than Texas State, and we all are grateful we are in our current spot than the alternative. Both things can be true at once.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:22 pmThere's a lot of truth to this. We will have to see how these legal challenges play out between the MWC and PAC, but I wouldn't be surprised if UNLV takes the extra money that the MWC throws their way from the departed member's penalties and uses it to fund their own buyout. That would be ideal.Bullnamed_gus wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:15 pmUNLV is still very much in play. like Memphis, they never said "No never" they said, "not right now with the current facts we have" (I understand why the AAC school said that, I have no idea why UNLV did)Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:12 pmUNLV was a target and they said no. They were a bigger priority to the PAC han USU and they've since doubled-down with the Mountain West. Memphis and Tulane were also targets and said no. Likely because they know they could jump ship in 2027 for a fraction of the price, if the offer still stands.
Nevada was in all liklihood never a target, as the PAC had their sights set on UNLV. God only knows if New Mexico was considered.
The fact is, no one on this board works in the PAC offices or the athletic departments of these schools you've mentioned. You don't know how proactive or passive the PAC has been in talking to schools or if those schools could even afford to pay their buy-outs if they were invited. You just ASSUME that we could have had New Mexico or someone else in favor of Texas St.
At this point in time, it is safe to assume the PAC has exhausted all of their options to get to 8. I'm sorry you don't like the best available option for #8, but we should count our blessings that we're not on the other side of this equation.
I also want to go on record stating that my preferred vision aligns with nearly everyone else. I would have preferred the reverse merger or even some combination that left out SJSU and Hawaii. Egos from both conference offices couldn't allow the most logical solution to unfold, so now we are in a pissing contest hoping to draw talent from places as far away as South Florida. I much prefer the regional makeup and wish cooler heads would've prevailed.
Now that we're in the situation we are in, I'm at least happy we find ourselves in a league with Wazzu, Oregon St., Boise St., SDSU, Colorado St., Fresno St., Gonzaga, and Texas St. It is so much better than a leftovers MWC + Northern Illisnois, Grand Canyon, and UTEP.
- These users thanked the author 2004AG for the post:
- Naked Bull Rider
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
48 nowProvoAggie wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 7:22 pmThat guy that has like 47 followers that everyone keeps retweeting?
-
- Posts: 16538
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1481 times
- Been thanked: 2967 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
How can people be upset with an overall conference with Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, Gonzaga, Oregon State, San Diego State, Texas State, Utah State, and Washington State
- These users thanked the author SLB for the post (total 2):
- ncs53 • AggieFBObsession
-
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: November 5th, 2010, 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 156 times
- Been thanked: 1084 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
I'm not going to say I'm happy with Texas St but I'm not upset. There needs to be a punching bag in each conference for the other teams to get nearly automatic Ws. Think Vanderbilt in the SEC, Northwestern in the Big10, BYU in the Big12, etc... Mountain West had San Jose and Air Force in basketball, I enjoy that there are a few games where USU has a nearly automatic W, if every game was a team like SDSU it might make every game interesting but it would pile up a lot more losses too. So I am just consoling myself that we have someone to look down on in the conference.
- These users thanked the author Coloraggie for the post:
- EngineeringAggie
- 3rdGenAggie
- Pick'em Champ - '16 Kickoff
- Posts: 13488
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:53 pm
- Location: The City of the Salty Lake
- Has thanked: 4817 times
- Been thanked: 3011 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
Yes. And this year at least, they're better in basketball than the bottom 4 MWC schools.Coloraggie wrote: ↑January 17th, 2025, 11:58 amI'm not going to say I'm happy with Texas St but I'm not upset. There needs to be a punching bag in each conference for the other teams to get nearly automatic Ws. Think Vanderbilt in the SEC, Northwestern in the Big10, BYU in the Big12, etc... Mountain West had San Jose and Air Force in basketball, I enjoy that there are a few games where USU has a nearly automatic W, if every game was a team like SDSU it might make every game interesting but it would pile up a lot more losses too. So I am just consoling myself that we have someone to look down on in the conference.
"I have no idea what I'm doing, but I know I'm doing it really, really well." -Andy Dwyer
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: November 27th, 2013, 10:16 am
- Has thanked: 511 times
- Been thanked: 455 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
My guess is that everyone would rather be where we are than where we could have ended up. That being said, I think the discomfort comes from two things -
1) Expectations were set around the quality and level of school it took to be part of the PAC and Texas State does not meet that standard. The names tossed around like Memphis or Cal etc further raised expectations.
2) What could have been. There are multiple schools in the MWC that almost everyone prefers to Texas State that could have been easily convinced to come to the PAC. At this point Gloria has outmaneuvered us and so those are no longer an option.
- AGNUMPI
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:41 pm
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 357 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
This pretty much guarantees Texas State Pac12 champs in both FB and BBall in 2026-27 season.ineptimusprime wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 12:45 amThere’s not a damn thing that anyone could say that would get me excited about Texas St. They will be the proverbial turd in the punch bowl.
"Be there. Get crazy. Go Aggies!" - Matt 'Fafner' Sonnenberg
- AgTime
- Posts: 2068
- Joined: November 4th, 2010, 10:27 pm
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 568 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
Time will tell. Short-term, Gloria was able to hold things together — somewhat. TBD on how real any of her offers will prove to be.gomretat wrote: ↑January 17th, 2025, 1:06 pmMy guess is that everyone would rather be where we are than where we could have ended up. That being said, I think the discomfort comes from two things -
1) Expectations were set around the quality and level of school it took to be part of the PAC and Texas State does not meet that standard. The names tossed around like Memphis or Cal etc further raised expectations.
2) What could have been. There are multiple schools in the MWC that almost everyone prefers to Texas State that could have been easily convinced to come to the PAC. At this point Gloria has outmaneuvered us and so those are no longer an option.
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
If in this 4 pages of on going conversation, all you take from it is 'people are upset we are in this conference", then not much anyone can say on here that you are going to hear
- Section_L_Aggie
- Posts: 677
- Joined: November 10th, 2012, 7:05 pm
- Has thanked: 2803 times
- Been thanked: 520 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
Interesting listen. Canzano and Wilner are typically pretty dialed in. No mention of Texas St at all.
Last edited by Section_L_Aggie on January 18th, 2025, 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.



-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 21992
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 28056 times
- Been thanked: 20762 times
- Contact:
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
If it matters at all I do think UNLV will join. It will take until summer of 2026 or so but I think it will happen.
- These users thanked the author aggies22 for the post (total 4):
- AggiePT • Section_L_Aggie • AggieFBObsession • CacheCow
-
- Posts: 960
- Joined: August 7th, 2019, 1:41 pm
- Has thanked: 2367 times
- Been thanked: 808 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
That is interesting indeed. Hopefully that keeps the Thomas and Mack in play for the PAC-whatever tourney.
- These users thanked the author AggiePT for the post:
- Section_L_Aggie
-
- Posts: 16538
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1481 times
- Been thanked: 2967 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
I do believe that it is likely that Texas State joins the conference due to the time constraints of exit fees. Texas State could easily surpass UTSA and North Texas with PAC money, and Texas State going 8-5 for the last 2 years in an improved Sun Belt shows promise of being solid addition in football. Texas State was an FCS independent school before 2012, and the money invested into Texas State has made them in a position to be in the running for the PAC.
The current Sun Belt is a tougher conference than the current AAC
The current Sun Belt is a tougher conference than the current AAC
Last edited by SLB on January 18th, 2025, 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3283
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 7176 times
- Been thanked: 1313 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
Great post. posts like these is why I come to the mb. This is valued added and helps me learn more. I would've added UTSA, but I'm coming on board with Texas St more and more.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:34 pmFair question, indeed.ineptimusprime wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:22 pmHonest question, have you looked at Texas State's athletic history? If not wanting a team that's played in two bowl games in its entire history and hasn't played in the NCAA tournament since 1997 is me "big timing," then fine. I'm big timing. I don't think they've accomplished enough on the field of play in either major sport to be associated with any of the other Pac-12 members. Shoot me.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 11:01 am
To those Aggie fans out there beating their chests and trying to "big time" other programs when it comes to expansion hypotheticals, kindly remind yourself that no one wanted us. We've been competitive enought in the revenue sports, but we weren't top of anyone's list.
Texas State is a school that sounds great in theory -- and then when you look under the hood? WOOF.
They have only been FBS since 2012. The two bowl games you mentioned were 2023 and 2024 and they won both. They are trending in the right direction and if the PAC makes them commit to a high level spending requirement like they are holding the rest of us to, then facilities / coaching hires / and hopefully W/L records should also improve.
By comparison, UTSA has also only been FBS since 2012. They had quicker success on the football field and became a media darling during the AAC's latest expansion, but I'll give you a few reasons why I think Texas State has a bigger upside than UTSA:
1. Texas State has a much higher endowment (approximately 30% more)
2. Texas State has a bigger student body
3. Texas State is sandwiched between two large media markets
4. Texas State has a nice stadium located on their beautiful campus
Number 4 is probably not that relevant, but I traveled to watch Utah State play UTSA in the Alamodome during our final year in the WAC, and it was sad. The tailgate was weak and there were no students there cheering on the Roadrunners, likely because they play football 20 miles away from their campus.
- These users thanked the author AggieFBObsession for the post:
- SLB
-
- Posts: 16538
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1481 times
- Been thanked: 2967 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
The PAC should just add Texas State then keep in contact with Memphis, SMU, Cal, Stanford, Tulane, UNLV, UTSA, and North Texas.AggieFBObsession wrote: ↑January 18th, 2025, 1:55 pmGreat post. posts like these is why I come to the mb. This is valued added and helps me learn more. I would've added UTSA, but I'm coming on board with Texas St more and more.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:34 pmFair question, indeed.ineptimusprime wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 3:22 pmHonest question, have you looked at Texas State's athletic history? If not wanting a team that's played in two bowl games in its entire history and hasn't played in the NCAA tournament since 1997 is me "big timing," then fine. I'm big timing. I don't think they've accomplished enough on the field of play in either major sport to be associated with any of the other Pac-12 members. Shoot me.Naked Bull Rider wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 11:01 am
To those Aggie fans out there beating their chests and trying to "big time" other programs when it comes to expansion hypotheticals, kindly remind yourself that no one wanted us. We've been competitive enought in the revenue sports, but we weren't top of anyone's list.
Texas State is a school that sounds great in theory -- and then when you look under the hood? WOOF.
They have only been FBS since 2012. The two bowl games you mentioned were 2023 and 2024 and they won both. They are trending in the right direction and if the PAC makes them commit to a high level spending requirement like they are holding the rest of us to, then facilities / coaching hires / and hopefully W/L records should also improve.
By comparison, UTSA has also only been FBS since 2012. They had quicker success on the football field and became a media darling during the AAC's latest expansion, but I'll give you a few reasons why I think Texas State has a bigger upside than UTSA:
1. Texas State has a much higher endowment (approximately 30% more)
2. Texas State has a bigger student body
3. Texas State is sandwiched between two large media markets
4. Texas State has a nice stadium located on their beautiful campus
Number 4 is probably not that relevant, but I traveled to watch Utah State play UTSA in the Alamodome during our final year in the WAC, and it was sad. The tailgate was weak and there were no students there cheering on the Roadrunners, likely because they play football 20 miles away from their campus.
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 21992
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 28056 times
- Been thanked: 20762 times
- Contact:
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
I should trademark "PAC-whatever".
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 21992
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 28056 times
- Been thanked: 20762 times
- Contact:
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
I'll see what I can find out.
- These users thanked the author aggies22 for the post:
- Section_L_Aggie
-
- Posts: 3208
- Joined: November 15th, 2010, 6:36 pm
- Has thanked: 1406 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
So let me get this straight? Four pages of meltdown for what is nothing more than a Twitter rumor? Because this screams "negotiating tactic" to me. "Hey Memphis. You need to poop or get off the pot, because we will call Texas State if you sit on the pot for much longer." I would suggest waiting until it actually happens to freak out.
If the rumor is true, I'm not particularly excited, but I don't think it's terrible, either. There is definitely potential there. If we were going to invite a school based purely on potential, I would have preferred UC-Davis, but I don't think Davis could be ready to play FBS football by 2026 in any scenario. And it's also possible that our TV partners simply want a presence in another big market. The AAC built their brand on inviting mediocre schools in attractive TV markets, and if nothing else, they have a pretty decent TV deal to show for it.
If the rumor is true, I'm not particularly excited, but I don't think it's terrible, either. There is definitely potential there. If we were going to invite a school based purely on potential, I would have preferred UC-Davis, but I don't think Davis could be ready to play FBS football by 2026 in any scenario. And it's also possible that our TV partners simply want a presence in another big market. The AAC built their brand on inviting mediocre schools in attractive TV markets, and if nothing else, they have a pretty decent TV deal to show for it.
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
How is anything you said less of meltdown than anything anyone else said
but I do agree...if this is just a Twitter rumor, then nothing to see here...for me it's the confirmation by 22 that there is some truth to this rumor that I think sparked all the conversation.

-
- Posts: 8914
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 467 times
- Been thanked: 6344 times
Re: Texas St. Pac 12
My guess? The 8th stop gap member came down to UNT and Texas State.
My other guess? Most PAC-12 members would prefer to add UNT if we are just adding one team to get to 8 football playing members. Per 22’s earlier posts on the board, there was some smoke to UNT being that 8th member. Now the smoke seems to be drifting south to San Marcos.
My guess as to why? Texas State is a cheaper addition than UNT. Extrapolating that further, a really easy explanation for the shift might be that the TV deal isn’t going to be a number close to what folks are hoping.
The “building the best non-power conference” narrative will take a big hit adding a Sun Belt school that hasn’t even won any Sun Belt championships in football or basketball.
My other guess? Most PAC-12 members would prefer to add UNT if we are just adding one team to get to 8 football playing members. Per 22’s earlier posts on the board, there was some smoke to UNT being that 8th member. Now the smoke seems to be drifting south to San Marcos.
My guess as to why? Texas State is a cheaper addition than UNT. Extrapolating that further, a really easy explanation for the shift might be that the TV deal isn’t going to be a number close to what folks are hoping.
The “building the best non-power conference” narrative will take a big hit adding a Sun Belt school that hasn’t even won any Sun Belt championships in football or basketball.