Realignment talk not going away

[TKthunder2 5060]

1 hour ago, NCMountaineer said:

yep, that was the obvious move for the longest time and I honestly think all the last minute talk was more about getting the B1G to come forward and make something work.

as for UNC, as much as I hate those pricks, they're going to get an invite from one of the two big boys eventually. Might not be full value initially if it's the B1G, but a lot of these decisions aren't made by the ADs but by the University presidents with some input from the TV execs. It's also the reason I don't think UVA will be left out to dry when, if actual interest in the program was taken into account, my reaction if I were a conference exec would be "new phone, who this?" 

Yep if we go full on exclusive Power 2 super conferences there is no way the flagships of NC/VA are left out. However if we keep the Next 2 around (which seems highly likely) they could theoretically remain in the ACC/B12. I just think both P2 conferences have a hard on for UNC/UVA (and add in that neither wants to see them go to their rival conference) that they’ll end up getting in somewhere…eventually.

Still I think the SEC is content to stay at 16 for a while and the Big Ten doesn’t want to rock the boat with their TV partners anymore after going to 18 with UO/UW so I think this isn’t worth talking about for at least another 5 years.

The only realignment items left are OrSU/WSU > MWC and if the American Conference adds a replacement for SMU (Twitter had a rumor that they we’re trying to get Army to join).

[TKthunder2 5060]

11 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Yeah.  There seems to be some smoke around the idea that the ACC contract provides that they won't lose per-team payout during the life of their current contract, provided they stay at 15 members.  They now have 18 members.  FSU, Clemson, and UNC are the three squeaky wheels.  I'd guess they're SEC bound.  ESPN can smooth the exit since they're the primary rights holder on both sides.  There's no reason for ESPN to smooth an exit toward a FOX backed conference.  That move also probably protects and stabilizes the ACC because I'm not sure how motivated the B1G would be to add schools like UVA, Duke, Miami, or Georgia Tech on their own. 

If it plays out that way, I think there's a pretty good chance that SEC #20 is Kansas.  The Jayhawks would fill out the map in the west, give the SEC a 3rd crown jewel in men's basketball, and they'd give Mizzou back its primary rival.    

UVA is far more desired than Kansas (I have nothing against KU and agree they would work fine for all the reasons you listed). My opinion on this is subject to change if the SEC/B1G ever decide to fully breakaway from the NCAAbb tournament and do their own thing, then a school like Kansas could be very valuable.

Still even if a 4th team left the ACC always has UConn in its back pocket that could be a quick add plus AAC schools like USF, Memphis, Tulane, Rice, Temple that it could get to leave immediately just like West Virginia did back in 2012.

[camel at sea 589]

9 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

UVA is far more desired than Kansas (I have nothing against KU and agree they would work fine for all the reasons you listed). My opinion on this is subject to change if the SEC/B1G ever decide to fully breakaway from the NCAAbb tournament and do their own thing, then a school like Kansas could be very valuable.

Still even if a 4th team left the ACC always has UConn in its back pocket that could be a quick add plus AAC schools like USF, Memphis, Tulane, Rice, Temple that it could get to leave immediately just like West Virginia did back in 2012.

KU's AD is worth more and is better supported than UVA's AD, even if UVA is worth a lot more more than KU as a university.  The TV side cares about AD value - which is why Stanford and Cal are where they are.  It's arguable that VaTech athletics are more valuable than UVA athletics.  I also think it's notable that UVA and Duke seem to be on opposite sides from UNC on the ACC expansion issue.  To me, that indicates some internal division as to priorities.  There are significant cracks in the Tobacco Road foundation.  It reminds me of how the extinct mantras, "SC will never leave the other CA schools" and "Texas won't leave without several in-state partners," first began to crumble.

I think the ACC is going to survive realignment.  There are too many decent ADs on the east coast for that not to happen.  If they can get away with only losing FSU, Clemson, and UNC, they're going to be in strong shape.  They could - as you suggest - add UConn.  They might also be able to lure away WVU, UCF, and/or Cincinnati at some point, too.        

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[LTtxfan 50035]

9 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

If it works, it would be funny if "New PAC12" champion somehow becomes an automatic bid to CFP.  😋

[Hurtlocker 2219]

7 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I think some of their alumni’s fortunes are bullet proof. The Hunts for sure. NFL ownership has the best rate of return of almost any investment.

The money should be there, but some shit will happen between now and 2036. I think SMU is too dismissive of the money they’re forgoing. 

They're really only forgoing about $70-100m, that's what the AAC would pay them over that time.   In return they get more exposure.

 

[Brothahorn 10099]

3 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I am assuming that JT Daniels did not need a waiver for his last two transfers because he was a graduate transfer - twice.  He graduated from Georgia and then transferred to WVU and then he graduated from WVU and then transferred to Rice.

Shiiiiiiit. Imagine trying to pay back those loans.

[TKthunder2 5060]

2 hours ago, camel at sea said:

KU's AD is worth more and is better supported than UVA's AD, even if UVA is worth a lot more more than KU as a university.  The TV side cares about AD value - which is why Stanford and Cal are where they are.  It's arguable that VaTech athletics are more valuable than UVA athletics.  I also think it's notable that UVA and Duke seem to be on opposite sides from UNC on the ACC expansion issue.  To me, that indicates some internal division as to priorities.  There are significant cracks in the Tobacco Road foundation.  It reminds me of how the extinct mantras, "SC will never leave the other CA schools" and "Texas won't leave without several in-state partners," first began to crumble.

I agree with your points but I think UVA has finished in the top ten of the director’s cup 9 times and Kansas has 0. UVA also is a pretty solid baseball school which matters in the SEC. Kansas wins the basketball head to head but UVA isn’t a slouch there either. Both suck at football but UVA draws better both in attendance and with viewership and is in a better state for the SECN, but yes Kansas has more revenue.

So Kansas has bball+AD revenue and UVA has basically everything else. I don’t think Kansas is a shoe in.

Also I agree UVA/UNC aren’t attached at the hip, but I do think they both end up in a P2 in the next major round of realignment. Kansas likely has lower odds of making the cut.

[camel at sea 589]

36 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

I agree with your points but I think UVA has finished in the top ten of the director’s cup 9 times and Kansas has 0. UVA also is a pretty solid baseball school which matters in the SEC. Kansas wins the basketball head to head but UVA isn’t a slouch there either. Both suck at football but UVA draws better both in attendance and with viewership and is in a better state for the SECN, but yes Kansas has more revenue.

So Kansas has bball+AD revenue and UVA has basically everything else. I don’t think Kansas is a shoe in.

Also I agree UVA/UNC aren’t attached at the hip, but I do think they both end up in a P2 in the next major round of realignment. Kansas likely has lower odds of making the cut.

I think UVA is massively overrated in realignment.  They're an east cost Cal.  I think they're overrated largely because of a combo of the idea that UNC would require them to come along to wherever they go and a cable-industry view of "value" that emphasizes market size, rather than actual eyeballs.  There's an argument that VaTech is a better add than UVA because the Hokies have a larger football fanbase, larger gameday attendance, etc.

On the other hand, I think university Presidents will need to be convinced of UVA's negatives because the school itself is elite and in a great location.  I just think that's gonna happen.  UNC breaking with them publicly, over the expansion issue, is an indicator of that.  The TV networks successfully made a similar argument to the B1G re: Stanford and Cal.      

If we're comparing KU vs. UVA... KU hoops would (hypothetically) be additive to their entire SEC hoops schedule.  UVA hoops is great, but doesn't move the interest needle.  KU outdrew UVA in football attendance last year, at the very first sign of life, with multiple sellouts.  KU's current football investment is better with a major facilities upgrade on the way.  UVA is great at Olympics, but Stanford and Cal just proved that the networks don't care about that at all.  If Leipold keeps the Jayhawks out of the ditch for another 3-4 years, I think the argument for KU's media rights value gets a lot stronger.        

[ztejas 44281]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

I agree with your points but I think UVA has finished in the top ten of the director’s cup 9 times and Kansas has 0. UVA also is a pretty solid baseball school which matters in the SEC.

None of this shit matters.

[bullet 1631]

3 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Hopefully they drop the number.  Just be the PAC.  We've already got the Big 10 who had 12 for a long time and now is moving to 18, the Big 12 who had 10 for a long time and now is moving to 16 and the Atlantic 10 who keeps changing schools but hasn't had 10 in a long time.

[bullet 1631]

"Soon after Implosion Friday across the Pac-12, Washington State president Kirk Schulz identified the most immediate task: Determining which schools had voting rights and control of the conference’s assets.

“We think there will be some clarity around governance issues in the next two weeks,” he told the Hotline.

One month later, clarity has not emerged.

Stanford and Cal have fled to the ACC. Only Washington State and Oregon State remain, and they still don’t have the answers needed to take the next step, whether it’s reforming the Pac-12 or joining the Mountain West.

“I’m frustrated that we haven’t gotten the information as quickly as we had hoped,” OSU athletic director Scott Barnes told Oregonlive.com last weekend. “It is trickling in. We need to get that buttoned down.”

The Hotline sought answers from the conference office.

Why is it taking so long to determine the assets, liabilities and governing control?

The Pac-12 declined to comment.

What is the process and who’s involved?

The Pac-12 declined to comment.

When might full clarity emerge?

The Pac-12 declined to comment.

The same radio silence that defined the Pac-12’s messaging strategy throughout the media rights negotiations is at work in this endeavor. Which is fine — the conference isn’t obligated to share information with the media.

But it’s required to assist Washington State, Oregon State and the outgoing schools by any means necessary. And once again, headquarters has failed to execute at the necessary level.

“Any well-run business should, within 48 hours, have the most up-to-date profit-and-loss statement, balance sheet and liabilities and assets,” an industry source said.

“At the latest, they should have had this at the end of August, knowing the odds were pretty good Stanford and Cal were leaving.”

Are the finances so messy, the bylaws so vague, that the experts are struggling to understand the critical details?

“The conference has been so poorly managed for so long on so many levels,’’ a source said...."

 

Fitting with the incompetence we have seen in the Pac 12.  https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2023/09/07/pac-12-legal-delay-wsu-and-osu-hoped-to-proceed-quickly-but-conference-office-slow-to-move/

[berlinerbaer 692]

14 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I guess I disagree with that a bit.

There are a handful of programs that are of national interest irrespective of on-the-field performance.  Texas falls into that group.  So does Notre Dame.  Michigan, Ohio State, USC, . . . I don't know--maybe Alabama.  But those programs are pretty limited in number.

And then there are a lot of programs that are of national interest when they're good enough to be challenging for a national championship.  I think Clemson is the archetype for this category.  Clemson is obviously of national interest right now.  Pretty much all of us watched them get their clocks cleaned by Duke Monday night.  But pretty much all of us remember pre-Dabo Clemson, when that program wasn't particularly good.  And when it's not challenging for a national championship, Clemson is of little interest outside the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson megalopolis.

 

I get all that. I'm not arguing that on-field results aren't important historically, but there are many posters questioning the alignment of a program based on its team winning or losing six days ago, and some of them aren't trying to be funny.

I can't think of any teams at risk of relegation in which on-field performance is the main reason.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20950]

Crazy fucking article.
 

 

 

[mdmost 44110]

 

['stache 22146]

Seems reasonable if they really are being stonewalled regarding the conferences' assets and governance status. 

[thunderlounge 8465]

I bet when everything comes to light, the pac execs were up to some shady shit. Not sure what, but maybe trying to sell off assets to pay for their exit bonuses, or something regarded like that. 

[Francisco 2.0 32609]

From Wilner, so yeah.

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/08/pac-12-chaos-washington-state-oregon-state-take-legal-action-against-the-conference-over-control-of-assets-voting-rights/

 

Quote

The presidents of Washington State and Oregon State are taking the Pac-12 to court in order to gain clarity on voting rights and control of assets as the collapse of a century-old college sports institution veers toward an internecine feud.

The only remaining members of the Pac-12 as of next summer, WSU and OSU filed a joint complaint Friday in Whitman County (Washington) Superior Court that seeks to determine the makeup of the Pac-12 board of directors following the announced departures of 10 schools, according to documents obtained by the Hotline.

The Pac-12 and commissioner George Kliavkoff are the named defendants.

 

Quote

Washington State’s Kirk Schulz and Oregon State’s Jayathi Murthy are not attempting to punish any of the outgoing schools or prevent them from leaving for the ACC, Big 12 and Big Ten.

Instead, they want declaratory judgment from the court regarding the makeup of the Pac-12’s board of directors, which has voting authority and control of the conference’s finances.

Additionally, the schools are seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the 10 outgoing members from voting on vital issues until the makeup of the board is determined.

The Pac-12 declined to comment.

 

Quote

The Cougars and Beavers are considering whether to join the Mountain West or attempt to rebuild the Pac-12. Either way, their futures depend, in part, on access to potentially tens of millions of dollars in Pac-12 assets — assets that are controlled by the board of directors.

The filing comes after a tense two weeks that began when Schulz, chair of the Pac-12 board, declined Kliavkoff’s request to call a board meeting to discuss “complex issues facing the Conference,” according to the complaint.

That led Kliavkoff to schedule the meeting himself (for Sept. 13). He invited all 12 board members, including those from USC and UCLA. The Los Angeles schools had been excluded from prior Pac-12 board meetings following their June 2022 decision to join the Big Ten.

The meeting could include a board vote on the conference’s governing structure and strategy.

 

Spoiler

Washington State and Oregon State don’t believe the outgoing schools, which will be members of competing leagues starting next summer, have the right to determine the future of the conference and are concerned the Sept. 13 board meeting “may doom the Pac-12’s ability to survive past 2024,” according to the complaint.

The Pac-12 bylaws state that if a school gives notice of withdrawal prior to Aug. 1, 2024, then its “representative to the Pac-12 Board of Directors shall automatically cease to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter.”

What defines a notice of withdrawal?

WSU and OSU believe the public statements by executives from the outgoing schools — and the “welcome” announcements blasted on social media by their new leagues — constitute a legal delivery of notice, thereby rendering their presidents ineligible for the Pac-12 board.

The stakes are high. Major strategic and financial issues require super-majority approval (75 percent). If the court determines the 10 outgoing schools retain board-of-directors status until their departures next summer, they could form a voting bloc that dictates terms to WSU and OSU.

The bylaws indicate that all assets be split among the 12 schools if the conference dissolves.

The temporary restraining order is designed to maintain the status quo (i.e., no votes by the board) until the court determines which schools have voting rights.

WSU and OSU have requested a hearing for Monday and hope a restraining order will be issued before the scheduled board meeting on Wednesday.

Earlier this week, WSU’s Schulz and OSU’s Murthy sent a letter to Kliavkoff and the other 10 presidents expressing concern that:

“… the recent correspondence from the Commissioner’s office creates the misimpression that representatives of all Conference members are eligible to serve on the Board, participate in Board meetings, and vote on Board matters. That is incorrect.”

It adds:

“Indeed, when (UCLA) and (USC) gave notice of their withdrawal from the Conference in June 2022, the Conference deemed their representatives ineligible to participate on the Board or vote on any Conference matters. The fact that eight more members have now given notice of their withdrawal from the Conference does not change this rule.”

The Pac-12 took the same approach to board membership this summer. After Colorado announced on July 27 that it was leaving for the Big 12, chancellor Phil DiStefano was excluded from subsequent Pac-12 board meetings that occurred before Aug. 4, when five more schools departed, according to the complaint.

In his statement to the court, WSU’s Schulz says the 10 outgoing schools “are now motivated to dissolve the Pac-12—against which their new conferences will otherwise compete beginning next year — and distribute its assets.”

Additionally, the letter from WSU and OSU to the conference sought confirmation that:

— The Sept. 13 board meeting would be canceled.

— The 10 departing schools have relinquished their voting rights.

— The presidents of WSU and OSU are the “only duly authorized Board members.”

Washington State and Oregon State requested a response to their letter by Friday (today) at 10 a.m.

Soon after the deadline, the legal process began in Whitman County, home to WSU.

Complaints are the legal filings that initiate lawsuits.

 

 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32609]

 

 

 

[Huckleberry 34743]

I think it's obvious that Oregon State and Washington State are in the right here. They should be the only voting members. 

Not sure if that claim is true about championship ineligibility but if it is then they absolutely should do that. The other 10 members have left them completely fucked. I mean sure it's all self interest, but so would be declaring themselves champions. 

[Al_4_ISU 12661]

35 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Holy fucking shit, I hope they do this.

[notre dame joe 205]

On 9/7/2023 at 8:39 AM, Horn of Gabriel said:

Good article with some fun background info.  Thanks

Additions made at a 7am conference call.  ACC to amend bylaws requiring in person meetings with coffee?notr

 

38 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

From Wilner, so yeah.

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/08/pac-12-chaos-washington-state-oregon-state-take-legal-action-against-the-conference-over-control-of-assets-voting-rights/

 

 

 

 

  Hide contents

Washington State and Oregon State don’t believe the outgoing schools, which will be members of competing leagues starting next summer, have the right to determine the future of the conference and are concerned the Sept. 13 board meeting “may doom the Pac-12’s ability to survive past 2024,” according to the complaint.

The Pac-12 bylaws state that if a school gives notice of withdrawal prior to Aug. 1, 2024, then its “representative to the Pac-12 Board of Directors shall automatically cease to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter.”

What defines a notice of withdrawal?

WSU and OSU believe the public statements by executives from the outgoing schools — and the “welcome” announcements blasted on social media by their new leagues — constitute a legal delivery of notice, thereby rendering their presidents ineligible for the Pac-12 board.

The stakes are high. Major strategic and financial issues require super-majority approval (75 percent). If the court determines the 10 outgoing schools retain board-of-directors status until their departures next summer, they could form a voting bloc that dictates terms to WSU and OSU.

The bylaws indicate that all assets be split among the 12 schools if the conference dissolves.

The temporary restraining order is designed to maintain the status quo (i.e., no votes by the board) until the court determines which schools have voting rights.

WSU and OSU have requested a hearing for Monday and hope a restraining order will be issued before the scheduled board meeting on Wednesday.

Earlier this week, WSU’s Schulz and OSU’s Murthy sent a letter to Kliavkoff and the other 10 presidents expressing concern that:

“… the recent correspondence from the Commissioner’s office creates the misimpression that representatives of all Conference members are eligible to serve on the Board, participate in Board meetings, and vote on Board matters. That is incorrect.”

It adds:

“Indeed, when (UCLA) and (USC) gave notice of their withdrawal from the Conference in June 2022, the Conference deemed their representatives ineligible to participate on the Board or vote on any Conference matters. The fact that eight more members have now given notice of their withdrawal from the Conference does not change this rule.”

The Pac-12 took the same approach to board membership this summer. After Colorado announced on July 27 that it was leaving for the Big 12, chancellor Phil DiStefano was excluded from subsequent Pac-12 board meetings that occurred before Aug. 4, when five more schools departed, according to the complaint.

In his statement to the court, WSU’s Schulz says the 10 outgoing schools “are now motivated to dissolve the Pac-12—against which their new conferences will otherwise compete beginning next year — and distribute its assets.”

Additionally, the letter from WSU and OSU to the conference sought confirmation that:

— The Sept. 13 board meeting would be canceled.

— The 10 departing schools have relinquished their voting rights.

— The presidents of WSU and OSU are the “only duly authorized Board members.”

Washington State and Oregon State requested a response to their letter by Friday (today) at 10 a.m.

Soon after the deadline, the legal process began in Whitman County, home to WSU.

Complaints are the legal filings that initiate lawsuits.

 

 

 

State court in Washington?  Why bother?

 

 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3518]

9 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Holy fucking shit, I hope they do this.

Same, this would be so awesome especially if USC and Washington and heck even Colorado end up having pretty good years and its Oregon St v Wazzu in the Pac 12 championship game.

[0xdeadbeef 1704]

57 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

What is CAA? 

The only CAA I find in a quick google is Coastal Athletic Association...That doesn't seem to be it. 

Did they mean NCAA?  If so, does that rule apply to Texas?

[Left Coast 879]

2 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

What is CAA? 

The only CAA I find in a quick google is Coastal Athletic Association...That doesn't seem to be it. 

Did they mean NCAA?  If so, does that rule apply to Texas?

Yeah that seems like made up bullshit to me. Conference tournaments and championships are decided by the conferences, not the NCAA

And if this was a rule (which I seriously doubt) it would apply to UT and OU too.

[Texas Wahoo 3631]

8 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

What is CAA? 

The only CAA I find in a quick google is Coastal Athletic Association...That doesn't seem to be it. 

Did they mean NCAA?  If so, does that rule apply to Texas?

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/11/05/james-madison-athletes-take-biggest-fall-realignment-caa

['stache 22146]

Yeah, that makes zero sense. I understand why bylaws would preclude schools that have announced their exit from voting on matters that affect the conference long term. But I can't see any basis to deny those programs access to playoffs, etc., while they remain a member of the conference. If it were, I guess we should preclude UT and OU from the Big XII title game. That would be so absurd and stupid, it's not real. 

Edit: Just saw the CAA rule and JMU, that's insane. No way it would work at the P-5 level.

Edited September 8, 2023 by 'stache

[Huckleberry 34743]

Not sure how it's insane, in fact JMU looked like the assholes there. They had happily applied that by-law in the past when other schools left the CAA then whined about it when they left. Tough shit. 

Why would members of a conference be okay with the publicity, recruiting boost, and other benefits of their conference championship going to a school that is leaving? Seems like every conference should have that rule.

['stache 22146]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Not sure how it's insane, in fact JMU looked like the assholes there. They had happily applied that by-law in the past when other schools left the CAA then whined about it when they left. Tough shit. 

Why would members of a conference be okay with the publicity, recruiting boost, and other benefits of their conference championship going to a school that is leaving? Seems like every conference should have that rule.

Because these are business decisions and aren't meant to be punitive. The publicity is way, way, way worse if you exclude a program from the championship game. I also don't see how or why it matters. If UT wins the conference this year, how does that negatively affect the conference going forward? Conversely, if OU and UT don't make the conference title game for the third straight year, will you all really mope you're way out and into the SEC? Of course not. As soon as the game is over, nobody will really care other than fans of the team that won.  

[Francisco 2.0 32609]

39 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

What is CAA? 

The only CAA I find in a quick google is Coastal Athletic Association...That doesn't seem to be it. 

Did they mean NCAA?  If so, does that rule apply to Texas?

 

The Coastal Athletic Association has that policy in their bylaws.  The tweet was merely offering up the idea that what-if WSU and OSU were able to become the sole voting members of the Pac-12, and then changed the Pac-12 bylaws to be similar to what the CAA has done.

 

 

[0xdeadbeef 1704]

8 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

The Coastal Athletic Association has that policy in their bylaws.  The tweet was merely offering up the idea that what-if WSU and OSU were able to become the sole voting members of the Pac-12, and then changed the Pac-12 bylaws to be similar to what the CAA has done.

Oh, yeah, now that you explain it to me it seems clear.

Sometimes I not English so good. 

[Huckleberry 34743]

36 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Because these are business decisions and aren't meant to be punitive. The publicity is way, way, way worse if you exclude a program from the championship game. I also don't see how or why it matters. If UT wins the conference this year, how does that negatively affect the conference going forward? Conversely, if OU and UT don't make the conference title game for the third straight year, will you all really mope you're way out and into the SEC? Of course not. As soon as the game is over, nobody will really care other than fans of the team that won.  

Who cares if they're meant to be punitive? The effect is incredibly punitive to those left behind. You can't use the "business decision" defense for leaving and screwing OSU and WSU, for example, and then complain when they make their own business decision. Postseason appearances are valuable to an athletic program. 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Not quite sure where to put this, but seems kind of relevant... NIL a better thread for it?

 

['stache 22146]

A part of me says fuck it, the last ten years has confirmed that “amateurism” is a complete joke. I’d hate to see it kill the college sports but the schools, conferences, and networks have led us here.

[Francisco 2.0 32609]

56 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

Oh, yeah, now that you explain it to me it seems clear.

Sometimes I not English so good. 

 

Eh, we all a bunch of mouthbreathers on a football message board.  Ain't no English scholars here.

 

 

 

 

[bullet 1631]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Who cares if they're meant to be punitive? The effect is incredibly punitive to those left behind. You can't use the "business decision" defense for leaving and screwing OSU and WSU, for example, and then complain when they make their own business decision. Postseason appearances are valuable to an athletic program. 

WSU and OSU feeding off the rest while barely being P level was punitive.  They all sought their best interest and made more money than if they stayed with the Beavers and new window Cougars.

Almost nobody has been as vindictive as the CAA.  I thought they were being total assholes.  They were assholes when JMU voted with the majority to do it to others and they were assholes when they voted to do it to JMU.

If Oregon St. and Washington St. tried to exclude everyone else from the ccg, the P4, ESPN and Fox would make their continued existence in FBS very, very difficult.

[bullet 1631]

42 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Not quite sure where to put this, but seems kind of relevant... NIL a better thread for it?

 

This fits since it is one of the potential liabilities of the Pac 12.

[BurntOrange&White 42005]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Who cares if they're meant to be punitive? The effect is incredibly punitive to those left behind. You can't use the "business decision" defense for leaving and screwing OSU and WSU, for example, and then complain when they make their own business decision. Postseason appearances are valuable to an athletic program. 

They could theoretically vote to give themselves all the PAC 12 post season payout if they win this ruling, correct? Or at minimum hold up the payouts for this year until a ruling is reached?

[closetohumping 17826]

Congrats on the Kansas win fellas. Pure dominance

[Dnaguy 12712]

On 9/7/2023 at 3:30 PM, Texas Wahoo said:

I am assuming that JT Daniels did not need a waiver for his last two transfers because he was a graduate transfer - twice.  He graduated from Georgia and then transferred to WVU and then he graduated from WVU and then transferred to Rice.

I believe he prefers to go by Doctor Daniels now?

[USC_TMB 405]

16 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

They could theoretically vote to give themselves all the PAC 12 post season payout if they win this ruling, correct? Or at minimum hold up the payouts for this year until a ruling is reached?

I could see where OSU &Wazzu would want to go all crazy ex-girlfriend on the ex PAC members at first, but that would be suicide for their athletic departments. They are forgetting they are OSU & Wazzu… not the big dogs like USC & UCLA. If they pulled some rubbish like voting themselves PAC champions (with a .500 record, and getting an automatic playoff bid over (for argument’s sake) an undefeated USC, the blowback would be epic. They might as well embrace playing Directional Montana State Teachers College with no TV forever.

I would doubt the bylaws would give them the option of doing something so stupid, but as big of a cluster-fuck the PAC has been, it wouldn’t surprise me.

[Texas Wahoo 3631]

17 minutes ago, USC_TMB said:

I could see where OSU &Wazzu would want to go all crazy ex-girlfriend on the ex PAC members at first, but that would be suicide for their athletic departments. They are forgetting they are OSU & Wazzu… not the big dogs like USC & UCLA. If they pulled some rubbish like voting themselves PAC champions (with a .500 record, and getting an automatic playoff bid over (for argument’s sake) an undefeated USC, the blowback would be epic. They might as well embrace playing Directional Montana State Teachers College with no TV forever.

I would doubt the bylaws would give them the option of doing something so stupid, but as big of a cluster-fuck the PAC has been, it wouldn’t surprise me.

I’m sure they are not going to do that, but the bylaws can certainly be changed by a vote of 100% of the membership. 

[Brisketexan 107009]

I believe he prefers to go by Doctor Daniels now?

You call him Dr Daniels!

[Doc Sam Beckett 5908]

Calling my shot: Clemson, FSU, UNC, Tulane, SDSU, Colorado State, UNLV, SMU, UTSA and fucking Wake Forest to the Pac 12

[Dewey 3333]

Who knows, I just assumed OSU and WSU want all of the PAC 12 assets, let season play out, championship game and bowls, then when the conference is no more, those teams get whatever monies the PAC 12 has. 

If they want all the revenue from the bowl games and championship, then so be it. All those schools signed the same agreement a long time ago. All those schools knew when they decided to leave that this would happen, these are the bylaws of a signed agreement/contract. I think it's more fucked up to leave and then expect money for anything. Those schools were all part of the PAC failing, they all had a hand in it. So fuck them. 

[Dnaguy 12712]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

You call him Dr Daniels!

I truly laughed out loud.

Nice.

[USC_TMB 405]

5 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I’m sure they are not going to do that, but the bylaws can certainly be changed by a vote of 100% of the membership. 

True, but “technically”, all the departing schools are still members of the PAC through 2023. So any rules would be effective next year. I’m sure the lawyer-types will correct me, and seeing that large amounts of cash is involved, the departing schools have the legal teams idling in the background.

['stache 22146]

I want to watch Tulsa @ Washington and have no idea how to find the PAC Network. Not surprised at all the conference is dead.

[BurntOrange&White 42005]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I want to watch Tulsa @ Washington and have no idea how to find the PAC Network. Not surprised at all the conference is dead.

Some say you can't.

[billfromlaketravis 11862]

46 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I want to watch Tulsa @ Washington and have no idea how to find the PAC Network. Not surprised at all the conference is dead.

I’ve only ever seen it on Sling. And you have to order the every channel package to get it.