NEWS: Washington St. and Oregon St. filed a formal legal complaint against the Pac-12 and George Kliavkoff on Friday, seeking an “emergency temporary restraining order” to protect what the schools see as an “imminent and existential threat” to the Pac-12. https://t.co/iNOYHpduCP
— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) September 8, 2023
The 10 departing schools have not formally withdrawn from the conference.nikeykid said:
why haven't the two remaining schools just fire George K?
BearSD said:The 10 departing schools have not formally withdrawn from the conference.nikeykid said:
why haven't the two remaining schools just fire George K?
Apparently, at least some of the 10 are claiming that they still have voting rights and, if they all vote together, can vote to dissolve the conference and divide the conference revenue 12 ways. WSU and OSU argue that they are the only remaining members and the only members with voting rights.
WSU and OSU went to court to ask a judge to prevent the 10 from dissolving the conference or exercising any voting rights.
Pac-12 bylaws were probably written when it was the Pac-8, or even earlier, and probably have little or nothing to say about what happens when schools leave the conference.nikeykid said:
ah like a divorce. with your 10 spouses.
nikeykid said:
ah like a divorce. with your 10 spouses.
I bet we will learn that UCLA and USC *voluntarily* stopped voting on matters related to finances or the future of the conference, but continued to vote on things like approving conference sports schedules.sosheezy said:
If after UCLA and USC announced they were leaving, they got excluded from voting on most conference matters, the precedent seems to be set that when 8 more teams announce they are leaving, they too should be excluded from discussions about the future of the conference. I totally get OSU and WSU's position - they need to defend themselves from a bullying block of out the door conference members voting in a selfish block to split conference assets or future deferred postseason payouts 12 ways vs leaving OSU and WSU in control (provided they maintain the PAC as the branded conference they play in).
As I understand this is a pre-emptive request to essentially stop the 10 leaving members from drawing up rules (or voting on an interpretation of bylaws) next week to serve themselves. Which is totally fair.BearSD said:I bet we will learn that UCLA and USC *voluntarily* stopped voting on matters related to finances or the future of the conference, but continued to vote on things like approving conference sports schedules.sosheezy said:
If after UCLA and USC announced they were leaving, they got excluded from voting on most conference matters, the precedent seems to be set that when 8 more teams announce they are leaving, they too should be excluded from discussions about the future of the conference. I totally get OSU and WSU's position - they need to defend themselves from a bullying block of out the door conference members voting in a selfish block to split conference assets or future deferred postseason payouts 12 ways vs leaving OSU and WSU in control (provided they maintain the PAC as the branded conference they play in).
Objectively, the departing schools should let WSU and OSU keep the Pac intact so they can keep the March Madness money that hasn't been paid out yet and will be due over the next 5-6 years. But I would understand if administrators at the departing schools want to protect themselves against blowback from their own bosses, regents, boards, etc. by waiting until a court orders that outcome, instead of voluntarily giving money to WSU and OSU that they might not be legally required to give up.
GOLDEN said:
So a question to anyone here willing to answer. Could Pac-12 money get tied up for months or even years. Think of the rulings and possible appeals and counter suits (remember you can sue a roast beef sandwich). How in the world would this help OSU or WSU if things are snagged in litigation. Also, would this have any effect with them join the ACC, Big 12 or Big 10 in the future. Let alone being black balled on facing future pac teams in non conference matters. I mean CAL could sue them I suppose if all debts are not covered, etc,
I think it is a massive gamble in itself. Thoughts...
Quote:
Aug. 29: Commissioner George Kliavkoff calls Washington State president Kirk Schulz and asks Schulz to convene the board of directors to "discuss matters related to the departing members, proposed amendments to the Bylaws, a proposed conflicts of interest plan for Pac-12 members, and an employee compensation and retention plan for the Commissioner and other employees of the Pac-12."
Schulz declines, citing "the rapidly evolving situation concerning the departing members."
Following the call, Kliavkoff writes to the 12 presidents and chancellors and proposes a "meeting of all 'Conference CEOs' to discuss 'complex issues facing the Conference.'"
Aug. 30: Kliavkoff's assistant (unnamed) follows up to schedule a "Pac-12 Board Meeting" for the week of September 11.
Aug. 31: Oregon State general counsel Rebecca Gore writes to Kliavkoff and Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer "to confirm that the contemplated meeting would not be a meeting of the Pac-12 Board of Directors. Presumably concerned with the governance issues raised herein, Mr. Petersmeyer failed to respond for nearly a week."
Sept. 5: Petersmeyer responds and indicates the Sept. 13 meeting will, in fact, be a board meeting and "We anticipated voting on certain matters including the retention plan and having a discussion and possible vote on our go forward governance approach."
BearSD said:
Looks like Kliavkoff provoked this lawsuit by asking the WSU president to call a board meeting to guarantee that Kliavkoff and other extremely well paid conference employees would be paid for the length of their contracts. When Schulz declined to call a meeting, Kliavkoff had his staff call one and included all 12 of the Pac CEOs.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/08/pac-12-chaos-inside-the-11-days-that-led-to-wsu-and-osu-taking-legal-action-against-the-conference/Quote:
Aug. 29: Commissioner George Kliavkoff calls Washington State president Kirk Schulz and asks Schulz to convene the board of directors to "discuss matters related to the departing members, proposed amendments to the Bylaws, a proposed conflicts of interest plan for Pac-12 members, and an employee compensation and retention plan for the Commissioner and other employees of the Pac-12."
Schulz declines, citing "the rapidly evolving situation concerning the departing members."
Following the call, Kliavkoff writes to the 12 presidents and chancellors and proposes a "meeting of all 'Conference CEOs' to discuss 'complex issues facing the Conference.'"
Aug. 30: Kliavkoff's assistant (unnamed) follows up to schedule a "Pac-12 Board Meeting" for the week of September 11.
Aug. 31: Oregon State general counsel Rebecca Gore writes to Kliavkoff and Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer "to confirm that the contemplated meeting would not be a meeting of the Pac-12 Board of Directors. Presumably concerned with the governance issues raised herein, Mr. Petersmeyer failed to respond for nearly a week."
Sept. 5: Petersmeyer responds and indicates the Sept. 13 meeting will, in fact, be a board meeting and "We anticipated voting on certain matters including the retention plan and having a discussion and possible vote on our go forward governance approach."
golden sloth said:BearSD said:
Looks like Kliavkoff provoked this lawsuit by asking the WSU president to call a board meeting to guarantee that Kliavkoff and other extremely well paid conference employees would be paid for the length of their contracts. When Schulz declined to call a meeting, Kliavkoff had his staff call one and included all 12 of the Pac CEOs.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/08/pac-12-chaos-inside-the-11-days-that-led-to-wsu-and-osu-taking-legal-action-against-the-conference/Quote:
Aug. 29: Commissioner George Kliavkoff calls Washington State president Kirk Schulz and asks Schulz to convene the board of directors to "discuss matters related to the departing members, proposed amendments to the Bylaws, a proposed conflicts of interest plan for Pac-12 members, and an employee compensation and retention plan for the Commissioner and other employees of the Pac-12."
Schulz declines, citing "the rapidly evolving situation concerning the departing members."
Following the call, Kliavkoff writes to the 12 presidents and chancellors and proposes a "meeting of all 'Conference CEOs' to discuss 'complex issues facing the Conference.'"
Aug. 30: Kliavkoff's assistant (unnamed) follows up to schedule a "Pac-12 Board Meeting" for the week of September 11.
Aug. 31: Oregon State general counsel Rebecca Gore writes to Kliavkoff and Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer "to confirm that the contemplated meeting would not be a meeting of the Pac-12 Board of Directors. Presumably concerned with the governance issues raised herein, Mr. Petersmeyer failed to respond for nearly a week."
Sept. 5: Petersmeyer responds and indicates the Sept. 13 meeting will, in fact, be a board meeting and "We anticipated voting on certain matters including the retention plan and having a discussion and possible vote on our go forward governance approach."
I, for one, hope Kliavkoff gets screwed out of his entire remaining contract. He deserves nothing! His incompetence lead to the conference's demise, and he should not receive payment for being the commissioner of a conference that doesn't exist.
Technically Arizona is just as qualified.Econ141 said:nikeykid said:
ah like a divorce. with your 10 spouses.
Utah should be able to give some advice here.
Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, …heartofthebear said:Technically Arizona is just as qualified.Econ141 said:nikeykid said:
ah like a divorce. with your 10 spouses.
Utah should be able to give some advice here.
heartofthebear said:Technically Arizona is just as qualified.Econ141 said:nikeykid said:
ah like a divorce. with your 10 spouses.
Utah should be able to give some advice here.
Not likely. As sad as that is.bearsandgiants said:BearSD said:The 10 departing schools have not formally withdrawn from the conference.nikeykid said:
why haven't the two remaining schools just fire George K?
Apparently, at least some of the 10 are claiming that they still have voting rights and, if they all vote together, can vote to dissolve the conference and divide the conference revenue 12 ways. WSU and OSU argue that they are the only remaining members and the only members with voting rights.
WSU and OSU went to court to ask a judge to prevent the 10 from dissolving the conference or exercising any voting rights.
Would be kind of cool to get the band back together.
calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearSD said:
Looks like Kliavkoff provoked this lawsuit by asking the WSU president to call a board meeting to guarantee that Kliavkoff and other extremely well paid conference employees would be paid for the length of their contracts. When Schulz declined to call a meeting, Kliavkoff had his staff call one and included all 12 of the Pac CEOs.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/08/pac-12-chaos-inside-the-11-days-that-led-to-wsu-and-osu-taking-legal-action-against-the-conference/Quote:
Aug. 29: Commissioner George Kliavkoff calls Washington State president Kirk Schulz and asks Schulz to convene the board of directors to "discuss matters related to the departing members, proposed amendments to the Bylaws, a proposed conflicts of interest plan for Pac-12 members, and an employee compensation and retention plan for the Commissioner and other employees of the Pac-12."
Schulz declines, citing "the rapidly evolving situation concerning the departing members."
Following the call, Kliavkoff writes to the 12 presidents and chancellors and proposes a "meeting of all 'Conference CEOs' to discuss 'complex issues facing the Conference.'"
Aug. 30: Kliavkoff's assistant (unnamed) follows up to schedule a "Pac-12 Board Meeting" for the week of September 11.
Aug. 31: Oregon State general counsel Rebecca Gore writes to Kliavkoff and Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer "to confirm that the contemplated meeting would not be a meeting of the Pac-12 Board of Directors. Presumably concerned with the governance issues raised herein, Mr. Petersmeyer failed to respond for nearly a week."
Sept. 5: Petersmeyer responds and indicates the Sept. 13 meeting will, in fact, be a board meeting and "We anticipated voting on certain matters including the retention plan and having a discussion and possible vote on our go forward governance approach."
I, for one, hope Kliavkoff gets screwed out of his entire remaining contract. He deserves nothing! His incompetence lead to the conference's demise, and he should not receive payment for being the commissioner of a conference that doesn't exist.
You are not alone. Even if they get 12 votes together, first order of business should be to fire Kliavkoff for cause. Then hand over the keys to OSU and WSU. If we can get rid of Knowlton too, even better.
Pretty much the case now. Your are right! Why would a team want to join and get involved in a legal quagmire that could last months and months if not years. I could see CAL and others file their own counter lawsuits to collect what is rightfully each members portion. If a court has to sort it all out then so be it. I can see it being a long process. It is not like each current school is entitled to nothing. It might come down to a percentage but I don't think the other 10 will accept zero like WSU and OSU want it to be. It is likely to be a prorated amount.wifeisafurd said:
For those that wondered if any outside teams would want to be members of a "new" Pac conference, the answer is hell no. Who would want to get their programs involved in this legal quagmire. Just a few of the issue mentioned were executive severance, lack of transparency with Comcast obligations (this also comes with several. lawsuits from former Pac 12 executives due to misconduct by Commish Larry), the desire of the remaining members to liquidate the Pac and receive distributions (this also anticipates a demand for distribution of prior season distributions that are being held for emergencies that are no longer present) and well there is the whole matter of who has what voting rights.
GOLDEN said:Pretty much the case now. Your are right! Why would a team want to join and get involved in a legal quagmire that could last months and months if not years. I could see CAL and others file their own counter lawsuits to collect what is rightfully each members portion. If a court has to sort it all out then so be it. I can see it being a long process. It is not like each current school is entitled to nothing. It might come down to a percentage but I don't think the other 10 will accept zero like WSU and OSU want it to be. It is likely to be a prorated amount.wifeisafurd said:
For those that wondered if any outside teams would want to be members of a "new" Pac conference, the answer is hell no. Who would want to get their programs involved in this legal quagmire. Just a few of the issue mentioned were executive severance, lack of transparency with Comcast obligations (this also comes with several. lawsuits from former Pac 12 executives due to misconduct by Commish Larry), the desire of the remaining members to liquidate the Pac and receive distributions (this also anticipates a demand for distribution of prior season distributions that are being held for emergencies that are no longer present) and well there is the whole matter of who has what voting rights.
wifeisafurd said:
For those that wondered if any outside teams would want to be members of a "new" Pac conference, the answer is hell no. Who would want to get their programs involved in this legal quagmire. Just a few of the issue mentioned were executive severance, lack of transparency with Comcast obligations (this also comes with several. lawsuits from former Pac 12 executives due to misconduct by Commish Larry), the desire of the remaining members to liquidate the Pac and receive distributions (this also anticipates a demand for distribution of prior season distributions that are being held for emergencies that are no longer present) and well there is the whole matter of who has what voting rights.
juarezbear said:calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearSD said:
Looks like Kliavkoff provoked this lawsuit by asking the WSU president to call a board meeting to guarantee that Kliavkoff and other extremely well paid conference employees would be paid for the length of their contracts. When Schulz declined to call a meeting, Kliavkoff had his staff call one and included all 12 of the Pac CEOs.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/08/pac-12-chaos-inside-the-11-days-that-led-to-wsu-and-osu-taking-legal-action-against-the-conference/Quote:
Aug. 29: Commissioner George Kliavkoff calls Washington State president Kirk Schulz and asks Schulz to convene the board of directors to "discuss matters related to the departing members, proposed amendments to the Bylaws, a proposed conflicts of interest plan for Pac-12 members, and an employee compensation and retention plan for the Commissioner and other employees of the Pac-12."
Schulz declines, citing "the rapidly evolving situation concerning the departing members."
Following the call, Kliavkoff writes to the 12 presidents and chancellors and proposes a "meeting of all 'Conference CEOs' to discuss 'complex issues facing the Conference.'"
Aug. 30: Kliavkoff's assistant (unnamed) follows up to schedule a "Pac-12 Board Meeting" for the week of September 11.
Aug. 31: Oregon State general counsel Rebecca Gore writes to Kliavkoff and Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer "to confirm that the contemplated meeting would not be a meeting of the Pac-12 Board of Directors. Presumably concerned with the governance issues raised herein, Mr. Petersmeyer failed to respond for nearly a week."
Sept. 5: Petersmeyer responds and indicates the Sept. 13 meeting will, in fact, be a board meeting and "We anticipated voting on certain matters including the retention plan and having a discussion and possible vote on our go forward governance approach."
I, for one, hope Kliavkoff gets screwed out of his entire remaining contract. He deserves nothing! His incompetence lead to the conference's demise, and he should not receive payment for being the commissioner of a conference that doesn't exist.
You are not alone. Even if they get 12 votes together, first order of business should be to fire Kliavkoff for cause. Then hand over the keys to OSU and WSU. If we can get rid of Knowlton too, even better.
They'd have to prove cause. The guy totally effed up, but to be even remotely fair, Larry Scott and the various Pac 12 Presidents are even more culpable.
He might be right. The scuttlebutt is that some propellerhead (professor- somewhere) that convinced him to make the big ask.philbert said:juarezbear said:calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearSD said:
Looks like Kliavkoff provoked this lawsuit by asking the WSU president to call a board meeting to guarantee that Kliavkoff and other extremely well paid conference employees would be paid for the length of their contracts. When Schulz declined to call a meeting, Kliavkoff had his staff call one and included all 12 of the Pac CEOs.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/08/pac-12-chaos-inside-the-11-days-that-led-to-wsu-and-osu-taking-legal-action-against-the-conference/Quote:
Aug. 29: Commissioner George Kliavkoff calls Washington State president Kirk Schulz and asks Schulz to convene the board of directors to "discuss matters related to the departing members, proposed amendments to the Bylaws, a proposed conflicts of interest plan for Pac-12 members, and an employee compensation and retention plan for the Commissioner and other employees of the Pac-12."
Schulz declines, citing "the rapidly evolving situation concerning the departing members."
Following the call, Kliavkoff writes to the 12 presidents and chancellors and proposes a "meeting of all 'Conference CEOs' to discuss 'complex issues facing the Conference.'"
Aug. 30: Kliavkoff's assistant (unnamed) follows up to schedule a "Pac-12 Board Meeting" for the week of September 11.
Aug. 31: Oregon State general counsel Rebecca Gore writes to Kliavkoff and Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer "to confirm that the contemplated meeting would not be a meeting of the Pac-12 Board of Directors. Presumably concerned with the governance issues raised herein, Mr. Petersmeyer failed to respond for nearly a week."
Sept. 5: Petersmeyer responds and indicates the Sept. 13 meeting will, in fact, be a board meeting and "We anticipated voting on certain matters including the retention plan and having a discussion and possible vote on our go forward governance approach."
I, for one, hope Kliavkoff gets screwed out of his entire remaining contract. He deserves nothing! His incompetence lead to the conference's demise, and he should not receive payment for being the commissioner of a conference that doesn't exist.
You are not alone. Even if they get 12 votes together, first order of business should be to fire Kliavkoff for cause. Then hand over the keys to OSU and WSU. If we can get rid of Knowlton too, even better.
They'd have to prove cause. The guy totally effed up, but to be even remotely fair, Larry Scott and the various Pac 12 Presidents are even more culpable.
GK gonna say I brought them an Espn deal for $30M/team in October and they said they wanted $50M.
For this year yes but will you have two boards running one conference for the year, Do you think CAL is in a position to walk away and not at least get a portion of the assets left over? Silly not to try to get as much as possible. Let the courts sort it all out. I don't think WSU and OSU will over all walk away as winners even if they get a good ruling on the by laws.Bowlesman80 said:GOLDEN said:Pretty much the case now. Your are right! Why would a team want to join and get involved in a legal quagmire that could last months and months if not years. I could see CAL and others file their own counter lawsuits to collect what is rightfully each members portion. If a court has to sort it all out then so be it. I can see it being a long process. It is not like each current school is entitled to nothing. It might come down to a percentage but I don't think the other 10 will accept zero like WSU and OSU want it to be. It is likely to be a prorated amount.wifeisafurd said:
For those that wondered if any outside teams would want to be members of a "new" Pac conference, the answer is hell no. Who would want to get their programs involved in this legal quagmire. Just a few of the issue mentioned were executive severance, lack of transparency with Comcast obligations (this also comes with several. lawsuits from former Pac 12 executives due to misconduct by Commish Larry), the desire of the remaining members to liquidate the Pac and receive distributions (this also anticipates a demand for distribution of prior season distributions that are being held for emergencies that are no longer present) and well there is the whole matter of who has what voting rights.
Prorated how? And why?
All 12 teams are finishing the year and should retain full voting and entitlement rights.
GOLDEN said:
So a question to anyone here willing to answer. Could Pac-12 money get tied up for months or even years. Think of the rulings and possible appeals and counter suits (remember you can sue a roast beef sandwich). How in the world would this help OSU or WSU if things are snagged in litigation. Also, would this have any effect with them join the ACC, Big 12 or Big 10 in the future. Let alone being black balled on facing future pac teams in non conference matters. I mean CAL could sue them I suppose if all debts are not covered, etc,
I think it is a massive gamble in itself. Thoughts...
UCLA has a lot of earned March Madness units that haven't been fully paid off. If the total amount owed to the conference is about $50 million, about $15 million would go to UCLA if the conference dissolves. Their athletic department is reportedly more than $100 million in debt, so they may not be eager to leave the March Madness money behind.ColoradoBear said:
But I believe Wilner wrote that the NCAA shares would revert to the teams that earned them if the conference dissolves, so there would be incentive for schools like UCLA and Arizona to want to dissolve the conference.
And it's awesome!movielover said:GOLDEN said:
So a question to anyone here willing to answer. Could Pac-12 money get tied up for months or even years. Think of the rulings and possible appeals and counter suits (remember you can sue a roast beef sandwich). How in the world would this help OSU or WSU if things are snagged in litigation. Also, would this have any effect with them join the ACC, Big 12 or Big 10 in the future. Let alone being black balled on facing future pac teams in non conference matters. I mean CAL could sue them I suppose if all debts are not covered, etc,
I think it is a massive gamble in itself. Thoughts...
Costco has a new $10 roast beef sammie in their food court.
ColoradoBear said:wifeisafurd said:
For those that wondered if any outside teams would want to be members of a "new" Pac conference, the answer is hell no. Who would want to get their programs involved in this legal quagmire. Just a few of the issue mentioned were executive severance, lack of transparency with Comcast obligations (this also comes with several. lawsuits from former Pac 12 executives due to misconduct by Commish Larry), the desire of the remaining members to liquidate the Pac and receive distributions (this also anticipates a demand for distribution of prior season distributions that are being held for emergencies that are no longer present) and well there is the whole matter of who has what voting rights.
Autonomous 5 conference status, $40-50 million in NCAA hoops distributions coming, and CFB playoff money in 24 and 25 that would not available if the conference dissolved and OSU and WSU went to the MWC. Probably worth exploring.
Money coming in would outweigh by many, many times the potential expenditures/liabilities like Kliavkoff remaong contact value or wrongful termination suits.
I do agree the p12 network assets are likely pennies on the dollar. There aren't going to be a lot assets to divy up, so it seems pretty dirty for the schools who are leaving to favor dissolving the conference, especially since there is no exit penalty.
But I believe Wilner wrote that the NCAA shares would revert to the teams that earned them if the conference dissolves, so there would be incentive for schools like UCLA and Arizona to want to dissolve the conference.
I also saw it mentioned somewhere that the Colonial Conference has banned departing schools from conference title events a.coiple fo times (mostly out of spite). Would be insane to see OSU and WSU get control of the board alone and ban the other 10 schools from from the football CCG. Couldn't do that for basketball as the TV deals pay $$$ for the tourney.
I'd think that the departing 10 and OSU/WSU could come to an agreement about voting rights and not screwing each other over, but p12 execs are the issue here.
movielover said:ColoradoBear said:wifeisafurd said:
For those that wondered if any outside teams would want to be members of a "new" Pac conference, the answer is hell no. Who would want to get their programs involved in this legal quagmire. Just a few of the issue mentioned were executive severance, lack of transparency with Comcast obligations (this also comes with several. lawsuits from former Pac 12 executives due to misconduct by Commish Larry), the desire of the remaining members to liquidate the Pac and receive distributions (this also anticipates a demand for distribution of prior season distributions that are being held for emergencies that are no longer present) and well there is the whole matter of who has what voting rights.
Autonomous 5 conference status, $40-50 million in NCAA hoops distributions coming, and CFB playoff money in 24 and 25 that would not available if the conference dissolved and OSU and WSU went to the MWC. Probably worth exploring.
Money coming in would outweigh by many, many times the potential expenditures/liabilities like Kliavkoff remaong contact value or wrongful termination suits.
I do agree the p12 network assets are likely pennies on the dollar. There aren't going to be a lot assets to divy up, so it seems pretty dirty for the schools who are leaving to favor dissolving the conference, especially since there is no exit penalty.
But I believe Wilner wrote that the NCAA shares would revert to the teams that earned them if the conference dissolves, so there would be incentive for schools like UCLA and Arizona to want to dissolve the conference.
I also saw it mentioned somewhere that the Colonial Conference has banned departing schools from conference title events a.coiple fo times (mostly out of spite). Would be insane to see OSU and WSU get control of the board alone and ban the other 10 schools from from the football CCG. Couldn't do that for basketball as the TV deals pay $$$ for the tourney.
I'd think that the departing 10 and OSU/WSU could come to an agreement about voting rights and not screwing each other over, but p12 execs are the issue here.
Is it possible to keep the PAC-2 together, and keep all the monies?
ColoradoBear said:movielover said:ColoradoBear said:wifeisafurd said:
For those that wondered if any outside teams would want to be members of a "new" Pac conference, the answer is hell no. Who would want to get their programs involved in this legal quagmire. Just a few of the issue mentioned were executive severance, lack of transparency with Comcast obligations (this also comes with several. lawsuits from former Pac 12 executives due to misconduct by Commish Larry), the desire of the remaining members to liquidate the Pac and receive distributions (this also anticipates a demand for distribution of prior season distributions that are being held for emergencies that are no longer present) and well there is the whole matter of who has what voting rights.
Autonomous 5 conference status, $40-50 million in NCAA hoops distributions coming, and CFB playoff money in 24 and 25 that would not available if the conference dissolved and OSU and WSU went to the MWC. Probably worth exploring.
Money coming in would outweigh by many, many times the potential expenditures/liabilities like Kliavkoff remaong contact value or wrongful termination suits.
I do agree the p12 network assets are likely pennies on the dollar. There aren't going to be a lot assets to divy up, so it seems pretty dirty for the schools who are leaving to favor dissolving the conference, especially since there is no exit penalty.
But I believe Wilner wrote that the NCAA shares would revert to the teams that earned them if the conference dissolves, so there would be incentive for schools like UCLA and Arizona to want to dissolve the conference.
I also saw it mentioned somewhere that the Colonial Conference has banned departing schools from conference title events a.coiple fo times (mostly out of spite). Would be insane to see OSU and WSU get control of the board alone and ban the other 10 schools from from the football CCG. Couldn't do that for basketball as the TV deals pay $$$ for the tourney.
I'd think that the departing 10 and OSU/WSU could come to an agreement about voting rights and not screwing each other over, but p12 execs are the issue here.
Is it possible to keep the PAC-2 together, and keep all the monies?
It's been reported they would get a two year grace period to return to the 8 team NCAA minimum. NCAA hoops autobid require 6 teams, even next year.
Haven't seen as much about the CFB playoff access and payouts, but before the contract ends (after the title game in Jan 2026), changes are rumored to need a unanimous vote, so the pac2 couldn't be voted out (there are no strict autobids), but for the 2026 CFB playoff, notbing has been decided at all.
They could do pretty well for those two years in football, provided they could make a schedule - likely they'd at least know who they were merging with in 2026. Other sports? No idea how that could work.
How do you think a two year stint with a big unknown at the end will affect recruiting? Can't be a positive. And you could not give the recruit a guarantee it won't be a MWC merger in 2026ColoradoBear said:movielover said:ColoradoBear said:wifeisafurd said:
For those that wondered if any outside teams would want to be members of a "new" Pac conference, the answer is hell no. Who would want to get their programs involved in this legal quagmire. Just a few of the issue mentioned were executive severance, lack of transparency with Comcast obligations (this also comes with several. lawsuits from former Pac 12 executives due to misconduct by Commish Larry), the desire of the remaining members to liquidate the Pac and receive distributions (this also anticipates a demand for distribution of prior season distributions that are being held for emergencies that are no longer present) and well there is the whole matter of who has what voting rights.
Autonomous 5 conference status, $40-50 million in NCAA hoops distributions coming, and CFB playoff money in 24 and 25 that would not available if the conference dissolved and OSU and WSU went to the MWC. Probably worth exploring.
Money coming in would outweigh by many, many times the potential expenditures/liabilities like Kliavkoff remaong contact value or wrongful termination suits.
I do agree the p12 network assets are likely pennies on the dollar. There aren't going to be a lot assets to divy up, so it seems pretty dirty for the schools who are leaving to favor dissolving the conference, especially since there is no exit penalty.
But I believe Wilner wrote that the NCAA shares would revert to the teams that earned them if the conference dissolves, so there would be incentive for schools like UCLA and Arizona to want to dissolve the conference.
I also saw it mentioned somewhere that the Colonial Conference has banned departing schools from conference title events a.coiple fo times (mostly out of spite). Would be insane to see OSU and WSU get control of the board alone and ban the other 10 schools from from the football CCG. Couldn't do that for basketball as the TV deals pay $$$ for the tourney.
I'd think that the departing 10 and OSU/WSU could come to an agreement about voting rights and not screwing each other over, but p12 execs are the issue here.
Is it possible to keep the PAC-2 together, and keep all the monies?
It's been reported they would get a two year grace period to return to the 8 team NCAA minimum. NCAA hoops autobid require 6 teams, even next year.
Haven't seen as much about the CFB playoff access and payouts, but before the contract ends (after the title game in Jan 2026), changes are rumored to need a unanimous vote, so the pac2 couldn't be voted out (there are no strict autobids), but for the 2026 CFB playoff, notbing has been decided at all.
They could do pretty well for those two years in football, provided they could make a schedule - likely they'd at least know who they were merging with in 2026. Other sports? No idea how that could work.
If it were a question of divorcing one's cousins and sisters, stanfurd would be the authority on the subject.Bobodeluxe said:Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, …heartofthebear said:Technically Arizona is just as qualified.Econ141 said:nikeykid said:
ah like a divorce. with your 10 spouses.
Utah should be able to give some advice here.
