DemonDeke said:

---

Nobody above has convinced me that the departing members have the voting right to dissolve the conference by having given notice they are leaving, and thereby have modest interests in the conference's future after 8/1/24.

They have an interest prior to that. Perhaps a conservator will be appointed through 8/1/24. Or the baby will be split by a judge and allow the departing schools to be able to vote or participate in matters that are inside their membership horizon.

Reserves and over funded escrow accounts can deal with liabilities.

The argument that it would behoove WOSU to negotiate a settlement - in order to be able to act more cleanly regarding the future - than to pursue a strict "you're leaving you lose all after 8/1/25" path, makes sense to me. They might lose. I'm not sure they would, but others above scoff at the idea WOSU have controlling rights. So a negotiation that leaves WOSU with value and a PAC conference has enough value - economically and morally - to provide more to the departing schools than scorched earth would provide.

I don't see how the 7 vs 3 or 5 thing would work. There isn't enough to distinguish the 5 late leavers from the earlier ones. It makes no sense that some who are leaving have no vote and others who are leaving do.

I think it is 2 vs 10. The 7 votes in the bylaws may have been for avoidance of doubt. Two may constitute quorum.

The judge in Washington did exactly what he should have done and could only have done. And, absent a replacement controlling jurisdiction, that court should hold the reins. I do think the venue will be changed to federal court, unless the bylaws forbid that.

---

Thanks, yeah that makes sense. We will see how it turns out. Glad we have a P5 home at least.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Well, there is clearly a conflict of interest between the 10 departing schools and the Pac-12. The ACC held a call last night to discuss future football scheduling matters… I'm sure reps for Stanford and Cal were on that call… that's a pretty big conflict of interest!

---

Those matters apply to what happens in the future in another conference, not the present where those schools still are competing in the Pac. As for the present, there are various times when the 12 teams have had conflicts of interest, such as setting schedule over the last few decades. So what?

---

exactly. Nearly every vote that teh pac presidents take is a conflict of interest.

---

Having announced departure from the conference is a conflict that ought to prevent the departing school from having a vote on whether and how the conference should continue to exist after the departing school has left.

This is why OSU and WSU are in court, to prevent Kliavkoff & friends from deeming the departing schools eligible to vote and letting them dissolve the conference in exchange for giving big fat severance packages to all conference employees. OSU and WSU would have needed to go to court anyway after Kliavkoff executed that ruse, so they decided to go to court before it was done.

---

Exactly, 10 schools are now essentially members of other competitor conferences and have no incentive to insure the Pacific conference remains a viable entity a year from now, probably the opposite. A fundamental question is what to do with the substantial reserve funds: save, or even grow them to handle the litigations detailed above and yet to come or just disburse them now and let "the conference" deal with all the potential liabilities in the future. Even the fact that WSU and OSU have to take the conference to court (spending their money on both sides) points to this obvious conflict.

---

IMO the money is an issue for later. The first thing WSU and OSU need is a court order (or a negotiated settlement) that prevents the Pac from being dissolved over their objections. They ought to control the decision on whether or not to keep the Pac going and invite MWC schools in.

WSU and OSU aren't going to take all of the 2023-24 conference revenue and leave the departing schools with nothing. That can't fly, even under the Pac's poorly written bylaws. More importantly, they haven't expressed an intent to do that.

---

why do two members automatically get the right to determine what happens to the conference? In a partnership, or association, such as medical, law or accounting entity, If 10 out of 12 partners decide they want to go their separate ways, they can dissolve and wind-up their association. The 2 minority partners don't get to automatically get the entity and all the assets and make all the decisions. Absent an agreement to the contrary, the two partners can start their own firm and invite whoever they like in as partners, but they don't get a veto right to stop the entity from being liquidated. This is black letter CA law. Do you have some law to support your contention?

---

I assume that depends on what anyone's business agreement says, such as whether you lose voting rights by announcing your departure or taking steps to leave, or whether certain things can be done by a simple majority.

As for what should be done? The name and the conference's place within college sports matter; they are not fungible like a generic association of a dozen doctors or lawyers.

---

100% The conference itself has value beyond the sum of the members. Dissolution would destroy value. Sure, it is not value those leaving can take with them, so what, screw them because we can? When only two weeks ago it was looking like we would be with them and we were ranting about the selfishness of USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon?

---

Dissolution does not destroy any value, it just determines who is allowed to participate in the spoils, remaining assets after ALL liabilities have been accounted for. (And yes, that means the contracts of existing Pac employees and such things as any lease terms for the Pac offices and Pac-network..)

Like many others, I'm rooting for OSU and WSU, and hope we can continue to play them in FB and OOC in b'ball. That said, the 7 need to protect their own interests. If Cal can get an extra million or so from teh spoils, the powers-that-be woudl not be doing their fidiuciary duty if they just walked away and left it behind.

---

Absolutely disagree.

The PAC-12 is one of 5 conferences the NCAA has designated as an "autonomous" (Power 5) conference in their rules. The CFP recognizes that designation too with higher payouts.. The PAC-12 will receive 5 years of higher payouts for the NCAA basketball tournament as well. Under NCAA rules a conference can continue below 8 members for 2 years. Under CFP rules, spots are reserved for the top ranked conference champions. WSU and OSU are both currently ranked. It is not a stretch that they could be ranked next year and would have a great path to the playoffs. However, they need to have a scheduling agreement with another conference soon. The plan they have been investigating is an agreement to merge with the MWC in 2026 and operating as the PAC-2 for two years as is allowed under NCAA rules.

---

yeah, I believe it is a stretch. You should not assume that every player remains. You should not assume that every coach remains. Like Cal, OSU and WSU will be massively underwater wrt their Athletic Budgets in '24 and beyond. Perhaps the respective State Legislatures will bail them out, but I would not assume that either. Many top players and coaches will likely leave for a P4 team. Those teams will look significantly different in 9 months.

And of course, there is no guarantee that the CFP does not vote to change the rules. Sure, WSU and OSU can sue, but..... (I think any change requires a unanimous vote, adn Wazzou's Schultz is a governing member of teh CFP, so that could block a vote for the time being. Perhaps WIAF can track down the bylaws to see if they can vote to replace a Governing member, or, like teh ncaa, can they take an "emergency" vote that does not require unanimous..)

https://www.si.com/college/2023/08/31/college-football-playoff-committee-future-format-pac-12-disbandment-realignment

---

It is pretty obvious from the comments by the P4 commissioners that the Pac access to the payoff for next season will change.

---

That is only 4 votes, it would take a unanimous vote to change the 2024 and 2025 CFP and right now the Pac has a vote. Under NCAA rules the PAC can operate in 2024 and 2025 with only two members. They only lose that vote if the other 10 dissolve the conference. That is why dissolving the conference would cause irreparable harm to WSU and OSU.

---

which is yet another reason why the members will vote for dissolution.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Well, there is clearly a conflict of interest between the 10 departing schools and the Pac-12. The ACC held a call last night to discuss future football scheduling matters… I'm sure reps for Stanford and Cal were on that call… that's a pretty big conflict of interest!

---

Those matters apply to what happens in the future in another conference, not the present where those schools still are competing in the Pac. As for the present, there are various times when the 12 teams have had conflicts of interest, such as setting schedule over the last few decades. So what?

---

exactly. Nearly every vote that teh pac presidents take is a conflict of interest.

---

Having announced departure from the conference is a conflict that ought to prevent the departing school from having a vote on whether and how the conference should continue to exist after the departing school has left.

This is why OSU and WSU are in court, to prevent Kliavkoff & friends from deeming the departing schools eligible to vote and letting them dissolve the conference in exchange for giving big fat severance packages to all conference employees. OSU and WSU would have needed to go to court anyway after Kliavkoff executed that ruse, so they decided to go to court before it was done.

---

Exactly, 10 schools are now essentially members of other competitor conferences and have no incentive to insure the Pacific conference remains a viable entity a year from now, probably the opposite. A fundamental question is what to do with the substantial reserve funds: save, or even grow them to handle the litigations detailed above and yet to come or just disburse them now and let "the conference" deal with all the potential liabilities in the future. Even the fact that WSU and OSU have to take the conference to court (spending their money on both sides) points to this obvious conflict.

---

IMO the money is an issue for later. The first thing WSU and OSU need is a court order (or a negotiated settlement) that prevents the Pac from being dissolved over their objections. They ought to control the decision on whether or not to keep the Pac going and invite MWC schools in.

WSU and OSU aren't going to take all of the 2023-24 conference revenue and leave the departing schools with nothing. That can't fly, even under the Pac's poorly written bylaws. More importantly, they haven't expressed an intent to do that.

---

why do two members automatically get the right to determine what happens to the conference? In a partnership, or association, such as medical, law or accounting entity, If 10 out of 12 partners decide they want to go their separate ways, they can dissolve and wind-up their association. The 2 minority partners don't get to automatically get the entity and all the assets and make all the decisions. Absent an agreement to the contrary, the two partners can start their own firm and invite whoever they like in as partners, but they don't get a veto right to stop the entity from being liquidated. This is black letter CA law. Do you have some law to support your contention?

---

I assume that depends on what anyone's business agreement says, such as whether you lose voting rights by announcing your departure or taking steps to leave, or whether certain things can be done by a simple majority.

As for what should be done? The name and the conference's place within college sports matter; they are not fungible like a generic association of a dozen doctors or lawyers.

---

100% The conference itself has value beyond the sum of the members. Dissolution would destroy value. Sure, it is not value those leaving can take with them, so what, screw them because we can? When only two weeks ago it was looking like we would be with them and we were ranting about the selfishness of USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon?

---

Dissolution does not destroy any value, it just determines who is allowed to participate in the spoils, remaining assets after ALL liabilities have been accounted for. (And yes, that means the contracts of existing Pac employees and such things as any lease terms for the Pac offices and Pac-network..)

Like many others, I'm rooting for OSU and WSU, and hope we can continue to play them in FB and OOC in b'ball. That said, the 7 need to protect their own interests. If Cal can get an extra million or so from teh spoils, the powers-that-be woudl not be doing their fidiuciary duty if they just walked away and left it behind.

---

Absolutely disagree.

The PAC-12 is one of 5 conferences the NCAA has designated as an "autonomous" (Power 5) conference in their rules. The CFP recognizes that designation too with higher payouts.. The PAC-12 will receive 5 years of higher payouts for the NCAA basketball tournament as well. Under NCAA rules a conference can continue below 8 members for 2 years. Under CFP rules, spots are reserved for the top ranked conference champions. WSU and OSU are both currently ranked. It is not a stretch that they could be ranked next year and would have a great path to the playoffs. However, they need to have a scheduling agreement with another conference soon. The plan they have been investigating is an agreement to merge with the MWC in 2026 and operating as the PAC-2 for two years as is allowed under NCAA rules.

---

yeah, I believe it is a stretch. You should not assume that every player remains. You should not assume that every coach remains. Like Cal, OSU and WSU will be massively underwater wrt their Athletic Budgets in '24 and beyond. Perhaps the respective State Legislatures will bail them out, but I would not assume that either. Many top players and coaches will likely leave for a P4 team. Those teams will look significantly different in 9 months.

And of course, there is no guarantee that the CFP does not vote to change the rules. Sure, WSU and OSU can sue, but..... (I think any change requires a unanimous vote, adn Wazzou's Schultz is a governing member of teh CFP, so that could block a vote for the time being. Perhaps WIAF can track down the bylaws to see if they can vote to replace a Governing member, or, like teh ncaa, can they take an "emergency" vote that does not require unanimous..)

https://www.si.com/college/2023/08/31/college-football-playoff-committee-future-format-pac-12-disbandment-realignment

---

It is pretty obvious from the comments by the P4 commissioners that the Pac access to the payoff for next season will change.

---

That is only 4 votes, it would take a unanimous vote to change the 2024 and 2025 CFP and right now the Pac has a vote. Under NCAA rules the PAC can operate in 2024 and 2025 with only two members. They only lose that vote if the other 10 dissolve the conference. That is why dissolving the conference would cause irreparable harm to WSU and OSU.

---

yes and so what? When entities cease, there are always winner and losers. No reason Cal should have to be the guarantors of whatever WSU and OSU do in the future. That is what effectively happens under CA law if they don't force a liquidation. You're simply not appreciating the legal and financial consequences to departing members of allowing the Pac to continue without 10 members.

---

And you are not appreciating that the PAC has tremendous value as an ongoing concern with NCAA tournament and CFP revenues and a seat on the CFP board at least through 2024 and 2025, based on current agreements, that would be destroyed by liquidation. Those are not assets that can be divided upon liquidation, it is value destroyed by liquidation.

I am not arguing that as majority owners we don't have a legal right to destroy a historic conference with future value. I am saying the best thing for all concerned (or at least anyone who joined in) would be to negotiate a settlement that divides up current assets and liabilities and allows WSU and OSU to fully try to obtain those future values. The pie to be divided is much bigger if the PAC continues to exist than if it doesn't. So even if we can legally destroy it, that is not the smart or moral thing to do.

---

So if WSU and OSU blow it and run up huge liabilities, Cal has to pay what they can't. Why would Cal or any other member ever do that? What you are suggesting will never happen.

calumnus said:

---

DemonDeke said:

---

Nobody above has convinced me that the departing members have the voting right to dissolve the conference by having given notice they are leaving, and thereby have modest interests in the conference's future after 8/1/24.

They have an interest prior to that. Perhaps a conservator will be appointed through 8/1/24. Or the baby will be split by a judge and allow the departing schools to be able to vote or participate in matters that are inside their membership horizon.

Reserves and over funded escrow accounts can deal with liabilities.

The argument that it would behoove WOSU to negotiate a settlement - in order to be able to act more cleanly regarding the future - than to pursue a strict "you're leaving you lose all after 8/1/25" path, makes sense to me. They might lose. I'm not sure they would, but others above scoff at the idea WOSU have controlling rights. So a negotiation that leaves WOSU with value and a PAC conference has enough value - economically and morally - to provide more to the departing schools than scorched earth would provide.

I don't see how the 7 vs 3 or 5 thing would work. There isn't enough to distinguish the 5 late leavers from the earlier ones. It makes no sense that some who are leaving have no vote and others who are leaving do.

I think it is 2 vs 10. The 7 votes in the bylaws may have been for avoidance of doubt. Two may constitute quorum.

The judge in Washington did exactly what he should have done and could only have done. And, absent a replacement controlling jurisdiction, that court should hold the reins. I do think the venue will be changed to federal court, unless the bylaws forbid that.

---

Thanks, yeah that makes sense. We will see how it turns out. Glad we have a P5 home at least.

---

great now everyone has given notice.

While we are at it, let's invent some additional facts, like if this is still up in the air for awhile, WSU and OSU can have more than a 4 game schedule (think about this more carefully since every other conference school has a full schedule already)? They will have sufficient wins to be playoff or bowl eligible, because they can invent D1 schools to play or maybe some judge will order some division 1 schools to play them. They will have TV revenue because they can find a streamer to step in. Sure, every streamer will say let's spend a huge amount on TV infrastructure to carry those tiny markets WSU and OSU bring the table. They will use the Pac network for infrastructure- because while the members are fighting over rights, some Judge will just award the conferences assets to a third party. Most of the players won't be Portal transfers. Fan and donor loyalty will stick. Fans will pay a fortune for a 2 or 3 games home season. You guys need to think this out more fully.

If OSU and WSU can't get this resolved in fairly quick order (and they may have waited too long already), they need to join another conference post haste just so they have sufficient qualified teams to play. Time is not on their side. The other members can just tie this up in litigation until they capitulate. Something to ponder - the other 10 members were not named in this suit, and are not before this court.

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Well, there is clearly a conflict of interest between the 10 departing schools and the Pac-12. The ACC held a call last night to discuss future football scheduling matters… I'm sure reps for Stanford and Cal were on that call… that's a pretty big conflict of interest!

---

Those matters apply to what happens in the future in another conference, not the present where those schools still are competing in the Pac. As for the present, there are various times when the 12 teams have had conflicts of interest, such as setting schedule over the last few decades. So what?

---

exactly. Nearly every vote that teh pac presidents take is a conflict of interest.

---

Having announced departure from the conference is a conflict that ought to prevent the departing school from having a vote on whether and how the conference should continue to exist after the departing school has left.

This is why OSU and WSU are in court, to prevent Kliavkoff & friends from deeming the departing schools eligible to vote and letting them dissolve the conference in exchange for giving big fat severance packages to all conference employees. OSU and WSU would have needed to go to court anyway after Kliavkoff executed that ruse, so they decided to go to court before it was done.

---

Exactly, 10 schools are now essentially members of other competitor conferences and have no incentive to insure the Pacific conference remains a viable entity a year from now, probably the opposite. A fundamental question is what to do with the substantial reserve funds: save, or even grow them to handle the litigations detailed above and yet to come or just disburse them now and let "the conference" deal with all the potential liabilities in the future. Even the fact that WSU and OSU have to take the conference to court (spending their money on both sides) points to this obvious conflict.

---

IMO the money is an issue for later. The first thing WSU and OSU need is a court order (or a negotiated settlement) that prevents the Pac from being dissolved over their objections. They ought to control the decision on whether or not to keep the Pac going and invite MWC schools in.

WSU and OSU aren't going to take all of the 2023-24 conference revenue and leave the departing schools with nothing. That can't fly, even under the Pac's poorly written bylaws. More importantly, they haven't expressed an intent to do that.

---

why do two members automatically get the right to determine what happens to the conference? In a partnership, or association, such as medical, law or accounting entity, If 10 out of 12 partners decide they want to go their separate ways, they can dissolve and wind-up their association. The 2 minority partners don't get to automatically get the entity and all the assets and make all the decisions. Absent an agreement to the contrary, the two partners can start their own firm and invite whoever they like in as partners, but they don't get a veto right to stop the entity from being liquidated. This is black letter CA law. Do you have some law to support your contention?

---

I assume that depends on what anyone's business agreement says, such as whether you lose voting rights by announcing your departure or taking steps to leave, or whether certain things can be done by a simple majority.

As for what should be done? The name and the conference's place within college sports matter; they are not fungible like a generic association of a dozen doctors or lawyers.

---

100% The conference itself has value beyond the sum of the members. Dissolution would destroy value. Sure, it is not value those leaving can take with them, so what, screw them because we can? When only two weeks ago it was looking like we would be with them and we were ranting about the selfishness of USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon?

---

Dissolution does not destroy any value, it just determines who is allowed to participate in the spoils, remaining assets after ALL liabilities have been accounted for. (And yes, that means the contracts of existing Pac employees and such things as any lease terms for the Pac offices and Pac-network..)

Like many others, I'm rooting for OSU and WSU, and hope we can continue to play them in FB and OOC in b'ball. That said, the 7 need to protect their own interests. If Cal can get an extra million or so from teh spoils, the powers-that-be woudl not be doing their fidiuciary duty if they just walked away and left it behind.

---

Absolutely disagree.

The PAC-12 is one of 5 conferences the NCAA has designated as an "autonomous" (Power 5) conference in their rules. The CFP recognizes that designation too with higher payouts.. The PAC-12 will receive 5 years of higher payouts for the NCAA basketball tournament as well. Under NCAA rules a conference can continue below 8 members for 2 years. Under CFP rules, spots are reserved for the top ranked conference champions. WSU and OSU are both currently ranked. It is not a stretch that they could be ranked next year and would have a great path to the playoffs. However, they need to have a scheduling agreement with another conference soon. The plan they have been investigating is an agreement to merge with the MWC in 2026 and operating as the PAC-2 for two years as is allowed under NCAA rules.

---

yeah, I believe it is a stretch. You should not assume that every player remains. You should not assume that every coach remains. Like Cal, OSU and WSU will be massively underwater wrt their Athletic Budgets in '24 and beyond. Perhaps the respective State Legislatures will bail them out, but I would not assume that either. Many top players and coaches will likely leave for a P4 team. Those teams will look significantly different in 9 months.

And of course, there is no guarantee that the CFP does not vote to change the rules. Sure, WSU and OSU can sue, but..... (I think any change requires a unanimous vote, adn Wazzou's Schultz is a governing member of teh CFP, so that could block a vote for the time being. Perhaps WIAF can track down the bylaws to see if they can vote to replace a Governing member, or, like teh ncaa, can they take an "emergency" vote that does not require unanimous..)

https://www.si.com/college/2023/08/31/college-football-playoff-committee-future-format-pac-12-disbandment-realignment

---

It is pretty obvious from the comments by the P4 commissioners that the Pac access to the payoff for next season will change.

---

That is only 4 votes, it would take a unanimous vote to change the 2024 and 2025 CFP and right now the Pac has a vote. Under NCAA rules the PAC can operate in 2024 and 2025 with only two members. They only lose that vote if the other 10 dissolve the conference. That is why dissolving the conference would cause irreparable harm to WSU and OSU.

---

yes and so what? When entities cease, there are always winner and losers. No reason Cal should have to be the guarantors of whatever WSU and OSU do in the future. That is what effectively happens under CA law if they don't force a liquidation. You're simply not appreciating the legal and financial consequences to departing members of allowing the Pac to continue without 10 members.

---

And you are not appreciating that the PAC has tremendous value as an ongoing concern with NCAA tournament and CFP revenues and a seat on the CFP board at least through 2024 and 2025, based on current agreements, that would be destroyed by liquidation. Those are not assets that can be divided upon liquidation, it is value destroyed by liquidation.

I am not arguing that as majority owners we don't have a legal right to destroy a historic conference with future value. I am saying the best thing for all concerned (or at least anyone who joined in) would be to negotiate a settlement that divides up current assets and liabilities and allows WSU and OSU to fully try to obtain those future values. The pie to be divided is much bigger if the PAC continues to exist than if it doesn't. So even if we can legally destroy it, that is not the smart or moral thing to do.

---

So if WSU and OSU blow it and run up huge liabilities, Cal has to pay what they can't. Why would Cal or any other member ever do that? What you suggesting will never happen.

---

Isn't that the situation UCLA and USC were in?

A negotiation could easily result in a settlement with payments to the 10 based on current assets and liabilities with a release from any liability for future actions. We clearly would not be part of the conference a year from now. WSU and OSU are looking to cut costs, not blow them up. They want try to maintain a viable P5 conference.

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DemonDeke said:

---

Nobody above has convinced me that the departing members have the voting right to dissolve the conference by having given notice they are leaving, and thereby have modest interests in the conference's future after 8/1/24.

They have an interest prior to that. Perhaps a conservator will be appointed through 8/1/24. Or the baby will be split by a judge and allow the departing schools to be able to vote or participate in matters that are inside their membership horizon.

Reserves and over funded escrow accounts can deal with liabilities.

The argument that it would behoove WOSU to negotiate a settlement - in order to be able to act more cleanly regarding the future - than to pursue a strict "you're leaving you lose all after 8/1/25" path, makes sense to me. They might lose. I'm not sure they would, but others above scoff at the idea WOSU have controlling rights. So a negotiation that leaves WOSU with value and a PAC conference has enough value - economically and morally - to provide more to the departing schools than scorched earth would provide.

I don't see how the 7 vs 3 or 5 thing would work. There isn't enough to distinguish the 5 late leavers from the earlier ones. It makes no sense that some who are leaving have no vote and others who are leaving do.

I think it is 2 vs 10. The 7 votes in the bylaws may have been for avoidance of doubt. Two may constitute quorum.

The judge in Washington did exactly what he should have done and could only have done. And, absent a replacement controlling jurisdiction, that court should hold the reins. I do think the venue will be changed to federal court, unless the bylaws forbid that.

---

Thanks, yeah that makes sense. We will see how it turns out. Glad we have a P5 home at least.

---

great now everyone has given notice.

While we are at it, let's invent some additional facts, like if this is still up in the air for awhile, WSU and OSU can have more than a 4 game schedule (think about this more carefully since every other conference school has a full schedule already)? They will have sufficient wins to be playoff or bowl eligible, because they can invent D1 schools to play or maybe some judge will order some division 1 schools to play them. They will have TV revenue because they can find a streamer to step in. Sure, every streamer will say let's spend a huge amount on TV infrastructure to carry those tiny markets WSU and OSU bring the table. They will use the Pac network for infrastructure- because while the members are fighting over rights, some Judge will just award the conferences assets to a third party. Most of the players won't be Portal transfers. Fan and donor loyalty will stick. Fans will pay a fortune for a 2 or 3 games home season. You guys need to think this out more fully.

If OSU and WSU can't get this resolved in fairly quick order (and they may have waited too long already), they need to join another conference post haste just so they have sufficient qualified teams to play. Time is not on their side. The other members can just tie this up in litigation until they capitulate. Something to ponder - the other 10 members were not named in this suit, and are not before this court.

---

Wow. Two weeks ago we were part of the PAC-4. If NCState hadn't flipped we would be right there with OSU and WSU, trying to save our conference. They were partly waiting on us. Now two weeks go by where they have not been given the information or authority to negotiate a deal and you say they have waited too long? It is there own conference tgst is impeding them, thst is why they are in court.

Say we didn't get into the ACC, which was quite possible, what would have been your plan? How would you feel if the 8 teams that left for other P5 tried to shut down the PAC whike we were still in it? What would be our response? Would you try to protect our future interests in the conference we have always been in and never left?

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Well, there is clearly a conflict of interest between the 10 departing schools and the Pac-12. The ACC held a call last night to discuss future football scheduling matters… I'm sure reps for Stanford and Cal were on that call… that's a pretty big conflict of interest!

---

Those matters apply to what happens in the future in another conference, not the present where those schools still are competing in the Pac. As for the present, there are various times when the 12 teams have had conflicts of interest, such as setting schedule over the last few decades. So what?

---

exactly. Nearly every vote that teh pac presidents take is a conflict of interest.

---

Having announced departure from the conference is a conflict that ought to prevent the departing school from having a vote on whether and how the conference should continue to exist after the departing school has left.

This is why OSU and WSU are in court, to prevent Kliavkoff & friends from deeming the departing schools eligible to vote and letting them dissolve the conference in exchange for giving big fat severance packages to all conference employees. OSU and WSU would have needed to go to court anyway after Kliavkoff executed that ruse, so they decided to go to court before it was done.

---

Exactly, 10 schools are now essentially members of other competitor conferences and have no incentive to insure the Pacific conference remains a viable entity a year from now, probably the opposite. A fundamental question is what to do with the substantial reserve funds: save, or even grow them to handle the litigations detailed above and yet to come or just disburse them now and let "the conference" deal with all the potential liabilities in the future. Even the fact that WSU and OSU have to take the conference to court (spending their money on both sides) points to this obvious conflict.

---

IMO the money is an issue for later. The first thing WSU and OSU need is a court order (or a negotiated settlement) that prevents the Pac from being dissolved over their objections. They ought to control the decision on whether or not to keep the Pac going and invite MWC schools in.

WSU and OSU aren't going to take all of the 2023-24 conference revenue and leave the departing schools with nothing. That can't fly, even under the Pac's poorly written bylaws. More importantly, they haven't expressed an intent to do that.

---

why do two members automatically get the right to determine what happens to the conference? In a partnership, or association, such as medical, law or accounting entity, If 10 out of 12 partners decide they want to go their separate ways, they can dissolve and wind-up their association. The 2 minority partners don't get to automatically get the entity and all the assets and make all the decisions. Absent an agreement to the contrary, the two partners can start their own firm and invite whoever they like in as partners, but they don't get a veto right to stop the entity from being liquidated. This is black letter CA law. Do you have some law to support your contention?

---

I assume that depends on what anyone's business agreement says, such as whether you lose voting rights by announcing your departure or taking steps to leave, or whether certain things can be done by a simple majority.

As for what should be done? The name and the conference's place within college sports matter; they are not fungible like a generic association of a dozen doctors or lawyers.

---

100% The conference itself has value beyond the sum of the members. Dissolution would destroy value. Sure, it is not value those leaving can take with them, so what, screw them because we can? When only two weeks ago it was looking like we would be with them and we were ranting about the selfishness of USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon?

---

Dissolution does not destroy any value, it just determines who is allowed to participate in the spoils, remaining assets after ALL liabilities have been accounted for. (And yes, that means the contracts of existing Pac employees and such things as any lease terms for the Pac offices and Pac-network..)

Like many others, I'm rooting for OSU and WSU, and hope we can continue to play them in FB and OOC in b'ball. That said, the 7 need to protect their own interests. If Cal can get an extra million or so from teh spoils, the powers-that-be woudl not be doing their fidiuciary duty if they just walked away and left it behind.

---

Absolutely disagree.

The PAC-12 is one of 5 conferences the NCAA has designated as an "autonomous" (Power 5) conference in their rules. The CFP recognizes that designation too with higher payouts.. The PAC-12 will receive 5 years of higher payouts for the NCAA basketball tournament as well. Under NCAA rules a conference can continue below 8 members for 2 years. Under CFP rules, spots are reserved for the top ranked conference champions. WSU and OSU are both currently ranked. It is not a stretch that they could be ranked next year and would have a great path to the playoffs. However, they need to have a scheduling agreement with another conference soon. The plan they have been investigating is an agreement to merge with the MWC in 2026 and operating as the PAC-2 for two years as is allowed under NCAA rules.

---

yeah, I believe it is a stretch. You should not assume that every player remains. You should not assume that every coach remains. Like Cal, OSU and WSU will be massively underwater wrt their Athletic Budgets in '24 and beyond. Perhaps the respective State Legislatures will bail them out, but I would not assume that either. Many top players and coaches will likely leave for a P4 team. Those teams will look significantly different in 9 months.

And of course, there is no guarantee that the CFP does not vote to change the rules. Sure, WSU and OSU can sue, but..... (I think any change requires a unanimous vote, adn Wazzou's Schultz is a governing member of teh CFP, so that could block a vote for the time being. Perhaps WIAF can track down the bylaws to see if they can vote to replace a Governing member, or, like teh ncaa, can they take an "emergency" vote that does not require unanimous..)

https://www.si.com/college/2023/08/31/college-football-playoff-committee-future-format-pac-12-disbandment-realignment

---

It is pretty obvious from the comments by the P4 commissioners that the Pac access to the payoff for next season will change.

---

That is only 4 votes, it would take a unanimous vote to change the 2024 and 2025 CFP and right now the Pac has a vote. Under NCAA rules the PAC can operate in 2024 and 2025 with only two members. They only lose that vote if the other 10 dissolve the conference. That is why dissolving the conference would cause irreparable harm to WSU and OSU.

---

yes and so what? When entities cease, there are always winner and losers. No reason Cal should have to be the guarantors of whatever WSU and OSU do in the future. That is what effectively happens under CA law if they don't force a liquidation. You're simply not appreciating the legal and financial consequences to departing members of allowing the Pac to continue without 10 members.

---

And you are not appreciating that the PAC has tremendous value as an ongoing concern with NCAA tournament and CFP revenues and a seat on the CFP board at least through 2024 and 2025, based on current agreements, that would be destroyed by liquidation. Those are not assets that can be divided upon liquidation, it is value destroyed by liquidation.

I am not arguing that as majority owners we don't have a legal right to destroy a historic conference with future value. I am saying the best thing for all concerned (or at least anyone who joined in) would be to negotiate a settlement that divides up current assets and liabilities and allows WSU and OSU to fully try to obtain those future values. The pie to be divided is much bigger if the PAC continues to exist than if it doesn't. So even if we can legally destroy it, that is not the smart or moral thing to do.

---

So if WSU and OSU blow it and run up huge liabilities, Cal has to pay what they can't. Why would Cal or any other member ever do that? What you suggesting will never happen.

---

Isn't that the situation UCLA and USC were in?

A negotiation could easily result in a settlement with payments to the 10 based on current assets and liabilities with a release from any liability for future actions. We clearly would not be part of the conference a year from now. WSU and OSU are looking to cut costs, not blow them up. They want try to maintain a viable P5 conference.

---

Come on, a release from WSU and OSU is worthless from the claims of third parties. I don't think an indemnification from WSU and OSU gets the job done when these public entities have all sorts of defenses against creditors. Maybe with independent backing, such as a letter of credit, and even then I don't see any highly rated financial institution wanting to take on this kind of unique risk

Yep. The PAC-12 was dead on August 4. Any rebuild would not have retained the power 5 status Stanford & California need to compete and recruit. WSU's President said they called the ACC when they learned that the league was considering Stanford & Cal, but the ACC told them that they were not interested in bringing all 4 Pac refugees.

BIG re: Cal's travel costs

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday signed a bill ending restrictions on taxpayer-funded travel for state workers traveling to parts of the country with anti-LGBTQ+ laws https://t.co/spi9dDOD3H

— The Messenger (@TheMessenger) September 14, 2023

Taxpayer finding was never used for athletic travel. Technically none of athletic operations at Cal is or ever was taxpayer funded (athletics is a 'auxillary' operation, and when the chancellor covers athletics deficits, it is specifically coming form non taxpayer funds... facilities could be a different story though).

Nah they definitely needed this repeal to happen.. "Sports teams from public universities turned to private boosters and corporate sponsors to get the money needed to compete in states on the no-go list."

Maybe it was an issue for CSU's or UC's at lower tier levels, but Cal and UCLA had - and would have had -sufficient revenue to do whatever they wanted with regard to travel restrictions.

I don't think the original law accomplished anything, so I'm not definitely not arguing against its repeal.

JRL.02 said:

---

but the ACC told them that they were not interested in bringing all 4 Pac refugees.

---

at least not without a substantial hit in media share. There was a substantial disagreement between Calford and Washgon, in approach on financial concessions.

Cal had Calimony to back it up along with possible concessions from the Regents in other areas and expected donor support. Furd and SMU had big dollar alums coming to the table. Furd campus agreed to cover all deficits of non-revenue sports without revenue sport money.

WSU has been working off over $100 million in debt. WSU's financial picture soured even more in fiscal 2023, mostly because of even-lower-than-expected revenue from the Pac-12 and other revenue sources such as student sports passes, as well as higher costs. Athletics posted an $11.5 million deficit for fiscal 2023, which President Schulz blamed on "multiple unforeseen challenges."

OSU also is having financial issues. Per the Schoo;'s website, "the [athletic] program has operated at a deficit for the last three fiscal years and projections show that significant changes in the operating model are required to run a competitive and financially sustainable PAC-12 athletics program." Here is an outside summary:

https://kobi5.com/news/oregon-state-university-athletics-faces-uncertain-future-growing-debt-212997/

Suffice to say, the Washgon programs had less ability or willingness to make financial concessions.

In regards to 2024 scheduling for WSU and OSU football, there are quite a few schools we know that are joining new conferences that only play eight conference games. So these schools that we know will be looking to add an extra OOC game as they used to only have three OOC. For some, playing OSU and WSU may be preferable to a body bag FCS matchup.

ColoradoBear said:

---

Maybe it was an issue for CSU's or UC's at lower tier levels, but Cal and UCLA had - and would have had -sufficient revenue to do whatever they wanted with regard to travel restrictions.

I don't think the original law accomplished anything, so I'm not definitely not arguing against its repeal.

---

Indeed correct. The repeal of the ban was sponsored by an openly gay legislator. He basically argued that the ban was no longer having any positive impact, as more states passed anti-gay legislation (the no travel list had grown to 23 states) and led to unintended negative consequences such as California academics being unable to participate in research projects. The view was there are better ways to address anti-gay biases.

ninetyfourbear said:

---

In regards to 2024 scheduling for WSU and OSU football, there are quite a few schools we know that are joining new conferences that only play eight conference games. So these schools that we know will be looking to add an extra OOC game as they used to only have three OOC. For some, playing OSU and WSU may be preferable to a body bag FCS matchup.

---

Name eight D1 football programs that have open non-conference games that are willing to play OSU and WSU (btw, Cal, Furd and SMU will not be among those eight, which will become apparent for good reason when 2024 schedules come out). BTW, Cal will have a tough OOC schedule in 2024.

In fact name any D1 schools that have an open game in 2024 that are not Cal, Furd or SMU.

Oh wow. The Stanford president apologized to WSU/OSU?

wifeisafurd said:

---

ninetyfourbear said:

---

In regards to 2024 scheduling for WSU and OSU football, there are quite a few schools we know that are joining new conferences that only play eight conference games. So these schools that we know will be looking to add an extra OOC game as they used to only have three OOC. For some, playing OSU and WSU may be preferable to a body bag FCS matchup.

---

Name eight D1 football programs that have open non-cofnerecne games that are willing to play OSU and WSU (btw,Cal, Furd and SMU will not be among those eight, which will become apparent for good reason when 2024 schedules come out). BTW, Cal will have a tough OOC schedule in 2024.

---

I am curious what Cal's and the other former Pac-12 teams do to fill their non-conference schedules. I assume we would schedule some of the former teams since they are relatively close to us, and we have some rivalry with them. I hope we don't just schedule MW and BS games.

Go Bears!

JRL.02 said:

---

Oh wow. The Stanford president apologized to WSU/OSU?

---

Actually it was MTL, who no longer is President and apologies to the Presidents for storming out of meeting and what he said in doing so..

For an understanding of the Washgon's approach read the WSU's President's quote in the following article " that WSU would need a hell of a lot of money to go east". Meanwhile, Calford was making financial concessions. It should be obvious why the ACC said yes to Calford and no to Washgon. BTW, I also love his quote on the lack of engagement by Pac CEOs on sports.


https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38162254



For timing issues that OSU and WSU face, here is a quote from Gloria Nevarez, the MWC commissioner who likely would be the Commissioner of any revamped Pac conference:

"But such a merger would take a lot of time and a lot of lawyers,... It's a long shot if it's possible at all."

I'm just saying in another post it is not practical, especially if you add a legal fight with departing members. Time is not on Washgon's side.

SonomanA1 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ninetyfourbear said:

---

In regards to 2024 scheduling for WSU and OSU football, there are quite a few schools we know that are joining new conferences that only play eight conference games. So these schools that we know will be looking to add an extra OOC game as they used to only have three OOC. For some, playing OSU and WSU may be preferable to a body bag FCS matchup.

---

Name eight D1 football programs that have open non-cofnerecne games that are willing to play OSU and WSU (btw,Cal, Furd and SMU will not be among those eight, which will become apparent for good reason when 2024 schedules come out). BTW, Cal will have a tough OOC schedule in 2024.

---

I am curious what Cal's and the other former Pac-12 teams do to fill their non-conference schedules. I assume we would schedule some of the former teams since they are relatively close to us, and we have some rivalry with them. I hope we don't just schedule MW and BS games.

Go Bears!

---

I'rish I could tell you.

wifeisafurd said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ninetyfourbear said:

---

In regards to 2024 scheduling for WSU and OSU football, there are quite a few schools we know that are joining new conferences that only play eight conference games. So these schools that we know will be looking to add an extra OOC game as they used to only have three OOC. For some, playing OSU and WSU may be preferable to a body bag FCS matchup.

---

Name eight D1 football programs that have open non-cofnerecne games that are willing to play OSU and WSU (btw,Cal, Furd and SMU will not be among those eight, which will become apparent for good reason when 2024 schedules come out). BTW, Cal will have a tough OOC schedule in 2024.

---

I am curious what Cal's and the other former Pac-12 teams do to fill their non-conference schedules. I assume we would schedule some of the former teams since they are relatively close to us, and we have some rivalry with them. I hope we don't just schedule MW and BS games.

Go Bears!

---

I'rish I could tell you.

---

!!!

Jim Knowlton was on this podcast today and he said he has been appointed to the ACC's football scheduling committee. Also says he has to find another opponent for next football season bc the ACC plays 8 conf games. https://art19.com/shows/inside-the-lockerroom/episodes/0def871a-280f-4012-8ac0-4be517f78512

JRL.02 said:

---

Jim Knowlton was on this podcast today and he said he has been appointed to the ACC's football scheduling committee. Also says he has to find another opponent for next football season bc the ACC plays 8 conf games. https://art19.com/shows/inside-the-lockerroom/episodes/0def871a-280f-4012-8ac0-4be517f78512

---

Knowlton on the football scheduling committee. I'm sure that will be great for Cal football. Yikes.

BearSD said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Jim Knowlton was on this podcast today and he said he has been appointed to the ACC's football scheduling committee. Also says he has to find another opponent for next football season bc the ACC plays 8 conf games. https://art19.com/shows/inside-the-lockerroom/episodes/0def871a-280f-4012-8ac0-4be517f78512

---

Knowlton on the football scheduling committee. I'm sure that will be great for Cal football. Yikes.

---

We're gonna get Clemson and Florida State back-to-back in 2024, book it.

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Jim Knowlton was on this podcast today and he said he has been appointed to the ACC's football scheduling committee. Also says he has to find another opponent for next football season bc the ACC plays 8 conf games. https://art19.com/shows/inside-the-lockerroom/episodes/0def871a-280f-4012-8ac0-4be517f78512

---

Knowlton on the football scheduling committee. I'm sure that will be great for Cal football. Yikes.

---

We're gonna get Clemson and Florida State back-to-back in 2024, book it.

---

In the beginning of September. There. Noontime.

He also said Cal is in the process of contruscting a production room for the ACC Network. ESPN requires it. Apparently the Pac 12 network did not have one on each campus.

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DemonDeke said:

---

Nobody above has convinced me that the departing members have the voting right to dissolve the conference by having given notice they are leaving, and thereby have modest interests in the conference's future after 8/1/24.

They have an interest prior to that. Perhaps a conservator will be appointed through 8/1/24. Or the baby will be split by a judge and allow the departing schools to be able to vote or participate in matters that are inside their membership horizon.

Reserves and over funded escrow accounts can deal with liabilities.

The argument that it would behoove WOSU to negotiate a settlement - in order to be able to act more cleanly regarding the future - than to pursue a strict "you're leaving you lose all after 8/1/25" path, makes sense to me. They might lose. I'm not sure they would, but others above scoff at the idea WOSU have controlling rights. So a negotiation that leaves WOSU with value and a PAC conference has enough value - economically and morally - to provide more to the departing schools than scorched earth would provide.

I don't see how the 7 vs 3 or 5 thing would work. There isn't enough to distinguish the 5 late leavers from the earlier ones. It makes no sense that some who are leaving have no vote and others who are leaving do.

I think it is 2 vs 10. The 7 votes in the bylaws may have been for avoidance of doubt. Two may constitute quorum.

The judge in Washington did exactly what he should have done and could only have done. And, absent a replacement controlling jurisdiction, that court should hold the reins. I do think the venue will be changed to federal court, unless the bylaws forbid that.

---

Thanks, yeah that makes sense. We will see how it turns out. Glad we have a P5 home at least.

---

great now everyone has given notice.

While we are at it, let's invent some additional facts, like if this is still up in the air for awhile, WSU and OSU can have more than a 4 game schedule (think about this more carefully since every other conference school has a full schedule already)? They will have sufficient wins to be playoff or bowl eligible, because they can invent D1 schools to play or maybe some judge will order some division 1 schools to play them. They will have TV revenue because they can find a streamer to step in. Sure, every streamer will say let's spend a huge amount on TV infrastructure to carry those tiny markets WSU and OSU bring the table. They will use the Pac network for infrastructure- because while the members are fighting over rights, some Judge will just award the conferences assets to a third party. Most of the players won't be Portal transfers. Fan and donor loyalty will stick. Fans will pay a fortune for a 2 or 3 games home season. You guys need to think this out more fully.

If OSU and WSU can't get this resolved in fairly quick order (and they may have waited too long already), they need to join another conference post haste just so they have sufficient qualified teams to play. Time is not on their side. The other members can just tie this up in litigation until they capitulate. Something to ponder - the other 10 members were not named in this suit, and are not before this court.

---

Wow. Two weeks ago we were part of the PAC-4. If NCState hadn't flipped we would be right there with OSU and WSU, trying to save our conference. They were partly waiting on us. Now two weeks go by where they have not been given the information or authority to negotiate a deal and you say they have waited too long? It is there own conference tgst is impeding them, thst is why they are in court.

Say we didn't get into the ACC, which was quite possible, what would have been your plan? How would you feel if the 8 teams that left for other P5 tried to shut down the PAC whike we were still in it? What would be our response? Would you try to protect our future interests in the conference we have always been in and never left?

---

As Sebasterbear, Greg, and I (and others) had said many, many times, for way longer than 2 weeks, there was no plan B. You guys just didn't want to hear that. There was no salvaging the conference. Cal would have to join the MWC or AAC and deemphasize sports. At least our Chancellor recognized the bleak alternatives, and Cal was willing to take a financial hit (along with Furd and SMU) to buy into a conference that offered our athletes the opportunity to play against top competition. OSU and WSU instead wanted Oliver Luck to find a solution, and Calford expressly said no solution existed, and went all in on the ACC. The Furd President went so far as to hang-up on the WSU and OSU Presidents calling them fools (actually something worse - he later apologized). I can't emphasize enough how many times we said on this forum there was no plan B for the Pac and Cal.

WSU and OSU should have made similar concessions. Candidly, their athletic programs are far better than those at SMU which bought a spot, and OSU and WSU would have had more value than SMU to the ACC. They might still even have a place in the Big 12 with financial concessions. I can't begin to tell you how many journalists said the Pac had no future once the the Zonas, Utah, Oregon and Udub all left. You act like this is a surprise, but it isn't. WSU and OSU want to trade on the value and credit of 10 other programs, and those programs are not going to let them do that. Again, I see no reason why Cal should want to act as a guarantor for unilateral decisions that WSU and OSU want to make, no less give up the money their teams earned. No member school be willing to do this.

---

I agree that all the schools should get their 2023 money. The conference does not need to be dissolved for that to happen.

"There was no Plan B", duh. It was just at the beginning of last month we were prepared to sign Kliavkoff''s Apple deal and stay in the PAC-10, right? Looking to add SDSU and SMU? Then we applied to the B1G and were turned down? Then Knowlton scheduled a meeting with the MWC? Then Stanford and Notre Dame pulled us along to join the ACC? Then two weeks ago NC State flipped and we got in.

We clearly have NEVER had a plan B. We have not been proactive. We have been scrambling from the beginning. If the ACC had not admitted us, which was looking entirely possible if SMU had not forgone all payments, if Notre Dame was not using their leverage fighting for us, if Stanford didn't get Condi and W to lobby for them, we would have been spending the last two weeks still hoping we could get in, not developing a plan B.

However if the ACC flat out turned us down I would HOPE we would be trying to come up with the next best option. Knowlton scheduled a meeting with the MWC, if joining the MWC was even considered, then the plan that WSU and OSU want to explore, of working with the MWC to reverse merger into the PAC-12 and negotiating the best deal we could get, quite possibly with Apple, would be the next best option.

If our leadership really thought shutting down the program was the only plan B if others didn't get us into the ACC, then that speaks more to their lack of vision, creativity and dedication to Cal athletics than to the viability of any other plan B. But we knew that already.

Now having been rescued by the grace of others we are going along with those (the B1G, SEC, B-12, Fox, USC, Oregon…) who wanted to kill us and want to kill the options of those who have a vision they want to pursue, because we don't believe it is possible, even though our leaders never actually examined it themselves? Of course they wouldn't, our administration couldn't even get cheerleaders on the field last year. They just recommended our athletics teams compete as "Cal Berkeley." Why continue to rely on their judgement?

We do not have to kill the PAC-12 to get our rightful share of 2023-2024 revenues and be released from any new liabilities when we are no longer a member. Other teams have left conferences before with the conference surviving after their departure. It is not unprecedented.

Don't be evil. Fiat Lux.

Kliavkoff wants to sound like he's neutral in any 10 vs. 2 dispute, but he's siding with the departing 10.

This is the part where he tries to sound neutral:

Quote:

---

In a declaration to the court on Sept. 11, the day of the hearing, Kliavkoff stated:

"Neither the Conference nor I have a position with respect to the proper composition of the Pac-12 Board. This is fundamentally a dispute among members. As Commissioner, I will follow lawful directives of the Board pursuant to the Constitution and Bylaws and consistent with my duties in the best interests of the Conference."

---

And this is where K tells you who he really stands with:

Quote:

---

In a letter to WSU and OSU (via email), he disputed the notion that the 10 outbound schools have relinquished their board positions:
"Your suggestion that ten of the Conference's 12 members have 'withdrawn' from the Conference within the meaning of the Bylaws is mistaken. Not one member school has signaled any intention or actually attempted to leave Conference play at any time prior to the end of the current fiscal year on July 31, 2024, or to take back and exploit their media rights.
"We simply cannot accept the suggestion that only two members. Oregon State University (OSU) and Washington State University (WSU) now have the right to determine by themselves all issues affecting the Conference, and determine the course of all revenue coming into the Conference, to the exclusion of the other ten member schools."

---

The only thing that he conceded OSU and WSU can decide on their own is who to invite to join starting in fall 2024.

But the real takeaway is: K's position is that all 12 schools get to decide the question of whether all 12 schools get to vote on dissolving the conference.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/14/pac-12-chaos-is-commissioner-george-kliavkoff-siding-with-the-10-or-the-two-court-records-reveal-his-strategy/

So what is the likely end result here? OSU and WSU just have to give up the ghost and join the Mountain West? Would a reverse merge with the Pac ever be feasible?

sycasey said:

---

So what is the likely end result here? OSU and WSU just have to give up the ghost and join the Mountain West? Would a reverse merge with the Pac ever be feasible?

---

Sure, it's feasible, but the MWC is only gonna want to merge with a squeaky clean partner, with no future liabilities hanging around that they might be on teh hook for. And that will take time to sort out. And lawyers.

sycasey said:

---

So what is the likely end result here? OSU and WSU just have to give up the ghost and join the Mountain West? Would a reverse merge with the Pac ever be feasible?

---

IMO: It's feasible if OSU and WSU reach an agreement with the departing 10 that allows them to have a post-departure Pac that wouldn't expose new members to liability for debts of the departed members. But even then, the MWC schools might want to do it only if they get some money for themselves.

Does the newly engineered PAC have to include all current MWC teams? Might they subtract and add a few?

Big Dog said:

---

sycasey said:

---

So what is the likely end result here? OSU and WSU just have to give up the ghost and join the Mountain West? Would a reverse merge with the Pac ever be feasible?

---

Sure, it's feasible, but the MWC is only gonna want to merge with a squeaky clean partner, with no future liabilities hanging around that they might be on teh hook for. And that will take time to sort out. And lawyers.

---

That is why operating as the PAC-2 for 2024 and 2025, but with a scheduling alliance with the MWC, appears to be the best path for OSU, WSU and the MWC (or most of th MWC). That gets to the end of the MWC media contact and gives the lawyers time to sort through the PAC-12's holdover issues. It also keeps two votes at the CFP to defend PAC-12 rights.

The other option would be for the reverse merger to happen sooner, as soon as next season, which would allow the MWC schools to get out of their $5 million media deal and negotiate a better one as the PAC-16, with some benefit going to WSU and OSU. That would also strengthen the PAC's hand in fighting fo it's existing contractural rights.

The main obstacle, which WIAF has made vey clear, is the other 10 (I guess we let USC and UCLA back into the club) need to have their current financial interests in the conference protected. That is reasonable and any court will likely support it. We may even see the conference placed in receivership to make sure the interests of all the parties are protected.

However, there may be more at play. The B1G, Fox, ESPN and B-12 clearly wanted the PAC-12 dead, and now the departing members, joining those conferences, may now also want to see a future competitor conference destroyed. If the object was to eliminate the PAC-12 those parties won't be happy with simply eliminating the MWC. The SEC and B1G want to redo the 2024 and 2024 CFP format and the best way would be to get their new members to burn their old conference to the ground so there is no longer a PAC-12 to claim its 2024 and 2025 rights and revenues.

Moreover, rather than the MWC members being able to abandon their current media deal and negotiate as the PAC-16 possibly involving Apple and Amazon, dissolving the PAC-12 would instead force WSU and OSU into the current MWC media deal at $5 million per and keep everyone under ESPN control.

It seems pretty dirty to me, and especially as we are ourselves victims of these same forces and were almost killed ourselves, I am saddened to hear we have gone Stockholm and are now collaborating with these forces in actions against our former fellow refugees.

movielover said:

---

Does the newly engineered PAC have to include all current MWC teams? Might they subtract and add a few?

---

The MWC has a big exit fee for anyone who leaves with less than two years notice. If the members vote to dissolve the MWC to join the Pac, the exit fee goes away, but any school will vote to dissolve only if they have a Pac invitation.

Theoretically a vast majority could gang up to exclude 2 or 3 MWC members from the Pac if their votes are not needed to dissolve, and someone from SDSU actually floated that idea, but AFAIK no one else has publicly supported SDSU on that.