wifeisafurd said:

---

philbert said:

---

Source: #Pac12 approves employee retention and severance plan. (Presidents signed off unanimously but did not conduct formal vote, per court order.) Plan designed to ensure conf remains staffed to level needed to produce ~1,000 contracted events for media partners

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) September 13, 2023

---

well I guess all the Pac CEOs found some value in retaining the employees, unlike some posters here.

---

There are still games to hold and schedule/advertise/broadcast, etc. All of schools, including the departing schools, should still have interest in maintaining their brand and the "quality" (use that term loosely for Cal football) of the products.

calbear93 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philbert said:

---

Source: #Pac12 approves employee retention and severance plan. (Presidents signed off unanimously but did not conduct formal vote, per court order.) Plan designed to ensure conf remains staffed to level needed to produce ~1,000 contracted events for media partners

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) September 13, 2023

---

well I guess all the Pac CEOs found some value in retaining the employees, unlike some posters here.

---

There are still games to hold and schedule/advertise/broadcast, etc. All of schools, including the departing schools, should still have interest in maintaining their brand and the "quality" (use that term loosely for Cal football) of the products.

---

lol

calbear93 said:

---

wifeisafurd 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.

---

Have to disagree. The name of any professional firm generally has goodwill or brand value, just like the Pac. Absent an agreement to the contrary, the parties under CA law get to go their separate ways, dissolve and wind-up, and start a new by a majority vote. Often times these days there is a shareholder, TIC, or partner agreement which forces a buy-sell when principals leave to benefit remaining partners, but that is not the case here. The Pac has this weird type of bylaws which spend a lot of times talking about platitudes, but don't have the usual detailed provisions about what happens when the entity falls apart for example or resolution provisions when the members don't agree. The only reason the withdrawal provision exists is for the the TV contract, and all 12 members are honoring the contract by staying and competing through July 31, 2024, when the contract expires. I just don't see a court (outside one chosen to provide a home court advantage) reading the CA law any other way. The underlying view behind the law is the majority gets their value out of the entity through liquidating the assets, paying off expenses and moving on. That the entity had some value beyond its assets doesn't really enter into the equation. Most entities that have been operating for some time have goodwill or brand value. That doesn't mean 2 out of 12 members get all the spoils. That is not the law in CA, absent a contract saying so.

---

If the Pac-12 is an unincorporated association, it cannot own assets, right? All of the assets should be held by trust for the benefit of each of the members. Whether a school has voting rights for the board formed to make decisions for the associations does not dilute the ownership of the schools in the assets held in trust. And if the two remaining schools act only in their interest and not in the interest of the other schools with respect to assets held in trust, they as well as the trustee would be subject to breach of fiduciary duty.

The only asset that should not carry with the departing school should be the value of the Pac-12 goodwill since, by leaving, they are abandoning the goodwill. They should have no right to the goodwill while they benefit from the goodwill of the new conference.

Am I thinking about this correctly?

---

WAIF can address the first part, but I woudl submit any goodwill will be effectively zero after all bills are paid.

That doesn't mean the NCAA doesn't owe 5 more years of March Madness payments, but those are easy to estimate and become a Receivable asset on the books. What's left is the value of the corporation 'name', which is not gonna be much.

calumnus 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. Do you have some law to support your contention?

---

WIAF, I think we are all talking past each other. You are a lawyer so you are relying on the law. And yes, those of us who have found our way into other Power Conferences may well be able to legally, royally, screw OSU and WSU, who were original members of the conference with Cal, and are both currently ranked, by torching the conference we are leaving and has been our home for over 100 years and rooming them to G5 status?

It has only been 12 days since we finally got into the ACC. It could have easily been us with them when we did not have the votes needed to get into the ACC. We would be the ones trying to preserve our rights to rebuild our conference and survive while the schools who got B1G and B12 invites with P5 money tried to crush us and crush our hopes by tearing up the conference and departing with the assets. Now that we are safe (largely due to the help of others) we turn around and screw those who aren't? We found a life raft so we puncture the only one left just because we can and we will be marginally better off?

So you may very well be right about the law, but I think a lot of us are rooting for OSU and WSU to wind up in a better place than simply joining the MWC, because there by the grace of God go I. It easily could have been us with them.

There are some potentially valuable assets of the PAC-12, NCAA "autonomous conference" status, recognized by the CFP, NCAA playoff money, bowl tie ins, etc. that could be valuable going forward and cannot be divided up, but would destroyed if the 10 dissolved the conference to loot the bank accounts. Maybe WSU and OSU would not be able to maintain those rights, but personally I don't want to be the ones who crush their chances. Let others do that.

That is why I thought the bylaws requirement for 7 votes was interesting. It could be a path toward a negotiated settlement, where the 5 who departed first and have the most money get cut out. The last 5 to depart can get a reasonable deal (once all the assets and liabilities are known) but WSU and OSU would get the PAC shell and get going on figuring out what they are going to do in 2024. Time is of the essence for them.

---

You get to the 7 votes by looking at the first section which lists all the members and then the quorum is a majority of those members. Which is bizarre unless you adjust for members that lose voting rights, which didn't happen. I think this is just bad drafting, and not intentional.

I'm not sure anyone is trying to screw OSU and WSU, but it sounds like (or at least it is alleged) the members want to liquidate the assets, get their share and move on. This really isn't about WSU and OSU, they also get their share of the net asset value. That simply means all 12 those teams get to share in the revenues they produced.

Your perspective is tainted because OSU and WSU didn't get into a Power conference. There is a couple ways to look at this, and I heard both appleid to Calford. Yes, Calford was getting screwed by being left behind, but the opposing view is Calford made its own bed, by not being desirable to TV and the P4 conferences. It is not the other members fault that another P4 conference didn't want OSU or WSU. They could have gone to the other conferences and tried to make a Calford or SMU deal where they made financial concessions in exchange for membership, but they chose not to do so. Maybe they can make a deal for the Pac shell (and somehow get an agreed upon reserves for the contingent liabilities, but that doesn't mean the MWC teams want to take on those liabilities and see if the retained amounts are correct). I can't blame OSU and WSU for trying, but they probably will find the economics of any deal don't work, and the Pac is liquidated. In almost all cases where the vast majority or partners leave, the entity can't survive.

Big Dog said:

---

WAIF can address the first part, but I woudl submit any goodwill will be effectively zero after all bills are paid.

That doesn't mean the NCAA doesn't owe 5 more years of March Madness payments, but those are easy to estimate and become a Receivable asset on the books. What's left is the value of the corporation 'name', which is not gonna be much.

---

Specifically thinking about the March Madness payments... aren't the departing schools going to be receiving shares of March Madness units from their new conference? The majority which they did not earn as a part of the new conference? Why would they have access to 'earned' shares from the PAC when they are getting unearned shares from the new conference. Shouldn't it just be the trade off? Now maybe these deals with the B1G, B12 and ACC exclude the new schools from getting pre-existing pieces of those phased revenues (so they'd start with a 1/6 share in year 1?) - if so, I get it a little bit more.

So, why not campaign for ACC and P12 to merge?
Stupid question?

sosheezy said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

WAIF can address the first part, but I woudl submit any goodwill will be effectively zero after all bills are paid.

That doesn't mean the NCAA doesn't owe 5 more years of March Madness payments, but those are easy to estimate and become a Receivable asset on the books. What's left is the value of the corporation 'name', which is not gonna be much.

---

Specifically thinking about the March Madness payments... aren't the departing schools going to be receiving shares of March Madness units from their new conference? The majority which they did not earn as a part of the new conference? Why would they have access to 'earned' shares from the PAC when they are getting unearned shares from the new conference. Shouldn't it just be the trade off? Now maybe these deals with the B1G, B12 and ACC exclude the new schools from getting pre-existing pieces of those phased revenues (so they'd start with a 1/6 share in year 1?) - if so, I get it a little bit more.

---

If I recall, Wilner indicated earlier that the SoCal departing schools do not get the later March Madness payments. But that was when we thought we had a Pac10 to continue.

And don't forget, Comcast has plenty of lawyers to make sure that they also get paid what they are due before others can get a residual share.

Bowlesman80 said:

---

So, why not campaign for ACC and P12 to merge?
Stupid question?

---

How about the MWC merges with OSU and WSU, and becomes the new PAC?

sosheezy said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

WAIF can address the first part, but I woudl submit any goodwill will be effectively zero after all bills are paid.

That doesn't mean the NCAA doesn't owe 5 more years of March Madness payments, but those are easy to estimate and become a Receivable asset on the books. What's left is the value of the corporation 'name', which is not gonna be much.

---

Specifically thinking about the March Madness payments... aren't the departing schools going to be receiving shares of March Madness units from their new conference? The majority which they did not earn as a part of the new conference? Why would they have access to 'earned' shares from the PAC when they are getting unearned shares from the new conference. Shouldn't it just be the trade off? Now maybe these deals with the B1G, B12 and ACC exclude the new schools from getting pre-existing pieces of those phased revenues (so they'd start with a 1/6 share in year 1?) - if so, I get it a little bit more.

---

That 5 years of March Madness payments won't get distributed in 12 equal shares. If the conference is dissolved, the NCAA gives those payments to the schools whose teams earned them, eg UCLA gets the money earned by its 2021 Final Four team. IIRC, neither Cal nor Stanford have a men's NCAA tournament appearance during the last 6 years, so neither would get any of the Pac's March Madness money. UCLA would get the largest amount because their team earned the most March Madness "units" during that period.

I expect that the case will get moved to a Federal District Court in Washington. That will likely be one of the conference's first responses to the suit.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the Federal judge is fine with a temporary restraining order in order to prevent possible irreparable harm to OSU and WSU. Status quo ante until all of the parties come to an agreement or at least start working through the issues.

ColoradoBear said:

---

95bears said:

---

Back on the Kliavkoff point...

If he had to herd these backstabbing presidents (per Ana Mari Cauce comments) for his duration and then recommended a $30M deal and they turned it down, he should get his cash.

On the other hand, if he was sunshine pumping the $50M and didn't do his fiduciary responsibility/ correct read of the market and highly push the $30M deal, then he should get nothing.

BTW, it's been intimated in multiple articles that Cal and Stanford wanted the $50M. That seems likely given Christ's obliviousness to sports and media markets in general and Stanford being Furd.

---

I have not seen a single reputable article say Cal and Furd were the ones pushing for $50 million, and I'd also think that Wilner would have sniffed that out. There have been lots of message board and Twitter posts re: Cal and Furd after being left behind that paint two in a bad light, but the two schools were likely the least toxic for the conference, other than takong conference money for granted and sucking at football recently.

I mean all schools wanted $50 million, but the question is who thought that was possible (people have said an ASU prof put the number at $50 million), and was anyone out there being the voice of reason to say that wasn't plausible. And how much did GK push that notion along with the notion that UCLA could be blocked.

I don't even think the Pac12 would have gotten $50 million with USC and UCLA. I mean the Big Ten TV contract with UCLA and USC is for $62.5 million and would have absolutely been smaller without them.

---

-USC and UCLA are about 250 million of the Big 10 deal. So 25%. Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State are about 50%. The rest combined are 25%.

Oregon, Washington are valued at 30 million. Take the other big 5 out, and they would have a group of schools valued at 30 million - just like the Big 12. The PAC 12 teams would have averaged about 30 million, with the LA schools adding about 250 million in value. So a 550 million dollar deal, divided by 12, or abut 45 million per year. Plus other payouts would bring it over 50 million (playoff money, etc).

USC is still getting screwed with taking less money than they deserve from the Big 10, but at least they get about 15 million more than they otherwise would have with the PAC 12.

The big 10 would have been getting about $54 million without USC and UCLA. So the other schools got a good deal from those guys as well.

According to some media - UCLA would have stayed in the PAC 12 if the PAC 12 would guarantee the same payout as the Big 10. $60 million. That would have gotten everyone else about 38 million per year. We could have added in San Diego State and the PAC 12 would have gone on. But Oregon refused.

In the end, the PAC 12 schools killed the PAC 12. Klavikoff was trying to save his job, sure. But the schools all brought switchblades to the conference meetings. He is going to get paid and plenty to support him with regard to being directed by the BOD.

BearSD said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

WAIF can address the first part, but I woudl submit any goodwill will be effectively zero after all bills are paid.

That doesn't mean the NCAA doesn't owe 5 more years of March Madness payments, but those are easy to estimate and become a Receivable asset on the books. What's left is the value of the corporation 'name', which is not gonna be much.

---

Specifically thinking about the March Madness payments... aren't the departing schools going to be receiving shares of March Madness units from their new conference? The majority which they did not earn as a part of the new conference? Why would they have access to 'earned' shares from the PAC when they are getting unearned shares from the new conference. Shouldn't it just be the trade off? Now maybe these deals with the B1G, B12 and ACC exclude the new schools from getting pre-existing pieces of those phased revenues (so they'd start with a 1/6 share in year 1?) - if so, I get it a little bit more.

---

That 5 years of March Madness payments won't get distributed in 12 equal shares. If the conference is dissolved, the NCAA gives those payments to the schools whose teams earned them, eg UCLA gets the money earned by its 2021 Final Four team. IIRC, neither Cal nor Stanford have a men's NCAA tournament appearance during the last 6 years, so neither would get any of the Pac's March Madness money. UCLA would get the largest amount because their team earned the most March Madness "units" during that period.

---

My guess is that any payments that are in essence deferred payment that have incurred for services provided by the schools prior to their departure from the conference should go to the corresponding schools irrespective of when they depart relative to payment. Any future payments to the conference for services post departure date should not attach to the departing school even if portion of the payment reflects the goodwill associated with the brand that had been developed in part by the departing school.

Big Dog said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

WAIF can address the first part, but I woudl submit any goodwill will be effectively zero after all bills are paid.

That doesn't mean the NCAA doesn't owe 5 more years of March Madness payments, but those are easy to estimate and become a Receivable asset on the books. What's left is the value of the corporation 'name', which is not gonna be much.

---

Specifically thinking about the March Madness payments... aren't the departing schools going to be receiving shares of March Madness units from their new conference? The majority which they did not earn as a part of the new conference? Why would they have access to 'earned' shares from the PAC when they are getting unearned shares from the new conference. Shouldn't it just be the trade off? Now maybe these deals with the B1G, B12 and ACC exclude the new schools from getting pre-existing pieces of those phased revenues (so they'd start with a 1/6 share in year 1?) - if so, I get it a little bit more.

---

If I recall, Wilner indicated earlier that the SoCal departing schools do not get the later March Madness payments. But that was when we thought we had a Pac10 to continue.

And don't forget, Comcast has plenty of lawyers to make sure that they also get paid what they are due before others can get a residual share.

---

The Bylaws are silent about receiving money once a member has withdrawn. I'm not sure what Willner suggests would stand if challenged, given USC and UCLA were Pac members when the NCAA money was earned. Obviously, you are correct fi the conference ceases and liquidates and winds-up, then you follow CA law on payment of obligations and distributions, and under the applicable Bylaw section, SC and UCLA would get their distributive share (assuming there is any) of everything.

I'm sure Comcast will get paid fully (the Pac already admitted it has the obligation to pay them) absent a bankruptcy filing. If the Pac remains in limbo and parties are at loggerhead, I could see some of its members putting the Pac into BK and forcing a Chapter 7. Certainly BK would eliminate all the pesky posturing by WSU and OSU in northeast Washington.

movielover said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

So, why not campaign for ACC and P12 to merge?
Stupid question?

---

How about the MWC merges with OSU and WSU, and becomes the new PAC?

---

But merging with ACC eases our travel issues.

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.

All of that has tremendous value, beyond "goodwill" or brand.

Dissolution of the PAC-12 would immediately destroy all of that value. The 10 schools are already planning on getting a share of their new conferences' CFP and NCAA playoff money, there is no way the NCAA and CFP pays out money over subsequent years to schools formerly of a conference that doesn't exist. There is long precedent on that. We would get a share of ACC money, USC and UCLA would get a share of the B1G and OSU and WSU, forced to join the MWC, would get a share of the MWC revenue. Any opportunity WSU and OSU have to maintain and rebuild the conference and fight for its contractual rights and future payments owed, would be immediately quashed.

It would destroy tremendous value for no one's great benefit, but cause tremendous harm to the two would be remaining members, forced into the MWC and G5 status in 2024.

Even from a purely Cal selfish position, rather than forcing dissolution, destroying future value and distributing current net assets 12 ways, we can be better off negotiating a deal that preserves that future value for WSU and OSU and then distributing a larger share of current net assets among fewer schools. Again, destroying future value through dissolution benefits no one, but does tremendous damage to OSU and WSU. It would be financial arson: Looting the house we share with others then burning it down just because we are moving across the country to a better house.

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

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.....

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

---

Would need a unanimous vote to change the 2024 and 2025 playoff format and money distribution. If the pac2+ is still kicking, they aren't going to vote themselves out.

wifeisafurd said:

---

This responds to several posts.

The Pac's last financial statement showed around $440 million that was distributed to 12 members. Revenues were around $550 million, not $400 millon. There also was a $55 million or so underpayment to Comcast. Comcast will deduct $4 million per team for next fiscal year per Wilner (i.e., they will not pay for coverage). There are regulations that require distributions for existing members under Chapter 1 in the Conference Handbook, which absent new regulations those new distributions would occur to at least the members that didn't give withdrawal notice and won't until August 1, 2024 (9 teams), and arguably to all 12 teams playing and earning money under some type of equitable arguments (Cal undoubtedly would be ordered to support a distribution to UCLA). Once you strip away the Comcast offset and distributions all you have cost offsets. What OSU and WSU can best be asking for is additional reserves be taken from distribution to pay severance, lawsuits and other costs, so that teams to don't dissolve, run and cut, or take their distributions and leave the Pac remaining 2 schools with huge liabilities. No one is going to merge into a Pac entity with these large contingent liabilities. The problem is OSU and WSU don't have the votes to do this before the Pac distribution absent court action, because the other 7 teams didn't provide any notice (deemed or actual) prior to August 1, 2023.

Edit: I have detailed the contingent liabilities below

---

In an unincorporated association, aren't the members individually liable? As such, if there are liabilities related to actions taken prior to a school's departure, the school will continue to be individually liable even after their departure. Maybe the reserves can be like an escrow account in a private M&A transactions where the liabilities can be settled quickly without chasing after the sellers. However, the escrow remains the assets of the sellers who are entitled to its return. Unlike individual sellers in a private M&A, I would suspect it would not be difficult to chase after the former Pac-12 members, and that they will have sufficient assets to support their obligations.

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.

calbear93 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

This responds to several posts.

The Pac's last financial statement showed around $440 million that was distributed to 12 members. Revenues were around $550 million, not $400 millon. There also was a $55 million or so underpayment to Comcast. Comcast will deduct $4 million per team for next fiscal year per Wilner (i.e., they will not pay for coverage). There are regulations that require distributions for existing members under Chapter 1 in the Conference Handbook, which absent new regulations those new distributions would occur to at least the members that didn't give withdrawal notice and won't until August 1, 2024 (9 teams), and arguably to all 12 teams playing and earning money under some type of equitable arguments (Cal undoubtedly would be ordered to support a distribution to UCLA). Once you strip away the Comcast offset and distributions all you have cost offsets. What OSU and WSU can best be asking for is additional reserves be taken from distribution to pay severance, lawsuits and other costs, so that teams to don't dissolve, run and cut, or take their distributions and leave the Pac remaining 2 schools with huge liabilities. No one is going to merge into a Pac entity with these large contingent liabilities. The problem is OSU and WSU don't have the votes to do this before the Pac distribution absent court action, because the other 7 teams didn't provide any notice (deemed or actual) prior to August 1, 2023.

Edit: I have detailed the contingent liabilities below

---

In an unincorporated association, aren't the members individually liable? As such, if there are liabilities related to actions taken prior to a school's departure, the school will continue to be individually liable even after their departure. Maybe the reserves can be like an escrow account in a private M&A transactions where the liabilities can be settled quickly without chasing after the sellers. However, the escrow remains the assets of the sellers who are entitled to its return. Unlike individual sellers in a private M&A, I would suspect it would not be difficult to chase after the former Pac-12 members, and that they will have sufficient assets to support their obligations.

---

Bingo, we have a winner. Absolutely correct, which is why the members will choose to liquidate the Pac. Maybe if if you say this some more, posters here will listen. Either the Pac will be dragged into Chapter 7 if the liabilities exceed assets or WSU and OSU become too disruptive, or the members will vote to dissolve and split the spoils. I just don't see the other members willing to take a ride with OSU, WSU and parties to be named later. I hate to infuse law into the discussion again, but there is a reason CA law allows the majority of partners or associates to liquidate an entity.

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.

---

I agree, but it was Calumnus who has a different pov.

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

---

Of course there is no guarantee. Say their chances of pulling it off are 50-50. If the other 10 vote to dissolve the conference the chances are zero. You have destroyed any hope.

calumnus 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

---

Of course there is no guarantee. Say their chances of pulling it off are 50-50. If the other 10 vote to dissolve the conference the chances are zero. You have destroyed any hope.

---

It's a safe guess that the SEC and/or Big Ten have lawyers working up a strategy that will allow the CFP to take away the Pac's share of the CFP riches even if WSU and OSU keep the conference going.

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.

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.

All of that has tremendous value, beyond "goodwill" or brand.

Dissolution of the PAC-12 would immediately destroy all of that value. The 10 schools are already planning on getting a share of their new conferences' CFP and NCAA playoff money, there is no way the NCAA and CFP pays out money over subsequent years to schools formerly of a conference that doesn't exist. There is long precedent on that. We would get a share of ACC money, USC and UCLA would get a share of the B1G and OSU and WSU, forced to join the MWC, would get a share of the MWC revenue. Any opportunity WSU and OSU have to maintain and rebuild the conference and fight for its contractual rights and future payments owed, would be immediately quashed.

It would destroy tremendous value for no one's great benefit, but cause tremendous harm to the two would be remaining members, forced into the MWC and G5 status in 2024.

Even from a purely Cal selfish position, rather than forcing dissolution, destroying future value and distributing current net assets 12 ways, we can be better off negotiating a deal that preserves that future value for WSU and OSU and then distributing a larger share of current net assets among fewer schools. Again, destroying future value through dissolution benefits no one, but does tremendous damage to OSU and WSU. It would be financial arson: Looting the house we share with others then burning it down just because we are moving across the country to a better house.

---

There is only limited value to the Pac at best with just two teams, and the conference may be underwater due to contingent liabilities. But this again ignores the legal reality that the other members will vote to protect their interests and liquidate the Pac or force it into Chapter 7. I guess I will say this until I turn blue in the face, but the other members are not going to let OSU and WSU take their distributive potion, and they will be unwilling to take on the risk of OSU and WSU incurring liabilities on their behalf going forward. I tried the partnership analogy. I tried to say Cal and the other departing schools would be (jointly and severally) liable for the operations of the Pac going forward which is unacceptable, but like it or not the other members are not going give WSU and OSU an open check book. Either this ends in Chapter 7 or liquidation.

Oregon state or Washington state should be granted a ticket to the postseason tournament in perpetuity.

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.

---

Whether OSU and WSU are harmed or not doesn't impact whether the other members have a right to dissolve.

If OSU and WSU (and presimably future members), benefit so greatly, maybe they can 'buy' off the rest of the conference by kicking in some extra benefits. Kinda a reverse of how Cal/Furd/SMU made the ACC an offer to enrich their pockets.

BearSD said:

---

calumnus 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

---

Of course there is no guarantee. Say their chances of pulling it off are 50-50. If the other 10 vote to dissolve the conference the chances are zero. You have destroyed any hope.

---

It's a safe guess that the SEC and/or Big Ten have lawyers working up a strategy that will allow the CFP to take away the Pac's share of the CFP riches even if WSU and OSU keep the conference going.

---

Sure, but haven't the contracts for 2024 and 2025 CFP been signed and agreed to? The PAC can hire lawyers and defend itself too. The point being WSU and OSU have some chance greater than zero of prevailing. If the other10 dissolve the conference thst chance goes to zero. That is a lot of value destroyed, a lot of damage to WSU and OSU.

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.

movielover said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

So, why not campaign for ACC and P12 to merge?
Stupid question?

---

How about the MWC merges with OSU and WSU, and becomes the new PAC?

---

Broke Pac Mountain?

ColoradoBear 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.

---

Whether OSU and WSU are harmed or not doesn't impact whether the other members have a right to dissolve.

If OSU and WSU (and presimably future members), benefit so greatly, maybe they can 'buy' off the rest of the conference by kicking in some extra benefits. Kinda a reverse of how Cal/Furd/SMU made the ACC an offer to enrich their pockets.

---

Yes, plus the bylaws currently require 7 votes for a quorum so they need 5 schools to agree to a settlement that would allow WSU and OSU to keep the conference going and add 6 MWC schools when their media rights expire in 2026. Other than just "doing the right thing" those 5 PAC-12 schools would only agree to a deal where they get more than they would under a straight dissolution.

So is the main gist of this conversation is that if OSU and WSU win a few battles the odds are is the will lose the war in the long run. Can't see where they are in a real good situation even if they win a few early battles that they will be better off in the end. There are a lot of hurdles and unknowns. Would a MWC school want the risk? There would have to be some pretty solid guarantees. I think that is a lot to ask at this point. Even Stanford and Cal felt the risk was too great to stay.

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.

GOLDEN said:

---

So is the main gist of this conversation is that if OSU and WSU win a few battles the odds are is the will lose the war in the long run. Can't see where they are in a real good situation even if they win a few early battles that they will be better off in the end. There are a lot of hurdles and unknowns. Would a MWC school want the risk? There would have to be some pretty solid guarantees. I think that is a lot to ask at this point. Even Stanford and Cal felt the risk was too great to stay.

---

Compared to what? Two weeks ago we were in the same boat WSU and OSU are in and we were working with them. However, thanks largely to the efforts of others like Notre Dame, we got into a P5 conference, the ACC which gave us some certainty. We are still at risk but at least we have a home in a P5 conference and have hope. I am sure WSU and OSU would also gladly accept an ACC offer if they had one. They don't have that option. Maintaining the Pac, though risky, is far and away their best option.

Posters on this board said that the administration said if our only option.was G5 and the MWC, we would shut down the program. Now we have people advocating we do that to WSU and OSU just because we legally can. When two weeks ago that could easily be us too.
Look at the vitriol we have towards USC, UCLA. No one argues they did not have a legal right to do what they did, and their economic benefit for doing so was huge. We are arguing for Calimony from UCLA just for leaving. So why destroy OSU and WSU's hopes for little gain when we can get the same benefit and leave them their hope?

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 of two may constitute a 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.