Do y'all think Cal and Stanford will be in the ACC for the long haul? Does ESPN try and help the ACC build out a more fulsome western wing in 2030/2031 when the Big12 deal is up and ASU, Zona, and Utah are free agents again?

BearSD said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Something that also bears discussing in this thread, given some of the comments about who is right or wrong or moral. ESPN offered a media rights deal worth $30 million per school in October of last year. But a Pac-12 president worked with an unnamed professor on his campus, estimated the value of each conference school at $50 million and demanded that be the amount to be countered, That counter caused ESPN to walk away from the table, thus stripping the Pac-12 of any type of high-end negotiation power. Anyone want to speculate who that President was (note the words Chancellor and her were not used)?

---

Sportswriters have reported it was Michael Crow at Arizona State.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/college/pac-12/2023/08/17/pac-12-collapse-rumors-include-arizona-state-michael-crow-professor/70613674007/

---

In the real world, maybe you counter with $38M or $35M, and split the difference, but $50M is a "you must be dreaming" figure. Or an academic.

JRL.02 said:

---

Do y'all think Cal and Stanford will be in the ACC for the long haul? Does ESPN try and help the ACC build out a more fulsome western wing in 2030/2031 when the Big12 deal is up and ASU, Zona, and Utah are free agents again?

---

It's unclear if the ACC will even be around for the long haul. I think most of us just see this as a way to stay alive until the next realignment spree.

One entity that wants the ACC to stick around - ESPN. That's why I don't think the ACC implodes.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Question: why as the Big12 never a serious option for Stanford? Rumors were cal would be fine with the big12 but Stanford wanted no part of the big12 lol

---

I think the narrative being discussed is fairly accurate, but let me provide some context.

The two schools agreed Calford was a package deal. Both schools had demands that both schools were willing to accommodate. Both Cal and Furd had impacts on getting both schools accepted into the ACC. Both ADs made an effort after the announcement to thank the other school and discuss how important is was to have the Big Game at the end of the season.

Furd liked the B1G for the money and the fact that it generally had good schools, including former Pac school rivals, and had some private schools. There would be reduced travel due to a west coast pod. Cal also preferred the B1G. Unfortunately, that didn't work out for reasons that have been discussed in another thread. At this point the Cal Chancellor, appreciating what would happen if Cal was not in a Power conference, went all in on getting to a major conference. There was never a view at Cal in the MWC was an alternative without massive changes to the athletic department and what Cal sports meant, which would have been painful and costly to the entire University and its stakeholders.

Neither school liked the academic profile of the Big 12. Both schools supposedly were okay with BYU. Cal would have been okay with the B12 if a full media share was available or even at some discount. It wanted badly to be in a Power conference. My understanding was that it was a moot point, as the B12 said they were done expanding. Cal supposedly inquired at least twice and got the same answer. I don't think Cal would have gone to the B12 without Furd, but good luck getting that question awnswered.

All along Cal and Furd preferred the ACC after the B1G, because of the conference's academic profile. Furd also liked the number of privates. Both schools also thought that the travel would be relatively the same as travel to the B12. I night add Cal's trip to Notre Dame last year had a strong impact on the leaders of both schools. The rest will be for someone to write a book about the Pac's demise. Should be fascinating reading.

---

Thanks for the insight. I agree, I am looking forward to the book, but it might have to wait until all the litigation to be over for key people to talk and that could be years from now.

---

I will bet there are at least 3 sportswriters who have already sent "Death of the Pac-12" book proposals to publishers.

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Question: why as the Big12 never a serious option for Stanford? Rumors were cal would be fine with the big12 but Stanford wanted no part of the big12 lol

---

I think the narrative being discussed is fairly accurate, but let me provide some context.

The two schools agreed Calford was a package deal. Both schools had demands that both schools were willing to accommodate. Both Cal and Furd had impacts on getting both schools accepted into the ACC. Both ADs made an effort after the announcement to thank the other school and discuss how important is was to have the Big Game at the end of the season.

Furd liked the B1G for the money and the fact that it generally had good schools, including former Pac school rivals, and had some private schools. There would be reduced travel due to a west coast pod. Cal also preferred the B1G. Unfortunately, that didn't work out for reasons that have been discussed in another thread. At this point the Cal Chancellor, appreciating what would happen if Cal was not in a Power conference, went all in on getting to a major conference. There was never a view at Cal in the MWC was an alternative without massive changes to the athletic department and what Cal sports meant, which would have been painful and costly to the entire University and its stakeholders.

Neither school liked the academic profile of the Big 12. Both schools supposedly were okay with BYU. Cal would have been okay with the B12 if a full media share was available or even at some discount. It wanted badly to be in a Power conference. My understanding was that it was a moot point, as the B12 said they were done expanding. Cal supposedly inquired at least twice and got the same answer. I don't think Cal would have gone to the B12 without Furd, but good luck getting that question awnswered.

All along Cal and Furd preferred the ACC after the B1G, because of the conference's academic profile. Furd also liked the number of privates. Both schools also thought that the travel would be relatively the same as travel to the B12. I night add Cal's trip to Notre Dame last year had a strong impact on the leaders of both schools. The rest will be for someone to write a book about the Pac's demise. Should be fascinating reading.

---

Thanks for the insight. I agree, I am looking forward to the book, but it might have to wait until all the litigation to be over for key people to talk and that could be years from now.

---

I will bet there are at least 3 sportswriters who have already sent "Death of the Pac-12" book proposals to publishers.

---

Yeah, Wilner for one. It is true, you can write the book with rumor and conjecture filling in the blanks.

ColoradoBear said:

---

It seems that the time factor is going to be the biggest obstacle to OSU and WSU doing anything. The MWC plays an 8 game schedule and almost all teams have already filled out their OOC schedule with 4 games. Unless the MWC redoes their entire conference schedule, there is no way to give extra games to OSU/WSU in any kind of alliance. It would have to be OSU become member of the MWC or the MWC fully joins the Pac for 2024 (or enough teams join to dissolve the MWC).

In terms of the Pac 12 liabilities, wouldn't those have to be figured out whether the p12 dissolves or continues? It's not like the 12 members could dissolve the p12 on June 30th, 2024, empty all the accounts of assets and cash (there will still be hundreds of millions of revenue) then just stuff people on the liabilities. But the timing again seems like it will not be soon enough for OSU/WSU.

---

I will take a shot at the timing. If the conference goes BK I suspect operations cease on July 31, 2024. There is a plan of liquidation, the lawsuits are stayed, there is some fights among creditors and at some point, the creditors are paid off, the people with lawsuits generally get screwed, preference distributions to members are returned, but as a practical matter, the members walk away wit no liabilities and a fair amount of money in distributions. For us sports fans there is no Pac competition after July 31, 2024.

The other scenario is harder to figure out. Without judicial interference, the members decide to liquidate. They can set the timing, as conference assets are liquidated. They have a process under which certain money is distributed to members. They likely may not be able to make full distributions and have to set up reserves and then pay off creditors. Money might have to stay in reserves until certain matters are fully litigated if settlements can to be made. 10 members are going to other conferences on August 1, 2024. I have to believe at this juncture OSU and WSU also will have to make the jump to another conference just to fill out their schedules. The entity may continue to take time to wind down, maybe many years, and it is always possible that schools may be required to contribute money back in. But getting to the timing issue, I just don't think there will be sufficient time for OSU and WSU to continue on while the liquidation process occurs and as a practical matter, they will need to join another conference. Maybe the B12 will feel comfortable about absorbing two more schools and throw them a life line if WSU and OSU are willing to forego a full media share a la Calford and SMU. Just my two cents based on how I have seen other entities unwind.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Question: why as the Big12 never a serious option for Stanford? Rumors were cal would be fine with the big12 but Stanford wanted no part of the big12 lol

---

I think the narrative being discussed is fairly accurate, but let me provide some context.

The two schools agreed Calford was a package deal. Both schools had demands that both schools were willing to accommodate. Both Cal and Furd had impacts on getting both schools accepted into the ACC. Both ADs made an effort after the announcement to thank the other school and discuss how important is was to have the Big Game at the end of the season.

Furd liked the B1G for the money and the fact that it generally had good schools, including former Pac school rivals, and had some private schools. There would be reduced travel due to a west coast pod. Cal also preferred the B1G. Unfortunately, that didn't work out for reasons that have been discussed in another thread. At this point the Cal Chancellor, appreciating what would happen if Cal was not in a Power conference, went all in on getting to a major conference. There was never a view at Cal in the MWC was an alternative without massive changes to the athletic department and what Cal sports meant, which would have been painful and costly to the entire University and its stakeholders.

Neither school liked the academic profile of the Big 12. Both schools supposedly were okay with BYU. Cal would have been okay with the B12 if a full media share was available or even at some discount. It wanted badly to be in a Power conference. My understanding was that it was a moot point, as the B12 said they were done expanding. Cal supposedly inquired at least twice and got the same answer. I don't think Cal would have gone to the B12 without Furd, but good luck getting that question awnswered.

All along Cal and Furd preferred the ACC after the B1G, because of the conference's academic profile. Furd also liked the number of privates. Both schools also thought that the travel would be relatively the same as travel to the B12. I night add Cal's trip to Notre Dame last year had a strong impact on the leaders of both schools. The rest will be for someone to write a book about the Pac's demise. Should be fascinating reading.

---

Thanks for the insight. I agree, I am looking forward to the book, but it might have to wait until all the litigation to be over for key people to talk and that could be years from now.

---

I will bet there are at least 3 sportswriters who have already sent "Death of the Pac-12" book proposals to publishers.

---

Yeah, Wilner for one. It is true, you can write the book with rumor and conjecture filling in the blanks.

---

I would also add Canzarro to the list.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Do y'all think Cal and Stanford will be in the ACC for the long haul? Does ESPN try and help the ACC build out a more fulsome western wing in 2030/2031 when the Big12 deal is up and ASU, Zona, and Utah are free agents again?

---

It's unclear if the ACC will even be around for the long haul. I think most of us just see this as a way to stay alive until the next realignment spree.

---

One theory I heard was from David Shaw that the TV money will be so much less, that the teams will start moving back to regional conferences.

---

It's a valid theory. I also expect the big TV money will dry up soon.

In the interest of full disclosure, here is a new Wilner on the Pac developments:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/15/mailbag-future-schedules-for-the-four-corners-schools-pac-12-bylaws-mw-dissolution-wsu-ratings-and-more/

Just some highlights, since there may be paywall:

1) He says departing Pac members will get their share of all distributions. I don't see that the current rules say that is true on NCAA basketball post-season money which is paid over tine (the rules are silent as far as I can tell), and he ignores the forfeiture provision in the withdrawal section. He also ignores that WSU and OSU could change the rules if they are the only CEO group members. However, if Wilner is correct, the departing members are taking almost all the money and leaving little to pay remaining and contingent liabilities. I'm not seeing how the economics work.

2) He talks about the reverse merger or MWC teams joining after dissolving the MWC, and says the key is a new media deal which is hard to fathom (the teams would likely have their present value or worse given that linear TV programs are financial distress currently), but the way to probably make this work is the networks would agree to keep the terms of the current MWC contact, but simply shift the deal to the Pac-12 (while accounting for the increase in teams, from 12 to 14, and game inventory). This means the new conference has the same $4 million dollar a year payout with the huge withdrawal fee. Again, I'm not seeing why they bother going through all this and not just keeping the MWC if the money doesn't change? If they are banking on a football playoff spot, that is a benefit that may last for two years, and maybe not be there by the time the Greg Sankey's of the world finish (e.g., the merged Pac is a different entity not entitled to playoff benefit).

3) He mentions in the context of the Pac 12 network, the murky bookkeeping and lack of cooperation by the Pac with WSU and OSU and wonders if that is procedural or ? The inference is there may be a lot bad news the members may find out. He does point out WSU and OSU are a long way away from rebuilding the conference, and one impediment may be litigation, again in the context responding to a question on the Pac network.

4) in response to a Bruin fan that points out the "notice of withdrawal" clause was aimed at schools literally leaving the conference prior to Aug 1, 2024. The ten departing schools are not leaving (or withdrawing) prior to that date", Wilner responds that Pac kicked out UCLA, USC and Colorado who gave notice from the CEO Board, and this may be important. But he defers on making any conclusion, saying the lawyers and court will decide, but then says he thinks the parties will compromise since none of the parties want discovery (I think this gets back to the OSU and WSU don't have a lot of time if they want to rebuild the conference).

5) He talks about Calimony and says the Regents can provide for more than $10 million annually, but probably will provide for an amount that is in higher range of $2 to $10 million.

Jon is one of the few journalists left who covers the Pac, and he does have inside sources, at least in the Bay Area schools. He often is right. I don't think he has the sophistication to deal with complex legal and business matters, and sometimes that shows and sometimes he gets it wrong. But from a journalistic standpoint, he is the best we have.

WIAF: what about this other Wilner piece about UW and UO acknowledging via letter that they will not be part of future decisions for the Pac. Does this change your opinion at all about how things will shake out?

Edit: seems like a lot of conflicting info and will be a mess to sort out.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/16/pac-12-chaos-court-documents-show-washington-oregon-expected-to-be-removed-from-key-board-discussions/

John Canzano: Bald Faced Truth

Q&A Mailbag

Q: If WSU/OSU reverse merges with the Mountain West Conference do you think they take all of the schools or just some of them? @c_rog6

A: I don't think the Pac-2 would want all the MWC schools. I'd take San Diego State, Boise State, Fresno State, Colorado State, Air Force and UNLV in time for the 2025 season. That gets the Pac-12 to the NCAA-mandated minimum of eight teams. The NCAA provides a two-year grace period to reach that threshold.

I might also look at the American Athletic Conference and see if there's anything I liked there. Would you take the University of Texas-San Antonio and Memphis or Tulane? Or maybe you'd stand at eight? You tell me in the comment section. The goal should be to position the Pac-12 as the clear No. 5 football conference. So tell me how you do that.

Q: Who should the Pac-2 add first in rebuilding the conference? Luke Weirup

A: San Diego State. But not until the 2025 football season. I'd try to make it as a conference of two in 2024. The Beavers and Cougars already have three non-conference games scheduled. They could add a home-and-home series vs. each other. That's five total games for each. Then, I'd turn to the scheduling consultants and have them find another five games. As difficult as that sounds, I'm told it's plausible.

philbert said:

---

WIAF: what about this other Wilner piece about UW and UO acknowledging via letter that they will not be part of future decisions for the Pac. Does this change your opinion at all about how things will shake out?

Edit: seems like a lot of conflicting info and will be a mess to sort out.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/16/pac-12-chaos-court-documents-show-washington-oregon-expected-to-be-removed-from-key-board-discussions/

---

There could be some form of waiver or equitable relief for WSU and OS, as it applies to these schools. Litigators?

If WSU and OSU were offered by the ACC to take the same deal Stanford and Cal took (30% share), would they accept? Or could WSU & OSU not take that sort of financial hit?

JRL.02 said:

---

If WSU and OSU were offered by the ACC to take the same deal Stanford and Cal took (30% share), would they accept? Or could WSU & OSU not take that sort of financial hit?

---

Why would they take that lousy deal?

With Wilner's scoop:

'Executives from Washington and Oregon acknowledged in writing that they would be excluded from decisions related to the future of the Pac-12 a potentially critical piece of evidence as Washington State and Oregon State, the only remaining schools, wage a legal battle for control of the conference.'

Get all you can, guys. Return the love.

movielover said:

---

John Canzano: Bald Faced Truth

Q&A Mailbag

Q: If WSU/OSU reverse merges with the Mountain West Conference do you think they take all of the schools or just some of them? @c_rog6

A: I don't think the Pac-2 would want all the MWC schools. I'd take San Diego State, Boise State, Fresno State, Colorado State, Air Force and UNLV in time for the 2025 season. That gets the Pac-12 to the NCAA-mandated minimum of eight teams. The NCAA provides a two-year grace period to reach that threshold.

I might also look at the American Athletic Conference and see if there's anything I liked there. Would you take the University of Texas-San Antonio and Memphis or Tulane? Or maybe you'd stand at eight? You tell me in the comment section. The goal should be to position the Pac-12 as the clear No. 5 football conference. So tell me how you do that.

Q: Who should the Pac-2 add first in rebuilding the conference? Luke Weirup

A: San Diego State. But not until the 2025 football season. I'd try to make it as a conference of two in 2024. The Beavers and Cougars already have three non-conference games scheduled. They could add a home-and-home series vs. each other. That's five total games for each. Then, I'd turn to the scheduling consultants and have them find another five games. As difficult as that sounds, I'm told it's plausible.

---

Neither of those answers would work.

First question: Even if MWC members gave a year's notice and reduced their exit fees to $17 million each, those schools are not going to pay $17 million each to join a league that currently has no TV deal and whose only revenue stream would be the leftover March Madness money that is approximately $10 million a year (for the whole conference) for the next four or five years. I doubt the AAC teams would pay their exit fees to join, either. The whole reason why the "reverse merger" idea has been discussed is that it eliminates the exit fees for MWC schools, all of which are public universities and none of which have billionaire boosters who would write the checks for expensive exit fees.

Second question: The "conference of two" idea could, theoretically, work in football, though the list of opponents would be sub-optimal. The problem that Canzano's answer doesn't address is that OSU and WSU each have 15 to 20 other sports that need schedules for 2024-25.

I'll assume that WSU and OSU have already asked if they can join the Big 12 with a greatly reduced revenue share and that they were turned down. So their realistic options are going to be limited to bringing the entire MWC into the Pac, or just joining the MWC.

OSU and WSU deserve better, but to quote that line from "Unforgiven": Deserve's got nothin' to do with it.

There are now Twitter rumors spreading about the Big 12 maybe being interested again. No idea how realistic that is. I guess the argument is that the playoff format can't be finalized until the Pac-12 issues are, so the conferences and networks have incentive to find a spot for OSU and WSU without prolonged legal battles.

Out of nowhere the talk that #Wazzu and the #Beavers are going to get an invite to the #Big12 has some merit. The TV partners are definitely going to have to finance this one, as those two aren't #SMU. pic.twitter.com/H5FkXO0poA

— THE SWAIM SHOW (@GSwaim) September 16, 2023

wifeisafurd said:

---

In the interest of full disclosure, here is a new Wilner on the Pac developments:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/15/mailbag-future-schedules-for-the-four-corners-schools-pac-12-bylaws-mw-dissolution-wsu-ratings-and-more/

Just some highlights, since there may be paywall:

1) He says departing Pac members will get their share of all distributions. I don't see that the current rules say that is true on NCAA basketball post-season money which is paid over tine (the rules are silent as far as I can tell), and he ignores the forfeiture provision in the withdrawal section. He also ignores that WSU and OSU could change the rules if they are the only CEO group members. However, if Wilner is correct, the departing members are taking almost all the money and leaving little to pay remaining and contingent liabilities. I'm not seeing how the economics work.

2) He talks about the reverse merger or MWC teams joining after dissolving the MWC, and says the key is a new media deal which is hard to fathom (the teams would likely have their present value or worse given that linear TV programs are financial distress currently), but the way to probably make this work is the networks would agree to keep the terms of the current MWC contact, but simply shift the deal to the Pac-12 (while accounting for the increase in teams, from 12 to 14, and game inventory). This means the new conference has the same $4 million dollar a year payout with the huge withdrawal fee. Again, I'm not seeing why they bother going through all this and not just keeping the MWC if the money doesn't change? If they are banking on a football playoff spot, that is a benefit that may last for two years, and maybe not be there by the time the Greg Sankey's of the world finish (e.g., the merged Pac is a different entity not entitled to playoff benefit).

3) He mentions in the context of the Pac 12 network, the murky bookkeeping and lack of cooperation by the Pac with WSU and OSU and wonders if that is procedural or ? The inference is there may be a lot bad news the members may find out. He does point out WSU and OSU are a long way away from rebuilding the conference, and one impediment may be litigation, again in the context responding to a question on the Pac network.

4) in response to a Bruin fan that points out the "notice of withdrawal" clause was aimed at schools literally leaving the conference prior to Aug 1, 2024. The ten departing schools are not leaving (or withdrawing) prior to that date", Wilner responds that Pac kicked out UCLA, USC and Colorado who gave notice from the CEO Board, and this may be important. But he defers on making any conclusion, saying the lawyers and court will decide, but then says he thinks the parties will compromise since none of the parties want discovery (I think this gets back to the OSU and WSU don't have a lot of time if they want to rebuild the conference).

5) He talks about Calimony and says the Regents can provide for more than $10 million annually, but probably will provide for an amount that is in higher range of $2 to $10 million.

Jon is one of the few journalists left who covers the Pac, and he does have inside sources, at least in the Bay Area schools. He often is right. I don't think he has the sophistication to deal with complex legal and business matters, and sometimes that shows and sometimes he gets it wrong. But from a journalistic standpoint, he is the best we have.

---

Yeah, people often cite his incorrect reading of the buyout provisions in Wilcox's contract.

New scoop from Ross Dellenger on Mountain West/Pac-2 potential plans. a doozy of a story! https://t.co/iATYMUGGco

This is f-ing crazy genius stuff here.

"One of the key questions: Will the NCAA and CFP even consider the two separate conferences?"

I mean, how could they not? This is no different than bigger money conference A stealing smaller money conference Bs two best teams. Has been happening every year now, and the conferences still are recognized.

What is different is that the two worst teams aren't typically shipped out or claimed by a lower money conference.* How would that be the differentiator in what is one conference vs two?
*OSU and WSU exception that proves rule

This is two conferences, with a scheduling alliance, and contractual agreements about what theft between conferences is acceptable.

I think their pretend $7.5 million and $5 million numbers are too low. I would watch this! Get the Big Sky involved as a third league relegating with the MWC!

Hope that this happens. I would enjoy watching this competition on Saturdays while waiting for Wilcox's contract to run out.

DemonDeke said:

---

This is f-ing crazy genius stuff here.

"One of the key questions: Will the NCAA and CFP even consider the two separate conferences?"

I mean, how could they not? This is no different than bigger money conference A stealing smaller money conference Bs two best teams. Has been happening every year now, and the conferences still are recognized.

What is different is that the two worst teams aren't typically shipped out or claimed by a lower money conference.* How would that be the differentiator in what is one conference vs two?
*OSU and WSU exception that proves rule

This is two conferences, with a scheduling alliance, and contractual agreements about what theft between conferences is acceptable.

I think their pretend $7.5 million and $5 million numbers are too low. I would watch this! Get the Big Sky involved as a third league relegating with the MWC!

---

Thinking outside the box is a good thing, but the article waaaay overestimates how much fan interest and money this idea would generate.

The vast majority of English futbol fans care only about teams getting promoted to or relegated from the Premier League, because the Premier League is the apex of its sport. Those fans are not transfixed by the mere idea of promotion and relegation.

The problem is, this isn't like promotion and relegation between the Premier League and the Championship. (Yes, English futbol calls its second-tier league "the Championship".) This Pac-2/MWC idea would be like promotion and relegation between the Championship (the second-tier league) and League One (the third-tier league, which should be called League Three, but whatever).

So, the fatal flaw in the Pac-2/MWC idea is that it's based on the idea that millions of CFB fans will watch dozens of games they otherwise would not watch, just because of promotion and relegation, even if those fans otherwise don't care about either the "promotion league" or the "relegation league".

DemonDeke said:

---

This is f-ing crazy genius stuff here.

"One of the key questions: Will the NCAA and CFP even consider the two separate conferences?"

I mean, how could they not? This is no different than bigger money conference A stealing smaller money conference Bs two best teams. Has been happening every year now, and the conferences still are recognized.

What is different is that the two worst teams aren't typically shipped out or claimed by a lower money conference.* How would that be the differentiator in what is one conference vs two?
*OSU and WSU exception that proves rule

This is two conferences, with a scheduling alliance, and contractual agreements about what theft between conferences is acceptable.

I think their pretend $7.5 million and $5 million numbers are too low. I would watch this! Get the Big Sky involved as a third league relegating with the MWC!

---

Agreed. The relegation game would be more fun than the conference championship. And yes, Big Sky could be the third division. It would also give the PAC-8 a stronger argument for maintaining P5 status and the B1G and SEC powers might support it for the precedent, with an eye to splitting themselves in the future.

https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/washington-stat-university-oregon-state-university-lawsuit-seeking-clarity/293-f77c1b14-03c9-44ef-80a0-0d32852036e9

Interesting language from departing members cited in the above article:

"Recent court documents reveal that at least two schools planning to depart after this season may have anticipated their removal from long-term decision-making. Almost identical letters from the University of Washington and the University of Oregon, dated August 4, state that they will not grant media rights authorization to the conference after August 1, 2024. Both schools clarify that this is not a notice of withdrawal."

"A letter dated the next day from PAC-12 general counsel to CU says the chancellor and school's representation on the Pac-12's Board of Directors automatically ceases effective immediately, and CU no longer has the right to vote on any matter before the Board.

On August 18, CU responded and "clarifies it did not withdraw from the Pac-12 conference" but instead would grant media rights to the Big 12 conference on August 2, 2024."

Oregon State and Washington State may decide to play as the "Pac-2" in 2024.

I spoke with college football's scheduling mastermind today.

"It can be done," he said.

Column: https://t.co/Q8N9irt660

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2023

sycasey said:

---

Oregon State and Washington State may decide to play as the "Pac-2" in 2024.

I spoke with college football's scheduling mastermind today.

"It can be done," he said.

Column: https://t.co/Q8N9irt660

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2023

---

This again... I covered this above, here. OSU and WSU need 2024-25 schedules for all of their sports, not just football. The Pac-2 idea doesn't fly unless there is a workable solution for all of their sports.

OSU and WSU could pay the Big West or Big Sky to provide them with games or temporary conference membership in all sports other than football, but that assumes one of those conferences is willing to do that at a reasonably low price.

Even if they did that, what's the end game? Waiting a year or two and bringing most of the MWC into the New-Pac, just to keep two or three MWC teams out? Playing football as independents indefinitely while hoping the next wave of realignment creates openings for them in the Big 12?

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Oregon State and Washington State may decide to play as the "Pac-2" in 2024.

I spoke with college football's scheduling mastermind today.

"It can be done," he said.

Column: https://t.co/Q8N9irt660

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2023

---

This again... I covered this above, here. OSU and WSU need 2024-25 schedules for all of their sports, not just football. The Pac-2 idea doesn't fly unless there is a workable solution for all of their sports.

OSU and WSU could pay the Big West or Big Sky to provide them with games or temporary conference membership in all sports other than football, but that assumes one of those conferences is willing to do that at a reasonably low price.

Even if they did that, what's the end game? Waiting a year or two and bringing most of the MWC into the New-Pac, just to keep two or three MWC teams out? Playing football as independents indefinitely while hoping the next wave of realignment creates openings for them in the Big 12?

---

They will have a partnership in some form with the MWC who will give them a scheduling agreement for 2024 (yes, all sports) while the other issues are sorted out.

In my opinion, a "rebuilt" Pac-12 that consisted of Wash State, Oregon State, Stanford, and Cal + Boise State, Fresno State, SMU, Memphis, Air Force, and Tulane could have retained power conf status in football.

JRL.02 said:

---

In my opinion, a "rebuilt" Pac-12 that consisted of Wash State, Oregon State, Stanford, and Cal + Boise State, Fresno State, SMU, Memphis, Air Force, and Tulane could have retained power conf status in football.

---

It would only retain status to the extent the other power conferences allowed it to by not voting them out. I suspect the Big 10 and SEC would instantly take the 'weakening' of the PAC (perceived or legit) as an opportunity seize more power and influence on the direction of college football and particularly the CFB Playoffs (how many auto-bids to power conferences, at large bids etc). The question is would one of the ACC or Big 12 join those two to vote to ouster the PAC. There's some reasoning for them to resist ceding more power to the Power '2', and keeping a voting bloc that can check them 3-2, but short term $ increases by splitting the pie 4 ways vs 5 could cause them to vote to boot the PAC - even to their long-term detriment.

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Oregon State and Washington State may decide to play as the "Pac-2" in 2024.

I spoke with college football's scheduling mastermind today.

"It can be done," he said.

Column: https://t.co/Q8N9irt660

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2023

---

This again... I covered this above, here. OSU and WSU need 2024-25 schedules for all of their sports, not just football. The Pac-2 idea doesn't fly unless there is a workable solution for all of their sports.

OSU and WSU could pay the Big West or Big Sky to provide them with games or temporary conference membership in all sports other than football, but that assumes one of those conferences is willing to do that at a reasonably low price.

Even if they did that, what's the end game? Waiting a year or two and bringing most of the MWC into the New-Pac, just to keep two or three MWC teams out? Playing football as independents indefinitely while hoping the next wave of realignment creates openings for them in the Big 12?

---

That's what Canzano's article basically says: join the WCC or Big West in non-football sports and then do a special scheduling arrangement with the MWC and other west coast schools in football.

sosheezy said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

In my opinion, a "rebuilt" Pac-12 that consisted of Wash State, Oregon State, Stanford, and Cal + Boise State, Fresno State, SMU, Memphis, Air Force, and Tulane could have retained power conf status in football.

---

It would only retain status to the extent the other power conferences allowed it to by not voting them out. I suspect the Big 10 and SEC would instantly take the 'weakening' of the PAC (perceived or legit) as an opportunity seize more power and influence on the direction of college football and particularly the CFB Playoffs (how many auto-bids to power conferences, at large bids etc). The question is would one of the ACC or Big 12 join those two to vote to ouster the PAC. There's some reasoning for them to resist ceding more power to the Power '2', and keeping a voting bloc that can check them 3-2, but short term $ increases by splitting the pie 4 ways vs 5 could cause them to vote to boot the PAC - even to their long-term detriment.

---

P5 ("Autonomous") conference status is an NCAA designation and I don't see the NCAA going anywhere near that consequential a decision as long as the conference continues to exist with some of the original members. I think that is why certain powers are pushing so hard for the 10 schools leaving to burn down the house and dissolve the conference prior to their departure. It is the only sure way to consolidate to a P4.

sosheezy said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

In my opinion, a "rebuilt" Pac-12 that consisted of Wash State, Oregon State, Stanford, and Cal + Boise State, Fresno State, SMU, Memphis, Air Force, and Tulane could have retained power conf status in football.

---

It would only retain status to the extent the other power conferences allowed it to by not voting them out. I suspect the Big 10 and SEC would instantly take the 'weakening' of the PAC (perceived or legit) as an opportunity seize more power and influence on the direction of college football and particularly the CFB Playoffs (how many auto-bids to power conferences, at large bids etc). The question is would one of the ACC or Big 12 join those two to vote to ouster the PAC. There's some reasoning for them to resist ceding more power to the Power '2', and keeping a voting bloc that can check them 3-2, but short term $ increases by splitting the pie 4 ways vs 5 could cause them to vote to boot the PAC - even to their long-term detriment.

---

The Big Ten and SEC are already doing this. The SEC commissioner said recently that the playoff format needs to be changed in light of the Pac-12 collapse. The Big Ten probably agrees. The current format that is supposed to begin next year has 6 conference champions and 6 at-large teams. The SEC commissioner suggested that, instead, the playoff have either 5 conference champs and 7 at-large teams, or just 12 at-large teams chosen by a committee.

The ACC and Big 12 will go along with changing to one of those formats. Most mid-major conferences will also go along. The Big Ten and SEC can hold over everyone the unspoken threat of taking their conferences out of the playoff and holding either their own playoff or just a "college football super bowl" matching the SEC and Big Ten champs.

A JV Super Bowl would be as exciting as the G League Championship.