https://sports360az.com/pac-12-survival-tallying-the-cash-available-to-washington-state-and-oregon-state-for-rebuilding-the-conference/

(Seems like no paywall when Wilner is syndicated at some newspapers other than the SJ Merc).

It has been rumored that the pac 2 will have about $200 million in revenue combined in 2024 and 2025.

The Rose Bowl contract (even though the Rose will be part of the CFB playoff those years) will pay $50 million per year ($100 m total). This must have been part of the renegotiation to allow the 12 team playoff - conferences get to keep their existing money due from their NY6 contract bowls.

In addition, the 12 team CFB playoff pays $6 million per team (so $24 million total).

$6.5 million from each departing p12 member yields $65 million.

And Wilner pegs the NCAA tourney money at $33 million over those same two years.

So ~$222 million total, or about $55 million per school per year. Though each school has to pay $7 million to the mwc for their football scheduling agreement for 2024 and would likely have to pay the same or more to ensure football games in 2025.

ColoradoBear said:

---

https://sports360az.com/pac-12-survival-tallying-the-cash-available-to-washington-state-and-oregon-state-for-rebuilding-the-conference/

(Seems like no paywall when Wilner is syndicated at some newspapers other than the SJ Merc).

It has been rumored that the pac 2 will have about $200 million in revenue combined in 2024 and 2025.

The Rose Bowl contract (even though the Rose will be part of the CFB playoff those years) will pay $50 million per year ($100 m total). This must have been part of the renegotiation to allow the 12 team playoff - conferences get to keep their existing money due from their NY6 contract bowls.

In addition, the 12 team CFB playoff pays $6 million per team (so $24 million total).

$6.5 million from each departing p12 member yields $65 million.

And Wilner pegs the NCAA tourney money at $33 million over those same two years.

So ~$222 million total, or about $55 million per school per year. Though each school has to pay $7 million to the mwc for their football scheduling agreement for 2024 and would likely have to pay the same or more to ensure football games in 2025.

---

And isn't that before they sell their media rights?

We debated this a year ago and it seemed likely to me Cal and Stanford would earn less than any of the PAC-12, including WSU and OSU, over the next two years. Of course the numbers would be almost half if it was the PAC-4 vs the PAC-2. It would have given us a chance to continue to try to get into the B1G. It was a viable, if very risky, option.

While we will likely make less than WSU and OSU over the next two years, after that we will steadily make more as we get to 100% of our ACC payout and they make MWC+ money. Moreover, we will be in a P4 conference and, other than the money, I am liking the ACC better than the B1G, for which there was no guarantee.

This is very old news with Wilner's attempting to refine the numbers some more to say the Pac 2 is getting less. See Canzano's report on December 22:
Canzano: Settlement gives Oregon State and Washington State $255 million war chest

The Wilner article focused just on revenues and not Pac costs such as massive severance packages and contingent liabilities such as litigation, lease termination expenses. etc. There is a reason the departing ten Pac teams unanimously were willing to walk away. I suspect a lot of the contingent liabilities will not be quantifiable in two years and OSU and WSU will forced to join the MWC (rather than vice-versa) unless there is a restructuring of conferences in general. Jon's article adds essentially nothing.

good for them (honestly)

i'm looking forward to our weird arrangement, though I also hope it only lasts a decade or so

Quote:

---

So ~$222 million total, or about $55 million per school per year. Though each school has to pay $7 million to the mwc for their football scheduling agreement for 2024 and would likely have to pay the same or more to ensure football games in 2025.

---

OSU and WSU have to pay the MWC for football games, and are likely paying the WCC to give them a home for other sports. And they have to keep paying those conferences every year for as long as those arrangements last.

If WSU/OSU decide to use most of the leftover Pac money to pay the buyout fees for half the MWC, then they won't have that money to spend on their own athletic programs.

They will lose nearly all of the March Madness money after two years. In year three, one of two things will happen: (1) The Pac will officially dissolve, and the Pac's remaining March Madness money will go to the teams that earned the money in the NCAA tournaments. (2) WSU/OSU will keep the shell of the Pac alive by inviting most or all of the MWC to join the Pac, and if that happens, the joining MWC teams aren't going to let WSU/OSU keep all of that money. They'll have to share it with their new conference mates.

The smart move would be to keep as much money as they can for themselves and just play football as independents for the next several years, with their other sports in the WCC, as BYU did before joining the Big 12. Why the hell would they pay tens of millions in exit fees to get MWC teams into the Pac, when everyone in college sports will know that version of the Pac is just the MWC with a different name?

And, their best football and basketball players have departed or will depart through the transfer portal. So don't buy the BS that Wilner is serving up. No real Cal supporter would want the Bears to be in the same boat as WSU and OSU.

I don't think OSU's or WSU's situation is as dire as you predict it is or will be. They're going to have around $250 million to spend over the next two years. They have also covered themselves to ensure they will share in the liabilities, if any, from class action lawsuits against the NCAA. Plus, if they survive beyond 2026, Pac2 keeps all the money. So, it would pay even more to keep the conference alive.

I've seen some legal commentaries on this and most agree that the settlement is exactly what OSU and WSU need.

IF OSU and WSU know what they're doing - and it looks like they do - they spend a portion of that money to invite SDSU, Fresno State, UNLV, Boise, and Colorado State. Perhaps look to another conference to add another 3.

There could be a huge shift in the college football landscape again by 2026-27. college players could be declared employees and get a share of the TV money. I think OSU and WSU will be fine.

Their rosters are going to be decimated, while in basketball they may return quicker, football takes a LONG time to recover from that. Unless the pac10 returns, there's not going to be a great option for OSU/WSU. I know people probably don't want this, but I think congress really should step in and regionalize the NCAA. They can just paint it as helping with climate change if they want to.

You want OSU and WSU to set their precious money on fire.

To keep the Pac entity alive, OSU and WSU need to add at least six full members within the next two years, because an FBS conference has to have at least eight. Their agreement with the MWC requires them to pay $67.5 million if they add six MWC members to the Pac. If they add eight MWC teams, it costs them a total of $94 million. The only "inexpensive" way to add enough MWC members is to add all 12 of them, which would cost nothing. That's because the agreement is structured to protect MWC members that might otherwise be left behind. The fewer the number of MWC teams that are left behind, the more OSU and WSU have to pay; conversely if no one is left behind, they pay nothing.

EDIT Another article laying out all of the potential costs of adding MWC schools to the Pac-2:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2024-01-11/san-diego-state-sdsu-aztecs-mountain-west-pac-12-football-scheduling-agreement-poaching-penalties

On top of that, the left-behind Pac money isn't going to all sit in bank accounts gathering interest. OSU and WSU will be spending some of it each month and each year to keep their athletic departments alive (because they are trying to maintain power-conference budgets without power-conference money). They will be spending the leftover Pac money while making almost no new money to replace what they spend.

The easiest thing to do would be to take them all in 2026/27. Or - 6-7 teams could announce now that they are leaving the MWC to avoid a termination fee. So it would be a flat $10 million. Since the MWC's media rights deal ends in 2026, that would be a good point to start over.

I still don't think they are in as bad a position as people seem to think they are. They still have income. There is no media rights deal but that could change in two years. You take two seasons of hard living and then restart in 2026. I'm hoping for the best for them. The other 8 be damned.

philly1121 said:

---

The easiest thing to do would be to take them all in 2026/27. Or - 6-7 teams could announce now that they are leaving the MWC to avoid a termination fee. So it would be a flat $10 million. Since the MWC's media rights deal ends in 2026, that would be a good point to start over.

I still don't think they are in as bad a position as people seem to think they are. They still have income. There is no media rights deal but that could change in two years. You take two seasons of hard living and then restart in 2026. I'm hoping for the best for them. The other 8 be damned.

---

They have a timing issue which is wether they actually quantify most of their contingent liabilities by the end of 2006, which likely is the latest they can go without setting in motion a game plan for 2027. When they have the balance of the employee, vendor, provider and athlete lawsuits finished is really dependent on that litigation settling, she of which is not in the Pac's control. It's always nice to be optimistic, but my experience is that litigation tends to move at a glacial pace, and that no one will be willing to join the Pac 2 and take on that exposure. These are not businesses that can go into Chapter 11 and restructure, these are colleges that by their nature have to be risk adverse.

philly1121 said:

---

The easiest thing to do would be to take them all in 2026/27. Or - 6-7 teams could announce now that they are leaving the MWC to avoid a termination fee. So it would be a flat $10 million. Since the MWC's media rights deal ends in 2026, that would be a good point to start over.

I still don't think they are in as bad a position as people seem to think they are. They still have income. There is no media rights deal but that could change in two years. You take two seasons of hard living and then restart in 2026. I'm hoping for the best for them. The other 8 be damned.

---

Yes, the MWC GORs ends in two years, just when they need to add schools, The MWC got lowballed last time with Fox Sports' Silverman saying "The ability to play in the evening slots has value, but that it their only value and we have the PAC-12 for that."

I think there is also a chance the Big 12 and ACC look to expand on the West Coast at that time.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

---

"The ability to play in the evening slots has value, but that it their only value and we have the PAC-12 for that."

---

Fox and ESPN will now mostly use the Big 12 for the late TV windows. They'll make Utah/BYU/CU/UA/ASU start many football and basketball games at 8:00 or 8:30 Mountain time just like they made the west coast teams start at the same time, 7:00 or 7:30 Pacific time.

Fox also has the ex-Pac Big Ten teams, and ESPN has Cal and Stanford in the ACC, but my guess is that the late windows will be used less often with those conferences because they won't want to show east coast teams so much at 10:30 ET. It will happen occasionally, but not nearly as often as late starts for Pac-12 games.

The MWC will still be paid G5 TV money because not only are they in the west but their teams are either in the less populated parts of the west, or are less popular college teams within their own state, or both.

I didn't see any time limit as to payment of liabilities. The issue is the number of lawsuits against the NCAA and/or whether they develop into class action lawsuits that pose the greatest existential threat to OSU and WSU, and actually all of college football. For that, the settlement ensured that all former P12 schools will share in that liability.

They hold serve until 2026. By that time they will have taken at least 6 more teams. Pac will look vastly different. Payout will be less. Media dea will be less. They'll be back on the dance floor. They're just going to be pretty far from the band.

I think OSU and WSU also have to pay to produce their home games that they sold to the CW.

philly1121 said:

---

I didn't see any time limit as to payment of liabilities. The issue is the number of lawsuits against the NCAA and/or whether they develop into class action lawsuits that pose the greatest existential threat to OSU and WSU, and actually all of college football. For that, the settlement ensured that all former P12 schools will share in that liability.

They hold serve until 2026. By that time they will have taken at least 6 more teams. Pac will look vastly different. Payout will be less. Media dea will be less. They'll be back on the dance floor. They're just going to be pretty far from the band.

---

I appreciate this post was a laymen's look at what is happening and is from a poster who likely wasn't involved in all the prior threads on the topic. That said, here are mu responses:

"I didn't see any time limit as to payment of liabilities."

The Pac is a CA non-profit association entity. The constituent members are not liable for the Pac's obligations, just as shareholders are not liable for obligations of the shareholder. The Association acts like a shield against liability. So the offset for damages come from the assets and future revenues of the Pac at the time of any award or settlement, subject to the conference not filing for bankruptcy, with is a distinct possibility in the case of Pac and could be for other conferences in the event of large damages award in the pending anti-trust suit The departing Pac members could only be liable if they contractually provide indemnities to the Pac or the remaining other members, which they did not, as discussed below.

"The issue is the number of lawsuits against the NCAA and/or whether they develop into class action lawsuits that pose the greatest existential threat to OSU and WSU, and actually all of college football."

To start with, what is germane to the Pac 2 and the departing members, is any lawsuits for damages against the conferences, not the NCAA. There isn't a bunch of suits out there that could be made into class actions as suggested. Rather there is a consolidated, class action suit against the Power 5 conferences and others (but not other conferences) which alleges damages in the $billions were if the plaintiffs succeed, the cost to the Pac would be in the $Billions. Just so we are all on the same page, no other conference other than the Power 5 has been sued.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38811591/ncaa-face-billions-damages-judge-ruling-house-vs-ncaa-case

There is one lawsuit against the NCAA that is an existential threat to football if the conferences don't agree on transfer rules:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-joins-lawsuit-challenging-national-collegiate-athletics-associations-ncaa

This has nothing to do with paying off contingent liabilities (no major damages are being sought) and is a matter about whether than can rules on transfers and if football players are employees.

"For that, the settlement ensured that all former P12 schools will share in that [the suits against the NCAA] liability."

That is misleading and inaccurate. Let's forget the NCAA and just address the House anti-trust suit:

The settlement between the Pac 2 with the departing members was to:

1) finish the remainder of the 2023-4 playing season in an orderly manner with a majority of the revenue released to all schools; and

2) provide for the distribution of certain revenue to departing members and retaining other Pac revenues to cover certain liabilities. In no way are future revenues of the departing teams when in other conferences pledged to the Pac 2.

With respect to the House anti-trust suit which is really what you are talking about, the departing members will be at risk for damages in their new conference, and then only to the extent of the new conference's assets and future revenues. But there was no chance in hell that the departing members were willing to take on $billions in potential liability for more than one conference's damages.

To quote Canzanno: "The financial piece of the agreement gives the two schools protection against liabilities involving ongoing lawsuits, $190 million in future conference revenue [the earned, but not paid revenue, such as money from the NCAA basketball playoffs] and $65 million from the departing schools that will be spread out over the next two years...The 10 departing schools don't have "exit fees" but they've agreed to pay WSU and OSU a combined $65 million on the way out the door. .. Those payments will be mostly withheld from revenue earned by the conference." In fact, $55 million already was withheld from the departing team's last season's revenues. So to the extent anyone may think that the departing schools will take on future liabilities because of Canzano's language (actually it is the OSU President's language), that is wrong. The agreement provides an allocation of earned revenues which are to be paid in the future to the Pac of around $255 million or so and that is it. There is no additional future sharing of liabilities to the extent is above the revenues the Pac 2 gets to keep. (That is not exactly accurate, the departing members are paying around ($1.2 million per program in 2025). If the liabilities are more the retained earnings, that comes out of the Pac's 2's net revenues, assuming they even have net revenues (which given what they have to pay the MWC for games, and expenses of running the Pac conference (including legal fees), is an open question.

They hold serve until 2026. By that time they will have taken at least 6 more teams. Pac will look vastly different. Payout will be less. Media dea will be less. They'll be back on the dance floor. They're just going to be pretty far from the band.

There are actual liabilities that the settlement agreement was intended to cover, which are claims and lawsuits over contracts with conference vendors and licensees, employment contracts for conference employees, or health, benefit, real estate and lease termination costs, a class action sexual harassment suit, and insurance. This has been discussed in detail on other threads on this topic and this post is long enough. The Pac 12 network assets have some value as a going concern, but absent a contract with someone like Apple is a net loss. You can go back and look at the threads. There are hundreds of millions of damages being claimed agains the Pac and costs related to downsizing, and anyone's guess as to how all this will be resolved or when.

More importantly, absent a settlement or Congressional action, there is no way the House anti-trust suit is settled in time to restructure the Pac for the 2006-7 season. These type of suits take decades. So the new schools joining the Pac are at risk for damages that could so much as to even be fatal to the Pac's existence. But the point is for the any school desiring to join the Pac, is that only the Power 5 conferences are at risk. It is ludicrous to argue six or more non-Power 5 schools will be willing to join the Pac and take on the Pac's exposure, which arguably could be in the $billions.

I think the practical is the Pac can't resolve all this sufficiently to assure any potential members to the Pac they will not see a substantial amount of otherwise distributable revenue will otherwise go to . The result is the Pac 2 teams join the Mountain West and the Pac is placed into bankruptcy.

The Pac 2 loses all benefits of prior power conference status in 2006 and needs to find new conference opponents to be in a conference. What that likely means to any lawyer advising the subject athletic program is forming a new conference that doesn't bring the dirty laundry of both the Pac and MWC. One reason is to increase the value of future media rights by jettisoning the weak programs in bad TV markets. A second reason is that by 2006 there really are no Pac-12 assets that could be used to entice members of the Mountain West into jumping ship or merging to the Pac. For the one remaining asset. the NCAA playoff basketball revenues from Pac 12 seasons, Oregon State and Washington State, likely would keep the bulk to soften the financial free fall from no longer drawing power conference revenues, but even that may be swallowed by Pac liabilities. Another reason, is to make the new league more attractive in the next round of realignment for former Pac-12 members and others that become disenchanted with moves to power conferences located primarily in east or midwest of are orphaned through continuing conference realignment.

I don't think I've written anything that would contradict what you just posted. I would say that there are sections of the settlement that are redacted that point directly towards what amount, if any, would be shared by the current and former members of the P12, should House v NCAA be settled. My only point was that whatever amount is arrived at for settlement, the former members are going to share in a portion of that. Whether its the $65 million sitting in escrow or not. If its more, surely that would be the responsibility of OSU and WSU which would then present huge problems for them. I imagine it would be in the high hundreds of millions.