(09-15-2023 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If my account is correct, they'd be looking at $67M each over two years.
($40M a year from the Rose Bowl / CFP, $10M a year from the CFP, $17.5M a year in tournament credits)

That's a significant amount of money, but I think it's going to end up being shared with their new Mountain West friends who they invite to the new PAC-14

Even if you're right(which I very much doubt), you're still only looking at revenue. What about expenses? Their athletic budget is based on a $30M media contract, which no longer exists. Also on a conference schedule that costs $0, now they're looking at $20M+ to replace. There is no war chest. There is no money to help with exit fees.

(09-15-2023 01:02 PM)clunk Wrote:  Let’s summarize the PAC’s situation.
Rose Bowl has renegotiated ...
CFP will be ...

Do we have reporting that the contracts are signed, or simply reporting that agreements have been reached.

If contracts have been signed, then the terms are what the terms are, though none of us will be privy to those terms.

Speculation on what legacy CFP there may be under recently signed CFP12 contract amendments is just that -- speculation -- but if the per school payment made the PAC-10 whole after giving up the CFP4 share and the Rose Bowl income, that is on the order of $11m/school, and then the actual terms of the contract determine whether the PAC2 is owed that, or whether there is a market test to pass to get that $11m+/school.

If contracts have not been signed, "agreement" to terms by the PAC-10 is not the same as the PAC signing off on the changed in the contracts, and then everything hinges on how constraining the Rose Bowl tie-in is on letting the Rose Bowl out of the deal if it wants out.

(09-15-2023 02:12 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If my account is correct, they'd be looking at $67M each over two years.
($40M a year from the Rose Bowl / CFP, $10M a year from the CFP, $17.5M a year in tournament credits)

That's a significant amount of money, but I think it's going to end up being shared with their new Mountain West friends who they invite to the new PAC-14

Even if you're right(which I very much doubt), you're still only looking at revenue. What about expenses? Their athletic budget is based on a $30M media contract, which no longer exists. Also on a conference schedule that costs $0, now they're looking at $20M+ to replace. There is no war chest. There is no money to help with exit fees.

That's true no matter what they do -- join the MWC, join the AAC, cobble together a NuPAC. There isn't a scenario (except for a miracle Big 12 invite) where WSU and OSU are collecting $30M in media money.

So, what about expenses? They're going to have to reduce them. No way around that.

(09-15-2023 02:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:12 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If my account is correct, they'd be looking at $67M each over two years.
($40M a year from the Rose Bowl / CFP, $10M a year from the CFP, $17.5M a year in tournament credits)

That's a significant amount of money, but I think it's going to end up being shared with their new Mountain West friends who they invite to the new PAC-14

Even if you're right(which I very much doubt), you're still only looking at revenue. What about expenses? Their athletic budget is based on a $30M media contract, which no longer exists. Also on a conference schedule that costs $0, now they're looking at $20M+ to replace. There is no war chest. There is no money to help with exit fees.

That's true no matter what they do -- join the MWC, join the AAC, cobble together a NuPAC. There isn't a scenario (except for a miracle Big 12 invite) where WSU and OSU are collecting $30M in media money.

So, what about expenses? They're going to have to reduce them. No way around that.

That's exactly my point. WOSU are at net negative money no matter what they do. That means no war chest, no helping with exit fees. Why do you keep avoiding that?

(09-15-2023 02:22 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:12 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If my account is correct, they'd be looking at $67M each over two years.
($40M a year from the Rose Bowl / CFP, $10M a year from the CFP, $17.5M a year in tournament credits)

That's a significant amount of money, but I think it's going to end up being shared with their new Mountain West friends who they invite to the new PAC-14

Even if you're right(which I very much doubt), you're still only looking at revenue. What about expenses? Their athletic budget is based on a $30M media contract, which no longer exists. Also on a conference schedule that costs $0, now they're looking at $20M+ to replace. There is no war chest. There is no money to help with exit fees.

That's true no matter what they do -- join the MWC, join the AAC, cobble together a NuPAC. There isn't a scenario (except for a miracle Big 12 invite) where WSU and OSU are collecting $30M in media money.

So, what about expenses? They're going to have to reduce them. No way around that.

That's exactly my point. WOSU are at net negative money no matter what they do. That means no war chest, no helping with exit fees. Why do you keep avoiding that?

I don't think I am?

They could raid this year's money for exit fees IF they can get their voting monopoly recognized, AND they use that majority to change the bylaws, AND they do it pretty quickly, AND they get MWC / AAC schools lined up to join fairly quickly.

But even then, using the PAC money for exit fees doesn't help WSU and OSU's balance sheet much. Maybe you can structure the exit fee assistance as loans from the PAC to the new PAC schools, loans which get repaid by witholding distributions, but that's a few million a year at most coming back to OSU and WSU.

That's a lot of ifs stacked on top of each other, that they have to deal with in a pretty short timeframe. They have to put a schedule together for next year, and they have to do that probably by New Years'.

Didn't somebody legit report not long ago that the Pac 2 were only interested in 6 MWC teams, and gave that list, which was the usual suspects?

(09-15-2023 02:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:12 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If my account is correct, they'd be looking at $67M each over two years.
($40M a year from the Rose Bowl / CFP, $10M a year from the CFP, $17.5M a year in tournament credits)

That's a significant amount of money, but I think it's going to end up being shared with their new Mountain West friends who they invite to the new PAC-14

Even if you're right(which I very much doubt), you're still only looking at revenue. What about expenses? Their athletic budget is based on a $30M media contract, which no longer exists. Also on a conference schedule that costs $0, now they're looking at $20M+ to replace. There is no war chest. There is no money to help with exit fees.

That's true no matter what they do -- join the MWC, join the AAC, cobble together a NuPAC. There isn't a scenario (except for a miracle Big 12 invite) where WSU and OSU are collecting $30M in media money.

So, what about expenses? They're going to have to reduce them. No way around that.

It’s very hazy, but I can picture them at least getting within spittin” distance of $30m.

$10m from nuPac
$7.5m from new reduced CFO shares, but they get to keep that through the end of next CFP contract
$7.5m Units, Bowls, everything else

$25m, and it’s not even that far fetched. If they are able to pull that off, then guess who they’ll be even with for the next few years…Calford. And if they can do that, then they’ll be a big national story, build tons of goodwill, have an exciting new conference featuring excellent teams like WSU, OSU, Boise, Tulane?, Memphis?! etc etc, and excellent basketball too with SD St, Gonzaga?, Memphis?! etc etc. Overall a very strong Conference in both Football and MBB.

(09-15-2023 02:58 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:12 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If my account is correct, they'd be looking at $67M each over two years.
($40M a year from the Rose Bowl / CFP, $10M a year from the CFP, $17.5M a year in tournament credits)

That's a significant amount of money, but I think it's going to end up being shared with their new Mountain West friends who they invite to the new PAC-14

Even if you're right(which I very much doubt), you're still only looking at revenue. What about expenses? Their athletic budget is based on a $30M media contract, which no longer exists. Also on a conference schedule that costs $0, now they're looking at $20M+ to replace. There is no war chest. There is no money to help with exit fees.

That's true no matter what they do -- join the MWC, join the AAC, cobble together a NuPAC. There isn't a scenario (except for a miracle Big 12 invite) where WSU and OSU are collecting $30M in media money.

So, what about expenses? They're going to have to reduce them. No way around that.

It’s very hazy, but I can picture them at least getting within spittin” distance of $30m.

$10m from nuPac
$7.5m from new reduced CFO shares, but they get to keep that through the end of next CFP contract
$7.5m Units, Bowls, everything else

$25m, and it’s not even that far fetched. If they are able to pull that off, then guess who they’ll be even with for the next few years…Calford. And if they can do that, then they’ll be a big national story, build tons of goodwill, have an exciting new conference featuring excellent teams like WSU, OSU, Boise, Tulane?, Memphis?! etc etc, and excellent basketball too with SD St, Gonzaga?, Memphis?! etc etc. Overall a very strong Conference in both Football and MBB.

Everything you list is either double counted or unreasonably optimistic. They were already expecting some CFP, NCAAT, bowl, etc money, you can't apply the entire value as new revenue to replace the media deal.

(09-15-2023 03:06 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:58 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:12 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If my account is correct, they'd be looking at $67M each over two years.
($40M a year from the Rose Bowl / CFP, $10M a year from the CFP, $17.5M a year in tournament credits)

That's a significant amount of money, but I think it's going to end up being shared with their new Mountain West friends who they invite to the new PAC-14

Even if you're right(which I very much doubt), you're still only looking at revenue. What about expenses? Their athletic budget is based on a $30M media contract, which no longer exists. Also on a conference schedule that costs $0, now they're looking at $20M+ to replace. There is no war chest. There is no money to help with exit fees.

That's true no matter what they do -- join the MWC, join the AAC, cobble together a NuPAC. There isn't a scenario (except for a miracle Big 12 invite) where WSU and OSU are collecting $30M in media money.

So, what about expenses? They're going to have to reduce them. No way around that.

It’s very hazy, but I can picture them at least getting within spittin” distance of $30m.

$10m from nuPac
$7.5m from new reduced CFO shares, but they get to keep that through the end of next CFP contract
$7.5m Units, Bowls, everything else

$25m, and it’s not even that far fetched. If they are able to pull that off, then guess who they’ll be even with for the next few years…Calford. And if they can do that, then they’ll be a big national story, build tons of goodwill, have an exciting new conference featuring excellent teams like WSU, OSU, Boise, Tulane?, Memphis?! etc etc, and excellent basketball too with SD St, Gonzaga?, Memphis?! etc etc. Overall a very strong Conference in both Football and MBB.

Everything you list is either double counted or unreasonably optimistic. They were already expecting some CFP, NCAAT, bowl, etc money, you can't apply the entire value as new revenue to replace the media deal.

$10m a year is a reasonable estimation of “best of the rest” per-team revenues
$7.5m from the CFP starting 2024 assumes that the next 2 years give WOSU a nearly p5 share, and that they continue with that starting in 2026. Not an unreasonable estimate for CFP $$, and it’s not unreasonable to think that as longtime P5 programs they could continue to be treated as such, especially if their very strong years continue.
The other $7.5m from everything else is quite conservative, I’m figuring that is funded from old PAC money and somewhat from nuPac money.

None of the above 3 things is particularly unlikely, it’s only when you put them all together that things get murky. However, even if they’re a million or 2 short in each category, that’s still $20m per year, which is a whole lot better than what many of us, myself included, pictured for them the day after Calfords move was finalized.

(09-15-2023 02:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Didn't somebody legit report not long ago that the Pac 2 were only interested in 6 MWC teams, and gave that list, which was the usual suspects?

No. That was basically tweet info. May be real, may not be, but I wouldn't call it a "legit report."

And even if that is their desire, it doesn't mean it is likely to happen.

(09-15-2023 02:22 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:12 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If my account is correct, they'd be looking at $67M each over two years.
($40M a year from the Rose Bowl / CFP, $10M a year from the CFP, $17.5M a year in tournament credits)

That's a significant amount of money, but I think it's going to end up being shared with their new Mountain West friends who they invite to the new PAC-14

Even if you're right(which I very much doubt), you're still only looking at revenue. What about expenses? Their athletic budget is based on a $30M media contract, which no longer exists. Also on a conference schedule that costs $0, now they're looking at $20M+ to replace. There is no war chest. There is no money to help with exit fees.

That's true no matter what they do -- join the MWC, join the AAC, cobble together a NuPAC. There isn't a scenario (except for a miracle Big 12 invite) where WSU and OSU are collecting $30M in media money.

So, what about expenses? They're going to have to reduce them. No way around that.

That's exactly my point. WOSU are at net negative money no matter what they do.

Wazzou and Oregon State AD's are a net negative money. But the NCAA unit income is not owed to Wazzou and Oregon State. It is owed to the PAC conference, so long as the PAC conference is a multi-sport conference (and there is a two year grace period on that status, so that can be true for 2024/25 and 2025/26 at least). If there is CFP12 money coming to the PAC under the negotiated amended terms of the current CFP deal, that would be coming to the PAC, so long a it's an FBS conference (but there is no two year grace period on having eight core members, so if they are at two on August 2, 2024, that money would go up in smoke).

Quote:That means no war chest, no helping with exit fees. Why do you keep avoiding that?

Disagreeing with your conclusion is not "avoiding" your conclusion, it is disagreeing with it. The PAC is not the going concern that is at net negative, so the Wazzou and Oregon State Presidents as the CEO Group of the PAC can direct the PAC to spend it's income for the benefit of the conference.

They can't tip extra money in ... because they have no extra money to tip in ... but they are not forced to strip money out that is being earned by the PAC, if they decide not to.

And it is certainly the case that the stakeholders in both Oregon State and Wazzou will be demanding to know why they didn't try to build something better, if they end up just inviting the MWC to join the NuPAC. So to have an answer to give to those questions, we can be fairly confident that they are going to try.

The effort might be for nought. But it won't fail to happen for lack of trying.

(09-15-2023 02:14 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:02 PM)clunk Wrote:  Let’s summarize the PAC’s situation.
Rose Bowl has renegotiated ...
CFP will be ...

Do we have reporting that the contracts are signed, or simply reporting that agreements have been reached.

If contracts have been signed, then the terms are what the terms are, though none of us will be privy to those terms.

Speculation on what legacy CFP there may be under recently signed CFP12 contract amendments is just that -- speculation -- but if the per school payment made the PAC-10 whole after giving up the CFP4 share and the Rose Bowl income, that is on the order of $11m/school, and then the actual terms of the contract determine whether the PAC2 is owed that, or whether there is a market test to pass to get that $11m+/school.

If contracts have not been signed, "agreement" to terms by the PAC-10 is not the same as the PAC signing off on the changed in the contracts, and then everything hinges on how constraining the Rose Bowl tie-in is on letting the Rose Bowl out of the deal if it wants out.

There was an agreement, but not signed contracts. But that may be sufficiently binding. There was no explicit money for the bowl contracts, only that the CFP pays more so the conferences will naturally get more. They reached an agreement to keep the P/G split basically the same.

(09-15-2023 06:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:14 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:02 PM)clunk Wrote:  Let’s summarize the PAC’s situation.
Rose Bowl has renegotiated ...
CFP will be ...

Do we have reporting that the contracts are signed, or simply reporting that agreements have been reached.

If contracts have been signed, then the terms are what the terms are, though none of us will be privy to those terms.

Speculation on what legacy CFP there may be under recently signed CFP12 contract amendments is just that -- speculation -- but if the per school payment made the PAC-10 whole after giving up the CFP4 share and the Rose Bowl income, that is on the order of $11m/school, and then the actual terms of the contract determine whether the PAC2 is owed that, or whether there is a market test to pass to get that $11m+/school.

If contracts have not been signed, "agreement" to terms by the PAC-10 is not the same as the PAC signing off on the changed in the contracts, and then everything hinges on how constraining the Rose Bowl tie-in is on letting the Rose Bowl out of the deal if it wants out.

There was an agreement, but not signed contracts. But that may be sufficiently binding.

This is the rub ... where the issue is highlighted in your next point:

Quote: There was no explicit money for the bowl contracts, only that the CFP pays more so the conferences will naturally get more. They reached an agreement to keep the P/G split basically the same.

It might not have been ordinarily necessary for it to be binding, since under that deal it is more money for everyone. The PAC-10 support would have been, more money is better than less money, even if it is not growing in proportion to the growth in revenue for the Big10 and SEC.

But now, it's conceivable that conference realignment has created a party to the contract being amended that is not made better off, depending on how various terms in various contracts interact. In which case, the agreement of the PAC-10 might not hold for the PAC-2, unless provisions are made to ensure that they are no worse off under the first two years of the CFP12 than they would have been under the CFP4 continuing for two more years.

(09-14-2023 04:19 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:02 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 11:57 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  ... It takes 9 to change the bylaws or dissolve the conference regardless of whether Hawaii gets a vote.

... and if those 9 have a commitment in their pocket to be invited into the NuPAC at the end of the process, then their votes are no longer valid.

Different people keep coming with this "one clever trick", but it is not a real live option.

That's actually incorrect. USCLA didn't lose their voting rights b/c the B1G offered them spots, they lost their rights b/c they requested an invite. If the 9 schools don't request an invite then they still have voting rights. The schools kicked out will probably fight it in court, but it could drag out for years, they'll be getting left behind b/c of their lack of resources, and it will eventually get settled for pennies on the dollar. And that's a best case scenario, it's entirely possible that the 9 top MWC schools just decide to kill off the Conference on the hope that the Pac invites them. The issue with this theory is that the 2Pac only wants 6 of them.

Nothing of that sort is mentioned in the bylaws, only if they give notification prior to
the termination of the current media contract. They did, not just on social media but in press releases on their own websites written by their presidents. Pretty sure anyone with interest in CFB knows where those schools will be playing come the 2024 season, and it isn't the PAC.

(09-16-2023 11:45 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 04:19 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:02 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 11:57 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  ... It takes 9 to change the bylaws or dissolve the conference regardless of whether Hawaii gets a vote.

... and if those 9 have a commitment in their pocket to be invited into the NuPAC at the end of the process, then their votes are no longer valid.

Different people keep coming with this "one clever trick", but it is not a real live option.

That's actually incorrect. USCLA didn't lose their voting rights b/c the B1G offered them spots, they lost their rights b/c they requested an invite. If the 9 schools don't request an invite then they still have voting rights. The schools kicked out will probably fight it in court, but it could drag out for years, they'll be getting left behind b/c of their lack of resources, and it will eventually get settled for pennies on the dollar. And that's a best case scenario, it's entirely possible that the 9 top MWC schools just decide to kill off the Conference on the hope that the Pac invites them. The issue with this theory is that the 2Pac only wants 6 of them.

Nothing of that sort is mentioned in the bylaws, only if they give notification prior to
the termination of the current media contract. They did, not just on social media but in press releases on their own websites written by their presidents. Pretty sure anyone with interest in CFB knows where those schools will be playing come the 2024 season, and it isn't the PAC.

I agree with your take, but it's worth noting (because it's really suprising) that the PAC's filings in the case take the opposite position, that the relevant date in the Notification of Withdrawal is the date of withdrawal (Aug 2024), not the date of notification(June 2022 / Aug-Sept 2023).

(09-15-2023 02:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Didn't somebody legit report not long ago that the Pac 2 were only interested in 6 MWC teams, and gave that list, which was the usual suspects?

That is when California and Stanford still in the conference. But, they are not. The 12 MWC schools now come onto the table. The three schools that they would reject at that time was Hawaii, UNR and San Jose State.

(09-15-2023 06:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 02:14 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:02 PM)clunk Wrote:  Let’s summarize the PAC’s situation.
Rose Bowl has renegotiated ...
CFP will be ...

Do we have reporting that the contracts are signed, or simply reporting that agreements have been reached.

If contracts have been signed, then the terms are what the terms are, though none of us will be privy to those terms.

Speculation on what legacy CFP there may be under recently signed CFP12 contract amendments is just that -- speculation -- but if the per school payment made the PAC-10 whole after giving up the CFP4 share and the Rose Bowl income, that is on the order of $11m/school, and then the actual terms of the contract determine whether the PAC2 is owed that, or whether there is a market test to pass to get that $11m+/school.

If contracts have not been signed, "agreement" to terms by the PAC-10 is not the same as the PAC signing off on the changed in the contracts, and then everything hinges on how constraining the Rose Bowl tie-in is on letting the Rose Bowl out of the deal if it wants out.

There was an agreement, but not signed contracts. But that may be sufficiently binding. There was no explicit money for the bowl contracts, only that the CFP pays more so the conferences will naturally get more. They reached an agreement to keep the P/G split basically the same.

It has to be sufficiently binding bc it requires unanimity to change it for the last 2 years. As long as the Pac still exists as an FBS conference, they could veto any aggressive moves against them by the rest of the P5.

The fun part here is that WOSU only have to worry about themselves and could thus just offer to vote in favor of a move that pays the 2 of them a full CFP share starting in 2024, but not the rest of the PAC. That move seems pretty obvious, though it is contingent upon there being no mechanism to remove a team from the greater P5 power structure.

(09-16-2023 12:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-16-2023 11:45 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 04:19 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:02 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 11:57 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  ... It takes 9 to change the bylaws or dissolve the conference regardless of whether Hawaii gets a vote.

... and if those 9 have a commitment in their pocket to be invited into the NuPAC at the end of the process, then their votes are no longer valid.

Different people keep coming with this "one clever trick", but it is not a real live option.

That's actually incorrect. USCLA didn't lose their voting rights b/c the B1G offered them spots, they lost their rights b/c they requested an invite. If the 9 schools don't request an invite then they still have voting rights. The schools kicked out will probably fight it in court, but it could drag out for years, they'll be getting left behind b/c of their lack of resources, and it will eventually get settled for pennies on the dollar. And that's a best case scenario, it's entirely possible that the 9 top MWC schools just decide to kill off the Conference on the hope that the Pac invites them. The issue with this theory is that the 2Pac only wants 6 of them.

Nothing of that sort is mentioned in the bylaws, only if they give notification prior to
the termination of the current media contract. They did, not just on social media but in press releases on their own websites written by their presidents. Pretty sure anyone with interest in CFB knows where those schools will be playing come the 2024 season, and it isn't the PAC.

I agree with your take, but it's worth noting (because it's really suprising) that the PAC's filings in the case take the opposite position, that the relevant date in the Notification of Withdrawal is the date of withdrawal (Aug 2024), not the date of notification(June 2022 / Aug-Sept 2023).

Kliavkoff is such a snake. The only way he got there was a weak attempt to keep WOSU from firing him.

(09-16-2023 12:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... I agree with your take, but it's worth noting (because it's really suprising) that the PAC's filings in the case take the opposite position, that the relevant date in the Notification of Withdrawal is the date of withdrawal (Aug 2024), not the date of notification(June 2022 / Aug-Sept 2023).

That's the position they have to take, because that's the only position where they win, where the bylaw means, "the notification, regarding a withdrawal taking place before August 2, 2024," rather than "being notified before August 2, 2024 regarding a withdrawal".

In plain English the language is ambiguous which one it means, so what decides it seems likely to be what the precedent is for interpreting that kind of language.

(09-16-2023 01:08 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-16-2023 12:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... I agree with your take, but it's worth noting (because it's really suprising) that the PAC's filings in the case take the opposite position, that the relevant date in the Notification of Withdrawal is the date of withdrawal (Aug 2024), not the date of notification(June 2022 / Aug-Sept 2023).

That's the position they have to take, because that's the only position where they win, where the bylaw means, "the notification, regarding a withdrawal taking place before August 2, 2024," rather than "being notified before August 2, 2024 regarding a withdrawal".

In plain English the language is ambiguous which one it means, so what decides it seems likely to be what the precedent is for interpreting that kind of language.

This would be the most Pac way possible for them to go out, I gotta admit.