(09-16-2023 12:44 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  I have said that it is in OSU and WSU's best interest long term to build a "best of the rest" conference while quoting SDUTs Zeigler who says (per whatever sources he has) OSU wants just 6 MWC teams: SDSU, BSU, Fresno, UNLV, AFA & CSU. They could hold firm at 8 to see what happens when Calford realizes that the ACC travel and money isn't worth it or they could add 4 schools from the AAC to create East and West divisions. I'm thinking the latter would be most likely.

This would be a good example of OSU and WSU playing checkers instead of chess.

Aresco is on the cusp of bringing Army into the AAC. Suppose he succeeds, which at the moment looks highly likely, and OSU and WSU then try to execute the rebuild described above.

Aresco could easily counter by inviting all four of the MWC's Front Range schools (Air Force, Colorado State, Wyoming, New Mexico) to join the AAC as a group. These schools have long-time historical ties and have made it a priority to stay together in every past round of conference realignment. Aresco would sell them on (1) retaining their historical rivalries, (2) Air Force being in a conference with Army and Navy, (3) the prospect of playing many conference games in Texas, where they all recruit, (4) national exposure with ESPN as the vehicle, and (5) membership in a stable 18-member conference that will almost certainly be viewed as the top G5 contender for CFP participation. Moreover financially he would probably be able to offer something close to, if not equal to, whatever OSU and WSU would be able to convince some network to pay a rebuilt little G-PAC that has no geographic presence east of Logan, Utah.

Because that's all OSU and WSU would have to offer. Outflanked by Aresco, with only eight MWC schools and no AAC schools to choose from, OSU and WSU would have virtually no choice other than to merge with the MWC leftovers. Compared to their current option of merging with a full MWC and having the critical mass and momentum to possibly cherry-pick AAC schools further east, e.g. in Texas, they would find themselves in a much less stable 10-member conference with minimal expansion prospects and a seriously diminished likelihood of being viewed as the top G5 conference.

Calford is gone for good, and dreams of rebuilding the Pac as a power conference are delusional. OSU and WSU are now playing in the G5 world, where money is tight, geography and rivalries still matter, and there is strength in numbers and cohesiveness. The MWC and AAC have been locked in a battle for G5 supremacy for over a decade and had reached a state of near-parity prior to the Pac's implosion. OSU and WSU now have a window of opportunity to tip the balance in the MWC's favor once and for all by merging it into a new Pac, and in doing so make themselves the leaders of the premier G5 conference.

If they try instead to blow up the MWC and replace it with a geographically dispersed Pac with fewer members, they'll be at great risk of inadvertently handing the advantage to the AAC. If OSU and WSU can't understand and accept this, and keep trying to act like power schools instead of embracing their new role as contestants in the G5's version of Game of Thrones, they're setting themselves up for a big surprise.

(09-16-2023 01:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-16-2023 12:44 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 08:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 07:55 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Tirade? Are you saying that OSU and WSU haven't been screwed over and the members are trying to do more of the same?

Fact, when the conference had ten members in good standing they could have dissolved the conference whenever they wanted. Now, a month after the conference was destroyed by their own actions they want to dissolve it now? The bylaws are clear that members lose their voting rights when they give notification to the conference that they are leaving. The MWC put in how that is to be done specifically but the PAC just says notification. Pretty sure posting that on publicly available social media as well as other media outlets as well as press releases have met the notification standard. Here is a sample for each departure:


https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ucla-t...o%20years.


https://www.washington.edu/news/2023/08/...e-in-2024/


https://utahutes.com/news/2023/8/4/gener...24-25.aspx


https://calbears.com/news/2023/9/1/athle...-year.aspx

The ironic thing about all of this is that your school would love nothing more than to dissolve the MWC in order to avoid exit fees and and join the Pac encumbrance-free. Yes, WOSU got screwed over throughout this entire process, but they have also had over 100 years to build up their programs to the point that this wouldn't happen to them in a worst case scenario. They got out-competed in their own States by Bigger/Better Programs, and they got out-competed by the entire Conference for pretty much its entire existence. Between the 2 of them, they've won ONE Rose Bowl in it's 109 year existence, and that was in 1942 (Or St beat Duke 20-16 that year). It's hard to say that they've become complacent, as they've both worked hard recently to upgrade their programs, but it was very much a case of too little, too late. They're a distant #2 in a 1 school State, and they're finally paying the price for that. Maybe that includes getting shafted as they others leave them with nothing from the Pac, more likely they get the leftover Pac assets at least and have the opportunity to rebuild, but either way their futures are cloudy.

Aztec is convinced WSU and OSU have been screwed over and he can read clearly what the documents say and they have all the power. Yet he wants to not leave for greener pastures, but effectively kick several members out of the MWC and that this is all fair and that SDSU would never be subject to the exit fees that everyone agrees ARE clearly written in the MWC bylaws. And he fails to see the contradiction between his two stances

Let me repeat myself as you completely, perhaps deliberately, misstate what I have said.

Each departing PAC school gave notification of leaving the conference for the 2024 season. The announcements were made on social media as well as via press releases by those university presidents on their own websites. Bylaws say clearly that they are no longer voting members as they gave notice prior to the end of the current contract. The PAC10 had over a year to dissolve the conference and they didn't. Now, since 10 are leaving they want to retroactively go back and dissolve the conference so they can divvy up the money and leave OSU and WSU even worse off than they currently are. We should see some resolution in 2-3 weeks when the next hearing happens.

I have said that it is in OSU and WSU's best interest long term to build a "best of the rest" conference while quoting SDUTs Zeigler who says (per whatever sources he has) OSU wants just 6 MWC teams: SDSU, BSU, Fresno, UNLV, AFA & CSU. They could hold firm at 8 to see what happens when Calford realizes that the ACC travel and money isn't worth it or they could add 4 schools from the AAC to create East and West divisions. I'm thinking the latter would be most likely. The idea is to maximize the amount of money from any potential media deal, just like other conferences do and have done. This is a rather unique case as there are just two remaining schools in the PAC who will have the power, and likely the money, to do this. However, I said we will see if they are focused on long term or short term goals. Short term would likely involve a merger with the MWC with OSU and WSU keeping most of the PAC money for themselves.

In this scenario I have said that the departing MWC teams would end up paying "reasonable" exit fees to the conference - ~$7M exit fee and ~ $5.4 late notice for 2024. I justify this number by using what was done with exit fees in the AAC and B12 recently. BSU would be higher given they make about 37% more than other MWC schools.

I have also said that simply adding all MWC schools just creates a bigger MWC, nothing special. I have also said there is the option of 9 schools voting to dissolve the conference should they decide to go that direction to drop three of the schools that add the least value to a media deal. Yes, dissolving the conference would mean that SDSU keeps the $10M in NCAAT credits they earned. If the conference remains together, that money stays with the conference though I would expect SDSU would use that to negotiate down their exit fee. You all seem fine with that but not with the PAC doing the same because some on here say it isn't "fair" that OSU and WSU, in being the only remaining members of the PAC, should keep that money because they "didn't earn" it. Last I saw, the MWC didn't earn the NCAAT money either, SDSU did.

I have also said that the debt to Comcast belongs to each of the 12 PAC members those overpayments went to. For the departing schools to try to put the debt on the conference they are walking away from while decimating its future earning potential just isn't going to fly. I have also said that I don't believe OSU and WSU will be given "carte blanche" to do whatever they want with PAC revenue while also saying they will likely treat the departing members better than what the departing members would treat them. The 10 did want the conference to pay some of their "transition costs" of going to their new conferences which is, well, laughable. OSU and WSU will be given the freedom to do what is in the best interest of the conference which coincides with their own interests currently. One on here suggested that the courts would assume that responsibility; no, not unless OSU and WSU show an inability or unwillingness to do so. If the departing schools don't like what OSU and WSU do they are free to challenge in court on a case-by-case basis. However, allowing the departing members conference voting rights when they have a clear conflict of interest isn't going to happen. The judge agreed to OSU/WSU's TRO request which means he believes they are likely to prevail in the next hearing - which he fast tracked because delays cause "irreparable harm" to the conference members - OSU and WSU.

And if you don't believe that the PAC members totally screwed over OSU and WSU (throw in Calford as well) then you haven't been paying attention.

So, having finally being able to read the Pac-12 by-laws, I think this is more likely going to go in favor of OSU and WSU.

However, I do think that the by-laws were poorly written and that’s why we’re in this situation and the 10 schools leaving at least have an argument.

I don’t think that whether a school actually gave written notice of withdrawal or not is a threshold issue. The by-laws elsewhere refer to members being able suspend schools that also *attempt* to withdraw in contravention of the by-law that everyone is referring to. That latter part makes sense - the spirit of the by-laws aren’t to just let schools get by on a technicality with being able to refuse to ever send in a written notice of withdrawal. It’s clear to me that notice has occurred here because, even if the schools leaving haven’t formally provided written notice of a withdrawal, there has been a clear *attempt* to withdraw that has the same effect of providing notice.

What appears to be the real issue is whether that by-law means:

(a) providing notice of withdrawal *effective* 8/1/2024 (meaning that’s the date a school *actually* leaves the conference); or

(b) providing notice of withdrawal before 8/1/2024 even if it’s not effective until after 8/1/2024.

If the by-law language just stopped with the notice language, I would probably say interpretation (b) prevails. However, the applicable by-law then refers to 2 remedy components: the withholding of media revenue for notice of withdrawal prior to 8/1/2024 (mirroring the Pac-12 GOR terms) and the suspension of voting rights.

The Pac-12 suspended the voting rights of USC, UCLA and Colorado, so that’s consistent with interpretation (b). However, they are *not* withholding media revenue from the schools leaving for this year, which would be consistent with interpretation (a). As far as I know, no one has suggested that the media revenue is being withheld from the leaving schools: that would only have occurred if the schools *actually* left prior to 8/1/2024 (which would be a violation of the GOR) as opposed to if they provided notice of withdrawal that wouldn’t be effective until after 8/1/2024.

This is what I mean that the by-law is poorly written and is causing ambiguity. The way the notice provision is written and how the schools have applied it to voting rights supports interpretation (b), but the media rights/GOR portion of that by-law supports interpretation (a). This is where lawyers earn their billable hours.

I don't believe they have much of an argument, they sure didn't have much when presenting at the TRO hearing. That was pretty much limited to "we (the 10) are worried that there is no employee retention plan that may cause issues this year. " Judge: "OK, you can vote as all 12 on that but it must be unanimous." Next day, employee retention plan was approved.

The 10 departing members convinced GK to call a meeting of the 12 to discuss conference matters. USCLA hadn't been involved in a meeting since June of 2022. They were looking to establish a precedent that the 12 retained their voting rights. OSU and WSU immediately sought a TRO prohibiting such a meeting in order to stop GK and the 10 from establishing such a precedent. That was granted.

Using just common sense, it wouldn't make sense for a school leaving a conference to have the conferences' best interest in mind when voting on conference matters - especially when that school may financially profit at the expense of the conference. This was not even an issue with people on here when USCLA left. Now when it is just two schools remaining somehow OSU and WSU are acting improperly.

Again, I really hope the 10 make a big deal out of this. Discovery will be very, very interesting. OSU and WSU will very likely be given the right at the next hearing to operate the PAC as the two only voting members so they can rebuild the conference. To block that would, in essence, be awarding the departing 10 a victory by default as the PAC would then have little choice but to fold.

(09-16-2023 01:29 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-16-2023 12:44 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  I have said that it is in OSU and WSU's best interest long term to build a "best of the rest" conference while quoting SDUTs Zeigler who says (per whatever sources he has) OSU wants just 6 MWC teams: SDSU, BSU, Fresno, UNLV, AFA & CSU. They could hold firm at 8 to see what happens when Calford realizes that the ACC travel and money isn't worth it or they could add 4 schools from the AAC to create East and West divisions. I'm thinking the latter would be most likely.

This would be a good example of OSU and WSU playing checkers instead of chess.

Aresco is on the cusp of bringing Army into the AAC. Suppose he succeeds, which at the moment looks highly likely, and OSU and WSU then try to execute the rebuild described above.

Aresco could easily counter by inviting all four of the MWC's Front Range schools (Air Force, Colorado State, Wyoming, New Mexico) to join the AAC as a group. These schools have long-time historical ties and have made it a priority to stay together in every past round of conference realignment. Aresco would sell them on (1) retaining their historical rivalries, (2) Air Force being in a conference with Army and Navy, (3) the prospect of playing many conference games in Texas, where they all recruit, (4) national exposure with ESPN as the vehicle, and (5) membership in a stable 18-member conference that will almost certainly be viewed as the top G5 contender for CFP participation. Moreover financially he would probably be able to offer something close to, if not equal to, whatever OSU and WSU would be able to convince some network to pay a rebuilt little G-PAC that has no geographic presence east of Logan, Utah.

Because that's all OSU and WSU would have to offer. Outflanked by Aresco, with only eight MWC schools and no AAC schools to choose from, OSU and WSU would have virtually no choice other than to merge with the MWC leftovers. Compared to their current option of merging with a full MWC and having the critical mass and momentum to possibly cherry-pick AAC schools further east, e.g. in Texas, they would find themselves in a much less stable 10-member conference with minimal expansion prospects and a seriously diminished likelihood of being viewed as the top G5 conference.

Calford is gone for good, and dreams of rebuilding the Pac as a power conference are delusional. If OSU and WSU can't accept this, and aren't thinking at least two steps ahead in the G5 version of Game of Thrones, then they're going to get a big surprise.

Aresco could invite them but is he going to pay them the full share value or pay them what he is paying the 6 members he just added? I doubt the new members are going to vote to expand by 4 more to get to 18 (with Army) if those 5 are getting paid more than them. I also don't see CSU, AFA (both already turned down the AAC before), UNM or Wyoming leaving the MWC for less money. In a revamped PAC in a "best of the rest mode" they more than likely will command more than the AAC which is going to have their current media deal cut given the loss of 4 of its top programs.

Now, if the PAC does rebuild with some MWC and AAC schools then I do see some sort of merger between the remaining members of each conference. At that point, I think we are done with realignment until around 2030 unless the ACC blows up its GOR or the feds get involved.