(12-17-2023 11:50 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-16-2023 11:05 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(12-16-2023 03:52 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  USC and UCLA and then Colorado had their voting rights taken away from them. Once everybody else announced that they left? They lost their voting rights. GK screwed up. I think Gloria would be much better, and could do a lot better as commish, and get a much better tv deal.

ESPN offered 30m per school/year and every school rejected it. Im sure OSU and WSU did so too.

Do we have reporting on a formal unanimous 0-10 vote on the ESPN offer? The reporting I see has two or three PAC-10 Presidents holding out for $50m, not all 10 rejecting $30m.

What ESPN said was that they made what they considered a fair offer and the Pac never counter-offered. Separate reports say that "fair offer" was $30 million, but ESPN didn't confirm or deny the numbers. I get the impression that the presidents talked about it and didn't take a formal vote but just reached a consensus that they could do better. Kliavcoff decided not to respond to ESPN. And then ESPN lost interest.

And its not clear that the offer was actually formally discussed with all the presidents and not just with the executive committee.

(12-16-2023 03:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-16-2023 02:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-16-2023 12:13 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-15-2023 11:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-15-2023 07:51 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Remember the arguments on this board that WSU/OSU didn't have a case? Lol

No. I remember a lot of emotional attachment to WSU/OSU and how they could take over and keep every dollar going forward. When anyone challenged that narrative, some of you lost all ability to read and respond rationally.

Fact is that the judge who ruled they had sole voting authority also said nobody could be taken advantage of and he would be watching them.

That’s….not my recollection of reading the threads. lol

Almost everyone here ended up right.

Yeah, bullet you should go back and reread those threads. My recollection is that you were adamant that WOSU had no leg to stand on, then you said that, well maybe they have a leg to stand on but they can't take any conference distributions from the others, now you're backtracking a bit again. You might still be proven right, there are plenty of legal options available to the departures, and they have a whole lot more money to blow on this than WOSU do. But, for now, it does appear that WOSU have the upper hand.

No. I never said that. You people were just so emotional you totally misinterpreted what I said. I have never wavered.

I simply said the by-laws were so poorly written, there was no guarantee even that WSU/OSU got the Pac 12 future NCAA distributions. But it was always likely they got that money. Just not certain. And it was very unclear what the final result would be because of that sloppy writing. A literal reading of that key paragraph was in direct contrast to everyone's understanding. So the reading WSU/OSU wanted about the end of voting rights could alternatively be interpreted to mean only when they actually left the conference on 8/2/24.

And I said they couldn't take current revenues from the 12. WSU's president said that. The judge who ruled for the 2Pac said everyone had to be treated fairly. Everyone outside message boards believed that.

I remember a guy from DirtBurglars who liked to claim that others were emotional during arguments, there's no need for you to go there. You got it wrong, and you were quite insistent about it. It's ok if you don't remember, just go back and read the entire thread.

You know I get emotional, but it's only over 1 school, and that school is quite far from the PNW.

(12-18-2023 11:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-17-2023 11:50 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-16-2023 11:05 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(12-16-2023 03:52 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  USC and UCLA and then Colorado had their voting rights taken away from them. Once everybody else announced that they left? They lost their voting rights. GK screwed up. I think Gloria would be much better, and could do a lot better as commish, and get a much better tv deal.

ESPN offered 30m per school/year and every school rejected it. Im sure OSU and WSU did so too.

Do we have reporting on a formal unanimous 0-10 vote on the ESPN offer? The reporting I see has two or three PAC-10 Presidents holding out for $50m, not all 10 rejecting $30m.

What ESPN said was that they made what they considered a fair offer and the Pac never counter-offered. Separate reports say that "fair offer" was $30 million, but ESPN didn't confirm or deny the numbers. I get the impression that the presidents talked about it and didn't take a formal vote but just reached a consensus that they could do better. Kliavcoff decided not to respond to ESPN. And then ESPN lost interest.

And its not clear that the offer was actually formally discussed with all the presidents and not just with the executive committee.

In the absence of anyone stepping up and saying "it's my fault, I blocked it", I'd say that this is the mostly likely scenario. That $30m offer never had a chance without Kliavkoff and the Executive Committee pushing it.

(12-18-2023 05:14 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-16-2023 03:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-16-2023 02:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-16-2023 12:13 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-15-2023 11:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  No. I remember a lot of emotional attachment to WSU/OSU and how they could take over and keep every dollar going forward. When anyone challenged that narrative, some of you lost all ability to read and respond rationally.

Fact is that the judge who ruled they had sole voting authority also said nobody could be taken advantage of and he would be watching them.

That’s….not my recollection of reading the threads. lol

Almost everyone here ended up right.

Yeah, bullet you should go back and reread those threads. My recollection is that you were adamant that WOSU had no leg to stand on, then you said that, well maybe they have a leg to stand on but they can't take any conference distributions from the others, now you're backtracking a bit again. You might still be proven right, there are plenty of legal options available to the departures, and they have a whole lot more money to blow on this than WOSU do. But, for now, it does appear that WOSU have the upper hand.

No. I never said that. You people were just so emotional you totally misinterpreted what I said. I have never wavered.

I simply said the by-laws were so poorly written, there was no guarantee even that WSU/OSU got the Pac 12 future NCAA distributions. But it was always likely they got that money. Just not certain. And it was very unclear what the final result would be because of that sloppy writing. A literal reading of that key paragraph was in direct contrast to everyone's understanding. So the reading WSU/OSU wanted about the end of voting rights could alternatively be interpreted to mean only when they actually left the conference on 8/2/24.

And I said they couldn't take current revenues from the 12. WSU's president said that. The judge who ruled for the 2Pac said everyone had to be treated fairly. Everyone outside message boards believed that.

I remember a guy from DirtBurglars who liked to claim that others were emotional during arguments, there's no need for you to go there. You got it wrong, and you were quite insistent about it. It's ok if you don't remember, just go back and read the entire thread.

You know I get emotional, but it's only over 1 school, and that school is quite far from the PNW.

I had no emotional attachments. I'm not going to argue with you because you are still emotional about it and can't remember. All of you misinterpreted what I said at the time. The only things I was insistent about were that the 2 Pac couldn't confiscate current money (You and others were certain they could) which the judge AND WSU president agreed with me on and secondly, that the terms were vague. FTT agreed with me on the vagueness. As for what the courts finally rule, we don't know what is next.