ADVERTISEMENT

The Pac~12 pre-nup…

While I don't want a penny of the assets to go to the mutts or quackers (or even the condoms or drubbins), I have to agree with moondawgie's assessment. I don't think for a second any of these teams were not aware of the cited clauses and would walk away from those dollars.

Also, the site pac-12compliance.org looks like some dude's blog. It doesn't look official, and certainly isn't affiliated with the Pac12 at all. The information is generally massively out of date. And even if this handbook is real, it most certainly was leaked and may not even be up to date.

Finally, with respect to "notice." I don't think holding a press conference and saying "We are leaving the Pac-12" constitutes notice. At least legally. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a public declaration is notice. I'm thinking of the case of a company holding a press conference saying they are suing another company. That in and of itself is not notice. There is a process, and I suspect a similar process applies here.

Don't we have some lawyers here? They can answer more definitively.
 
Last edited:
.
Dawgie needs to take Evelyn Woodhead’s Sped Redding course. It will improv his redding comprension.
dawgie thinks being a huskie fan is like staying at a holiday inn express. That BCC education doesn’t get any better by putting on that purple and gold starter jacket.
 
To me, and I'm not an attorney, "notice of withdrawal" is a pretty clear statement. If you give notice you are leaving, you are subject to penalties.

Now is that different than saying you are joining the Big-10 conference at the end of the media deal? All up for legal interpretation.

The fact that these schools are no longer considered a part of the CEO group, and they obviously acknowledge that, is interesting and contradictory to the statement "we didn't give notice."

Also, shame on the Pac-12 for not having clearer "exit penalties."

That fact there is chatter that this is a possibility, and being looked at per Kirk, tells me that the lawyers even have some ambiguity on the meaning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikalalas
Maybe Husky was at the meeting last week, and can fill us in. It was supposed to be with lawyers, after all.
 
Maybe Husky was at the meeting last week, and can fill us in. It was supposed to be with lawyers, after all.
They weren't worried about the Pac-12, they were worried about getting accepted to the Big-10. If there is a transaction cost associated with that, that wasn't their concern.
 
While I don't want a penny of the assets to go to the mutts or quackers (or even the condoms or drubbins), I have to agree with moondawgie's assessment. I don't think for a second any of these teams were not aware of the cited clauses and would walk away from those dollars.

Also, the site pac-12compliance.org looks like some dude's blog. It doesn't look official, and certainly isn't affiliated with the Pac12 at all. The information is generally massively out of date. And even if this handbook is real, it most certainly was leaked and may not even be up to date.

Finally, with respect to "notice." I don't think holding a press conference and saying "We are leaving the Pac-12" constitutes notice. At least legally. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a public declaration is notice. I'm thinking of the case of a company holding a press conference saying they are suing another company. That in and of itself is not notice. There is a process, and I suspect a similar process applies here.

Don't we have some lawyers here? They can answer more definitively.
Public announcements can definitely be considered notice. Especially when it's accompanied by a press conference and joining a competitor. The lawsuit analogy isn't relevant because there's a very specific process involved in suing someone. You can announce that you're suing, write a letter saying you're suing, and take out ads in the paper saying you're suing...but if you don't file the right paperwork with the right court, you're not suing.
The Pac-12 agreement gives a clear window when giving notice to depart is not allowed. It is silent on when the actual departure occurs, so that's not relevant. They served notice to depart within the period when it wasn't allowed, so they broke the agreement.
Combine that with the knowledge that at the time of the agreement, the assumption was that the Pac-12 would continue and members would re-up, and this is still a withdrawal. The fact that they're withdrawing after the end of the restriction window is not relevant, because they provided notice during the window.
UW and UO declining to send representatives to meetings after their notice to withdraw also signals a tacit acceptance of other terms of the withdrawal. Since that detail is in the same paragraph as the surrender of their media rights, that also signals their acceptance of that sacrifice.

I'm sure a weasely attorney (is there any other kind?) can at least make this murky enough to convince the P4 to offer a settlement, but I think it's pretty clear they've violated and are not entitled to any funds as of August 4, 2023.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikalalas
So, if Stanford and a Cal split, what are the logistics of OSU and WSU dissolving the conference? Do they have to wait until 8/2024? If they join another conference before then what happens to the assets?

if they have to wait until then to get the money, how do they schedule for ‘24/‘25? 🤷🏼‍♂️
 
So, if Stanford and a Cal split, what are the logistics of OSU and WSU dissolving the conference? Do they have to wait until 8/2024? If they join another conference before then what happens to the assets?

if they have to wait until then to get the money, how do they schedule for ‘24/‘25? 🤷🏼‍♂️
at this point, I assume they will have a dissolution team figure this out.

My sense is they will keep the Pac-12 entity operating in some capacity for an extended time. There is a lot to unwind. Significant value in the media rights, etc., and the assets, leases etc. If they go bankrupt, then everything goes away, but you also have all the legacy media assets to worry about.

It's going to be a real pain in the ass to unwind this thing.
 
Wilner confirms our read here in his mailbag today. The last 4 control the entire pot. How big the pot is a TBD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coug90
So, if Stanford and a Cal split, what are the logistics of OSU and WSU dissolving the conference? Do they have to wait until 8/2024? If they join another conference before then what happens to the assets?

if they have to wait until then to get the money, how do they schedule for ‘24/‘25? 🤷🏼‍♂️
If Cal and Stanford split, then their reps are no longer part of the CEO board either. WSU and OSU call the shots. So, they make it so the conference announces its dissolution under the relevant rules, releasing WSU and OSU to pursue other membership. That way, WSU and OSU did not provide notice of departure in violation of the agreement...the conference dissolved around them and waived that clause.
 
I say we add two schools to the conference to make ourselves eligible to maintain our membership as a P5 and when the MWC media deal is up in 2024/25, we start the poaching process. What two schools shall we add? One for sure should be SMU....... The other possibly a Rice/Tulane/ North Texas/Memphis/South Florida. I think we should retain the PAC12 then add the MWC teams that would bring in the biggest revenue. SDSU, UNLV, FSU, Air Force, CSU, Boise St & Wyoming(?). Or any mixture thereof. Only add the highest value school that would maximize revenue streams. Only schedule 7 conference games a year with other OOC games being massive payouts from other P5 conferences or lesser opponents as to maximize bowl eligible teams within the conference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WindyCityCoug
I say we add two schools to the conference to make ourselves eligible to maintain our membership as a P5 and when the MWC media deal is up in 2024/25, we start the poaching process. What two schools shall we add? One for sure should be SMU....... The other possibly a Rice/Tulane/ North Texas/Memphis/South Florida. I think we should retain the PAC12 then add the MWC teams that would bring in the biggest revenue. SDSU, UNLV, FSU, Air Force, CSU, Boise St & Wyoming(?). Or any mixture thereof. Only add the highest value school that would maximize revenue streams. Only schedule 7 conference games a year with other OOC games being massive payouts from other P5 conferences or lesser opponents as to maximize bowl eligible teams within the conference.
SDSU is the obvious one. There’s an argument for SMU (not an MWC team), but under the circumstances I think we’re better served by being more regional. Fresno or UNLV as #2. We can start moving further East as that gets on its feet.

I really don’t want to be in a conference with BSU, but now I think no matter what we do we’re going to have to hold our noses for part of it.
 
I say we add two schools to the conference to make ourselves eligible to maintain our membership as a P5 and when the MWC media deal is up in 2024/25, we start the poaching process. What two schools shall we add? One for sure should be SMU....... The other possibly a Rice/Tulane/ North Texas/Memphis/South Florida. I think we should retain the PAC12 then add the MWC teams that would bring in the biggest revenue. SDSU, UNLV, FSU, Air Force, CSU, Boise St & Wyoming(?). Or any mixture thereof. Only add the highest value school that would maximize revenue streams. Only schedule 7 conference games a year with other OOC games being massive payouts from other P5 conferences or lesser opponents as to maximize bowl eligible teams within the conference.
I think it’s 6 to be a conference but that doesn’t guarantee P5 status. I believe that’s going away next week if 3/4 other P5 conferences vote the PAC off the island.

I do like SMU + 1 for next year and the best of the Mtn West the year following assuming the B12 is a no go.
 
I think it’s 6 to be a conference but that doesn’t guarantee P5 status. I believe that’s going away next week if 3/4 other P5 conferences vote the PAC off the island.

I do like SMU + 1 for next year and the best of the Mtn West the year following assuming the B12 is a no go.
From the NCAA Division 1 2023-24 Manual

20.02.8.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that sponsor both men's and women's basketball.
 
Wilner confirms our read here in his mailbag today. The last 4 control the entire pot. How big the pot is a TBD.
Wilner didn't confirm jack squat. Being "told by multiple sources", "Our reading of the bylaws indicates..." is not something to hang your hat on. Schulz even says he doesn't know. Surprising given how he is so knowledgeable and prepared for any situation.
 
Wilner didn't confirm jack squat. Being "told by multiple sources", "Our reading of the bylaws indicates..." is not something to hang your hat on. Schulz even says he doesn't know. Surprising given how he is so knowledgeable and prepared for any situation.
But we should always take what the media says as gospel truth....
 
Wilner didn't confirm jack squat. Being "told by multiple sources", "Our reading of the bylaws indicates..." is not something to hang your hat on. Schulz even says he doesn't know. Surprising given how he is so knowledgeable and prepared for any situation.
I’m assuming as a proud BCC grad you dislike Oregon? Maybe read this for a different perspective if you insist on lurking here just to be an asshole.

I honestly don’t begrudge the institution for looking after their own interests, UW or Oregon. Sounds like they went about it with the level of arrogance and petulance you’d expect, but whatever. But why do people like you actively root for WSU to be in financial ruin? for athletes to lose scholarships and programs to be shut down? For people in marketing, operations, administration to lose their jobs…probably have to move their families?

You aren’t going to see a dime of any of the “emergency funds”. UW will be just fine with or without them. It takes a special kind of douchebag to hope that WSU doesn’t end up with a financial lifeline for a couple of years until the Pac conference or further realignment works itself out.
 
I’m assuming as a proud BCC grad you dislike Oregon? Maybe read this for a different perspective if you insist on lurking here just to be an asshole.

I honestly don’t begrudge the institution for looking after their own interests, UW or Oregon. Sounds like they went about it with the level of arrogance and petulance you’d expect, but whatever. But why do people like you actively root for WSU to be in financial ruin? for athletes to lose scholarships and programs to be shut down? For people in marketing, operations, administration to lose their jobs…probably have to move their families?

You aren’t going to see a dime of any of the “emergency funds”. UW will be just fine with or without them. It takes a special kind of douchebag to hope that WSU doesn’t end up with a financial lifeline for a couple of years until the Pac conference or further realignment works itself out.
Yes, ducks are a natural enemy of bulldogs.

Nice attempt to attribute sentiment to me that I've neither stated nor alluded to. Check my first post in this thread on how I feel about the situation for WSU and the overall CFB landscape. As far as my "hopes", I hope all the schools get their fair distribution as opposed to yourself that wants to childishly punish schools for choosing to do something different once the existing agreement expires.
 
Yes, ducks are a natural enemy of bulldogs.

Nice attempt to attribute sentiment to me that I've neither stated nor alluded to. Check my first post in this thread on how I feel about the situation for WSU and the overall CFB landscape. As far as my "hopes", I hope all the schools get their fair distribution as opposed to yourself that wants to childishly punish schools for choosing to do something different once the existing agreement expires.
Childish, sure. But also legal, bitch.

I mean the huskies did what was best for them. The Cougs should be good sports and do what’s best for the huskies also. Fair is fair.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: moondawgie
We loved having UW in the PAC. We cherished the tradition even though too often, you had the upper hand.

But, as much as we “love you”, and should the spotty rumors prove true, we have been schooled by the best, your very own Doctor Anna Marie Cauce and learned our lesson: It ain’t show friends, it’s show business!

I vote we keep the cash UW agreed to forfeit in the prenup and rights to all property with this one caveat, that the PAC agrees to license use of historical footage back to those who left on a per use basis… for traditions sake and to show we’re team players and that we honor agreements in full.
 
The Huskies just reminded us, business is never personal....and the business of making sure we control the media distributions to offset the losses due to their decision is not personal...just business.
It's all about stability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M-I-Coug
Yes, ducks are a natural enemy of bulldogs.

Nice attempt to attribute sentiment to me that I've neither stated nor alluded to. Check my first post in this thread on how I feel about the situation for WSU and the overall CFB landscape. As far as my "hopes", I hope all the schools get their fair distribution as opposed to yourself that wants to childishly punish schools for choosing to do something different once the existing agreement expires.
That was a pretty powerful commentary by OSU's President. Helluva lot more than we seen from ours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coug90
Yes, ducks are a natural enemy of bulldogs.

Nice attempt to attribute sentiment to me that I've neither stated nor alluded to. Check my first post in this thread on how I feel about the situation for WSU and the overall CFB landscape. As far as my "hopes", I hope all the schools get their fair distribution as opposed to yourself that wants to childishly punish schools for choosing to do something different once the existing agreement expires.
Now this may surprise some of you, but I also hope that each school gets their "fair share". I am always in favor of things being fair.

Now, in the case of the PAC, the documents clearly state that any school giving notice that they are leaving the conference loses their right to the media benefits. Sooooo, for the eight schools that gave the middle finger to Cal, Stanford, OSU, and WSU, they will all be entitled to their fair share of $0.
 
Yes, ducks are a natural enemy of bulldogs.

Nice attempt to attribute sentiment to me that I've neither stated nor alluded to. Check my first post in this thread on how I feel about the situation for WSU and the overall CFB landscape. As far as my "hopes", I hope all the schools get their fair distribution as opposed to yourself that wants to childishly punish schools for choosing to do something different once the existing agreement expires.
fair share? it seems like you are irked that WSU will not be left destitute. denying what is being reported on from all sources to insist that UW gets its fair share is pathetic
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT