Conference Realignment thread

[modestobulldog]

On 9/8/2023 at 11:22 AM, wolf from 73 said:

"Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer had indicated in an email that Wednesday's meeting, internally labeled a "Pac-12 Board Meeting," could include a vote."                                                                                                          "The essence of Washington State and Oregon State's concerns are, if the league's 12 schools formally meet, that the current members could vote to dissolve or evenly distribute the remaining assets." 

No f’g way.

[Akkula]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:47 PM, 415hawaiiboy said:

I didn’t read the Complaint but I sense the 2PAC schools need the MWC to help them bridge over the legal period via a scheduling agreement, bowl tie ins, etc.
 

Worst case, 2PAC schools join the MWC.  
 

Best case, we are all going to be PAC members.  
 

A bit more leverage for the MWC since we are needed.  Let’s hope for the best case.  Let’s help them. 

Yes, I think the best thing the MWC can do right now is offer a full schedule for all sports to WSU and OSU for the next few years even if we are not in the same conference yet.  The Price???  They cannot invite individual members from the MWC to their new conference.  Either they merge with everyone or they get nobody...or they pay a huge amount of damages.

I think it is in our mutual best interest to let these two fight it out with the rest of their departing members.  They still have two years to maintain the conference AFTER the they drop below the 8 member threshold.  We can help them in the transition period by giving them stability in knowing who they will be playing.

It looks like they technically have from August 2024 PLUS two years to maintain the Pac 12 conference even if they have fewer than 8 members.

[Brew_Poke]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:25 PM, wolfpack1 said:

To dissolve the Pac, 9 of the 12 schools would have to vote on it just like with MWC

There's only 2 members of the PAC-12 now, so both would have to vote to dissolve.

[Brew_Poke]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:39 PM, RebelRobert said:

That is a journalist speculating. He is obviously ignorant to what is really going to happen. Won't be the first time they were wrong.

Which is different from what you're doing how, exactly?

[CPslograd]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:20 PM, modestobulldog said:

No f’g way.

Is that disgusting or what?

This game they are playing of "well we announced we are leaving but haven't formally filed papers to leave" is appalling.  Lawyers are the devil.

[modestobulldog]

On 9/8/2023 at 12:36 PM, wolfpack1 said:

And no one is going to do that with so much in the air

Easy, with contingencies.

[wolf from 73]

 

BEAVERS
Oregon State’s legal action against Pac-12 meant to find ‘a clear path forward’
Published: Sep. 08, 2023, 1:35 p.m.BEAVERS
 

• Published: Sep. 08, 2023, 1:35 p.m.

https://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/2023/09/oregon-states-legal-action-against-pac-12-meant-to-find-a-clear-path-forward.html

[ShoichiKUN808]

On 9/8/2023 at 10:32 AM, Brew_Poke said:

There's only 2 members of the PAC-12 now, so both would have to vote to dissolve.

that's the issue at cause of the moment and the reason for the legal filings. Oregon State and Washington State are saying they did not agree for the conference to have a board meeting for next Wednesday and departing members should not be allowed to have a vote, but seems like the other exiting members are trying to argue they still should have a right to vote. It seems that the PAC-10 (departing) members could want to have a vote during the Wednesday meeting with regards to what happens to the PAC12 conference

Quote

Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer had indicated in an email that Wednesday's meeting, internally labeled a "Pac-12 Board Meeting," could include a vote.

The essence of Washington State and Oregon State's concerns, if the league's 12 schools formally meet, is that the current members could vote to dissolve or evenly distribute the remaining assets. Washington State and Oregon State consider themselves the only board members and are seeking to survey their options moving forward. They pointed to the conference's bylaws, which state that any notice of withdrawal from the league means a school "automatically cease(s) to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter."

The meeting was scheduled, according to the legal filings, after Washington State president Kirk Schulz, the chair of the Pac-12 board of directors, declined to call a board meeting after a telephone conversation with Kliavkoff on or around Aug. 29. Schulz feared that Kliavkoff "would allow the withdrawing universities' former Board representatives to vote on a number of matters, even though they no longer have the right to vote on any matter," according to the legal documents.

In a supporting document, Schulz says he needs "urgent intervention" on whether the departing schools can hold a seat on the Pac-12 board and vote.

"The Pac-12 Conference and the Pac-12 Conference Board of Directors cannot resolve this dispute through internal means," Schulz says in the filing. "At its core, this is a dispute over who has the authority to act on behalf of the Pac-12 Conference. Only judicial intervention can resolve this dispute."

The filing includes a comment from one departing school, which is not named: "One representative from a departing Pac-12 member stated his view just two days ago that '9 Members can declare the fate of the Conference at any time.'"

 

[wolfpack1]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:32 PM, Brew_Poke said:

There's only 2 members of the PAC-12 now, so both would have to vote to dissolve.

That is where the legal haggling is now coming to and with regards to the injunction request filed today which is odd since its possible court may not consider it until Monday.

[wolfpack1]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:37 PM, CPslograd said:

Is that disgusting or what?

This game they are playing of "well we announced we are leaving but haven't formally filed papers to leave" is appalling.  Lawyers are the devil.

And could technically decide to come back again. This case is something lawyers live for because going to come down to interpretation 

[OzzyOzz]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:37 PM, CPslograd said:

Is that disgusting or what?

This game they are playing of "well we announced we are leaving but haven't formally filed papers to leave" is appalling.  Lawyers are the devil.

It was always going to go like that. The thing is, there is already precedent set that they can't get out of easily with the departure of the 2 cali schools and their exclusion afterwards. Their hands are tied there, so a negotiation commences..

A Pac 12 has 2 excluded members already.

A Pac 10 can't meet dissolution requirements. 8v2

A Pac 8 isn't enough either, even if their notices aren't legally binding..(which they are..) and precedent has been set by them themselves on how to conduct affairs with members who have pending or actual legal notices of departure due..

So they can't really force anything and have to negotiate. And the very first question should be "What?"..

It could have played out differently, and perhaps it has behind the computer screens..

There is a scaperoute to this but I'll let them find it if they can..

[JohnJayJay]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:51 PM, wolfpack1 said:

And could technically decide to come back again. This case is something lawyers live for because going to come down to interpretation 

It won’t fly. When you announce departure to a new conference, and your new conference has announced your admittance, WITH effective dates, it’s de facto notice. Granted I’m not a lawyer but I cannot imagine a judge seeing it differently.  

[wolfpack1]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:10 PM, Ram1554 said:

It may have already been discussed in the last 1,000+ pages, but what is stopping all 12 MWC members from dissolving our conference via an immediate vote? It says right in the bylaws that we are able to dissolve the conference as an entity. Would it just be that we owe damages to our current TV partners for not providing them content the last two years of our contract? But if all 12 of us are essentially conference-less after this school year, the PAC could take us all in next summer and we could carry on under the PAC banner.

Alternatively, who exactly are we beholden to for exit fees? If we all decide to give notice to “leave” the conference and then each get invited to the PAC, wouldn’t there be no one left in the MWC to collect exit fees thus rendering them moot. 
 

I may be going in circles here, but I am having a hard time concluding why this reverse merger stuff needs to be such a challenge. 

Why would MWC vote to dissolve the conference if they have no deal or such in place about joining another conference? There would also be the legal issues in regards to TV partner and such. Then if we dissolve some schools would loose money in that circumstance. Without a invite or such schools would become independent no TV deal or anything like that. Then Pac would invite schools they want while leaving other schools out which then puts those schools in further trouble as they would have no conference to where they would have to continue as independent or maybe go to FCS.  Then you will have lawsuits from TV partners about what happened.

Thing is you can't dissolve a conference in a reverse merger before having a deal with another conference you are going to as let's say in this part MWC could bring some of their assets with them to Pac-12 which could also include a TV deal.

[wolf from 73]

 

[NevadaFan]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:16 PM, SierraSpartan said:

So now UNR is out, but Hawaii (Football Only) is in, as is Wichita State (non-FB).  Oh, and USAFA non-FB?  Chinga te, cabrones.  

I swear dude has a Keno ball machine filled up with all the various schools of the MWC and ACK and MVC that he likes, and he just rolls the bones and picks them out 12 at a time.

Yes. And that machine is named, “I’ve been spewing stupid chit about UNLV and the MWC since 2005.” Still no titles for UNLV but still the same nonsense. 

[wolfpack1]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:55 PM, JohnJayJay said:

It won’t fly. When you announce departure to a new conference, and your new conference has announced your admittance, WITH effective dates, it’s de facto notice. Granted I’m not a lawyer but I cannot imagine a judge seeing it differently.  

In all my years in dealing with courts, the one thing that I have learned from them is that nothing is for sure. It all comes down to whoever is dealing with that case. 

They could bring up Big East back in 2012 when Boise St was announced to join Big East July 1, 2013 for football only an join Big West in other sports but months later announced they weren't leaving after all. 

I'm just saying, this would be a lot easier to work out among themselves through mediation or something than going legal route where anything is possible. 

[Brew_Poke]

On 9/8/2023 at 3:13 PM, NevadaFan said:

Yes. And that machine is named, “I’ve been spewing stupid chit about UNLV and the MWC since 2005.” Still no titles for UNLV but still the same nonsense. 

Since 1998 at least, when I joined the board.

[modestobulldog]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:37 PM, CPslograd said:

Is that disgusting or what?

This game they are playing of "well we announced we are leaving but haven't formally filed papers to leave" is appalling.  Lawyers are the devil.

Did you hear about the couple who died in a car crash the night before their wedding?  Welcomed at the pearly gates by St Peter, they expressed their love for each other and disappointment they weren’t married.  They asked him if they could get married in heaven.  At Peter responded, I don’t know, I’ve not been asked that before, I’ll find out.  A week later, St Peter tracked down the couple, said he found a minister and they could get married. To which the husband to-be responded, we’ve been talking and eternity is a long time, can we get divorced in heaven? In disgust, St Peter responded, it took me a week to find a minister, I’ll never find an attorney! 

[Headbutt]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:09 PM, namssa said:

Earlier this week, WSU’s Schulz and OSU’s Murthy sent a letter to Kliavkoff and the other 10 presidents expressing concern that:

“… the recent correspondence from the Commissioner’s office creates the misimpression that representatives of all Conference members are eligible to serve on the Board, participate in Board meetings, and vote on Board matters. That is incorrect.”

It adds:

“Indeed, when (UCLA) and (USC) gave notice of their withdrawal from the Conference in June 2022, the Conference deemed their representatives ineligible to participate on the Board or vote on any Conference matters. The fact that eight more members have now given notice of their withdrawal from the Conference does not change this rule.”

The Pac-12 took the same approach to board membership this summer. After Colorado announced on July 27 that it was leaving for the Big 12, chancellor Phil DiStefano was excluded from subsequent Pac-12 board meetings that occurred before Aug. 4, when five more schools departed, according to the complaint.

In his statement to the court, WSU’s Schulz says the 10 outgoing schools “are now motivated to dissolve the Pac-12—against which their new conferences will otherwise compete beginning next year — and distribute its assets.”

Additionally, the letter from WSU and OSU to the conference sought confirmation that:

— The Sept. 13 board meeting would be canceled.

— The 10 departing schools have relinquished their voting rights.

— The presidents of WSU and OSU are the “only duly authorized Board members.”

Washington State and Oregon State requested a response to their letter by Friday (today) at 10 a.m.

Soon after the deadline, the legal process began in Whitman County, home to WSU.

And now the parties that set the precedent, have decided to ignore it.  This seems like a slam dunk, but as I've said.  Never trust anybody in a black robe with a gavel.

[wolf from 73]

On 9/8/2023 at 2:17 PM, wolfpack1 said:

In all my years in dealing with courts, the one thing that I have learned from them is that nothing is for sure. It all comes down to whoever is dealing with that case. 

They could bring up Big East back in 2012 when Boise St was announced to join Big East July 1, 2013 for football only an join Big West in other sports but months later announced they weren't leaving after all. 

I'm just saying, this would be a lot easier to work out among themselves through mediation or something than going legal route where anything is possible. 

Yup! That's why they filed in Whitman County home of WSU.