Let the lawsuits begin!

Surprisingly easy to read. Go get ‘em, Pac 2!

That's very well-written, and to the point. She seems like a very smart person, Barnes seems pretty able as well.

In the most recent Oregon Stater she also mentioned she sees no reason why OSU can't double its $480 million research revenues. Like to hear that. I know she did wonders for UCLA's donations to its engineering school, which she was the dean of (IIRC).

Much of what you say is true, or at least arguable. And unfortunately, there are a number of people who moved to Corvallis because it was a nice college town, but once they arrived here complain all the time about the university and the students (IMHO). 

However, I don't think Benton County's blue politics had a thing to do with HP downsizing here. HP has downsized everywhere, even totally eliminated some campuses, and gone to contract employees wherever possible. And I don't think a company founded in the South Bay/Stanford area has any problems with liberal politics. 

IIRC, Benton County was one of the first in Oregon to outlaw smoking in public buildings and bars, etc. A pretty significant change. Seems like we were well ahead of the curve there, to the benefit of the populace. And the people trying to change the name of the county (THB did own slaves, although he later changed his views) was a very small minority.

I don't want a silly quip intended to get a cheap laugh to derail this thread, but I would love to get a beer with you sometime and spill tea about Corvallis, HP, OSU, etc.

In the end we are Beaver Brothers in arms!  Go Beavs!  Go Benton County!  Go Corvallis!

For those who can't access the article (I'm accessing it through the oregonlive Beavers app), there is plenty of very disturbing and notable content here!...

First of all, it seems 100% clear to me now that Kliavkoff wants the conference dissolved. The chairman of the Pac-12 board of directors is the WSU president Kirk Shulz. When Kliavkoff requested Shulz call a board meeting 2 weeks ago, Shulz declined to do it, citing the lack of clarity on who is still on the board. So, Kliavkoff scheduled one for next Wednesday (Sept 13th) anyway! And, if I'm reading it right, he is including ALL outgoing schools in the board meeting, INCLUDING USC, UCLA, and Colorado, who have all been excluded from board of directors meetings and votes since they announced their intention to leave! The only reason for Kliavkoff to want all 12 schools there is because, according to at least one source, it only takes 9 votes to change the bylaws of the conference (or, I assume, to dissolve the conference).

As OSU's and WSU's presidents said in their letter to Kliavkoff and the 10 other presidents, requesting that this all be resolved prior to 10AM today (which explains why the lawsuit was announced late this morning, when no action was taken on the OSU/WSU complaint), "...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."

The Pac-12 bylaws state that if a school gives notice to withdrawal prior to Aug 1, 2024, then its "representative to the Pac-12 Board of Directors shall automatically cease to have the right to vote on any matters." WSU and OSU believe the public statements by executives from the outgoing schools -- and the "welcome" announcements by their new leagues -- constitute a legal delivery of notice. This 100% fits with the fact that not only USC and UCLA have been unable to vote since their announcements, but also Colorado. Why would they all be able to vote now, other than to override OSU and WSU?

It is not a given that OSU and WSU *WANT* to retain the conference, but they at least need to have the option once all the financial data is clear. Everything that is happening right now seems to be an effort to prevent that. In his statement to the court, WSU's Shulz says that 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." I have to wonder if the Big-10 and/or Big-12 specifically requested and confirmed that the outgoing schools would dissolve the Pac-12.

In a follow-on article on Oregonlive, Barne's clarifies that the lawsuit is to find "a clear path forward" and is "not personal". But, man, it sure doesn't reflect well on Kliavkoff and the outgoing schools that it has come to this. If OSU's motion fails and the meeting of all 12(!) schools goes forward next Wednesday, this could be the final giant F.U. to OSU and WSU by the league and the other 10 schools. That feels personal to me.

I know the legislature hasn't done anything with regards to the split conference-affiliation for its publicly funded universities, like Calimony, but I'd like to believe that at some point someone would "force" uo to vote in our favor. The simple logic is that if the money is split 12 ways, there would be some pressure, whether successful or not, for more funding for OSU to make up any gaps. Why not keep the money in-state? I'd almost be willing to tell uo that there won't be any Calimony discussions if they agree to give up the remaining PAC assets to OSU/WSU. Almost willing...