|
|
Post by grayman on Oct 6, 2023 9:53:20 GMT -8
I don't see any value for those schools to buyout games and rearrange travel and schedules at this late point to do OSU and WSU a favor. Just too much Money, damaged relationships, and work for any temporary gain. MWC has very, very clearly indicated they are able and willing to rearrange schedules to work in OSU/WSU. That is our backstop in all of this. You don't have to deal with the MWC if you don't want to commit to a future with it. Football probably wouldn't need the MWC to put together a full schedule but it would be more difficult. OSU already has nonconference games scheduled vs. Idaho State, Boise State and Purdue. Add WSU. So you're looking for 7-8 schools with openings. You can probably fill half of those without much trouble. Then it becomes more difficult but not impossible. It wouldn't be an issue at all if OSU was just trying to add any of the schools out there but no doubt there would be an effort to land as many power 4 teams as possible. I don't think most of the other sports would be as much of a problem. That's why I mentioned the other conferences based in the West Coast. I don't think "too much money" would be an issue. No reason for damaged relationships either way. It's not just work for temporary gain. In fact, going the Pac-2 route would be all about the future and getting OSU and WSU into the best possible situation. The assets would enable this scenario to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 6, 2023 10:16:14 GMT -8
what are you even talking about, all the post are right here... The original post was NativeBeav stating he doubted departing schools consulted their legal counsel on how to access Pac-12 assets. You were the on saying of course they did and believe that they were all told there was safety in numbers. You even doubled down and said: Lol... " I sincerely doubt any of the traitors consulted their legal teams about remaining assets, and how to access them..."
That was what I responded to. And, it's blatantly falseWe are saying, naw, We agree with NativeBeav, they likely did not specifically look at that aspect of leaving, or at least review it in any real detail. For all the reasons previously stated. Nobody is arguing whether or not they consulted with lawyers, they are arguing if they evaluated this specific issue: how do we know try and dissolve the conference and get Pac-12 assets. Yep... read! You added and are arguing against the exact point I made. Read...lol You added much more specific detail and ancillary BS that was not part of the OP or response, or relevant. FFS, pretty simple concept. Sincerely doubted they consulted... I said blatantly false. They did. What? They consulted but just decided that most importa t aspect, $$, wasn't part if that decision! 🤣 Everything else tossed in... deep dive, fully vetted, evaluated... and added fodder. And, your own words show it. They were absolutely "consulted" in every aspect of leaving. Everything about your specifics is made up. You nor anyone here knows any such specifics about each schools procedures & processes during the 12+ months. Finish that sentence. It matters. What is the whole quote? " I sincerely doubt any of the traitors consulted their legal teams about remaining assets, and how to access them..."
The remaining assets...That is what we are talking about. the complete sentence. Not a question about if legal was consulted, but if it was consulted on this specific topic. You were the one fighting that assertation. Literally zero people here think the schools didn't talk to lawyers. We all think they didn't talk to lawyers about how they could go plunder a now lifeless corpse of a once-was conference. Because that issue didn't even become a reality until the last second. I can practically assure you that any advice to leave the conference was given with the understanding that a school would forfeit future earnings from the conference and their role on the board. That was precedence. None of the departing schools departed in a manner in which they showed any inclination to attempt to retain rights to Pac-12 assets. If they had, if there was an evaluation or a plan, they would of acted in a manner to ensure the conference was formally dissolved prior to announcing new affiliation. They did not. Only Oregon and UW even made a half assed effort of a statement, and they used a carbon copied language from a Pac-12 lawyer. None of the other schools even made a statement that inferred they intend to remain a voting member of the Pac for the rest of the year. None of these public actions speak to an informed knowledge of what was going to happen when all but two left and there is a derelict treasure ship out there at sea and everybody wants a piece of it. All of this is a mad scramble over a situation that was not anticipated. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Oct 6, 2023 11:06:41 GMT -8
Yep... read! You added and are arguing against the exact point I made. Read...lol You added much more specific detail and ancillary BS that was not part of the OP or response, or relevant. FFS, pretty simple concept. Sincerely doubted they consulted... I said blatantly false. They did. What? They consulted but just decided that most importa t aspect, $$, wasn't part if that decision! 🤣 Everything else tossed in... deep dive, fully vetted, evaluated... and added fodder. And, your own words show it. They were absolutely "consulted" in every aspect of leaving. Everything about your specifics is made up. You nor anyone here knows any such specifics about each schools procedures & processes during the 12+ months. Finish that sentence. It matters. What is the whole quote? " I sincerely doubt any of the traitors consulted their legal teams about remaining assets, and how to access them..."
The remaining assets...That is what we are talking about. the complete sentence. Not a question about if legal was consulted, but if it was consulted on this specific topic. You were the one fighting that assertation. Literally zero people here think the schools didn't talk to lawyers. We all think they didn't talk to lawyers about how they could go plunder a now lifeless corpse of a once-was conference. Because that issue didn't even become a reality until the last second. I can practically assure you that any advice to leave the conference was given with the understanding that a school would forfeit future earnings from the conference and their role on the board. That was precedence. None of the departing schools departed in a manner in which they showed any inclination to attempt to retain rights to Pac-12 assets. If they had, if there was an evaluation or a plan, they would of acted in a manner to ensure the conference was formally dissolved prior to announcing new affiliation. They did not. Only Oregon and UW even made a half assed effort of a statement, and they used a carbon copied language from a Pac-12 lawyer. None of the other schools even made a statement that inferred they intend to remain a voting member of the Pac for the rest of the year. None of these public actions speak to an informed knowledge of what was going to happen when all but two left and there is a derelict treasure ship out there at sea and everybody wants a piece of it. All of this is a mad scramble over a situation that was not anticipated. Here's a fun little anecdote for you: I sat in on Executive Board meetings during the reorganization that ultimately led to my departure from the organization. This was not a small organization - it's a $2.5B corporation. During said meetings, bad business decisions led to exposure to liability. The Executive Board, including our legal team, was discussing shuttering my product line, but our distribution agreement with our partner that made up the sales organization spelled out Liquidated Damages. I pointed this out on multiple occasions but was roundly ignored until the point where the Executive Board began discussing shuttering the product line. At this point, the LD's came front and center, and during the discussion - and I am not making this up - the CEO asked our legal counsel if "we could claim Force Majeur". Like an episode of The Office.  I wish I was joking. Point is, thinking that just because an organization is mature and has the proper resources to do things correctly is absolutely not evidence that they will. I would say that the utter clownshow going on is proof of the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Oct 6, 2023 12:24:48 GMT -8
Yep... read! You added and are arguing against the exact point I made. Read...lol You added much more specific detail and ancillary BS that was not part of the OP or response, or relevant. FFS, pretty simple concept. Sincerely doubted they consulted... I said blatantly false. They did. What? They consulted but just decided that most importa t aspect, $$, wasn't part if that decision! 🤣 Everything else tossed in... deep dive, fully vetted, evaluated... and added fodder. And, your own words show it. They were absolutely "consulted" in every aspect of leaving. Everything about your specifics is made up. You nor anyone here knows any such specifics about each schools procedures & processes during the 12+ months. You can argue about process, or you can argue about outcomes. Certainly, few people are privy to organizations processes, but we can all observe the outcomes...which are quite public. The turn-around time between agreeing to the GOR w Apple and the Pac to Oregon and Washington leaving for the B10 was demonstrably small. In addition, the sloppiness with which they conducted the BOT 'hearing' is also well known. Finally, the reality that SC and UCLA found themselves in when they left (no board seat, and seeming acceptance of that...along with Colorado) makes it a little hard to argue that they were legally prepared for the fallout from their decision.Â
You can claim that you're confident that the process was calculated and diligent, but the outcome doesn't really suggest that.
"... diligent... calculated..." Again your words not mine. And, the turn around time of public events has zero to do with what happened behind closed doors days, weeks, months prior. Again, sh&t all over those that left, but this wasn't some sudden change of direction that wasn't supported by previous input. You go down whatever fantasy road you want. The jump to the B10 or B12 wasn't "hey, let's do this instead". Funny, when this all begun there were post after post how this was in the works for some time. Now a small group thinks the short "public" timeline means there was no due diligence. 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Oct 6, 2023 12:30:38 GMT -8
Yep... read! You added and are arguing against the exact point I made. Read...lol You added much more specific detail and ancillary BS that was not part of the OP or response, or relevant. FFS, pretty simple concept. Sincerely doubted they consulted... I said blatantly false. They did. What? They consulted but just decided that most importa t aspect, $$, wasn't part if that decision! 🤣 Everything else tossed in... deep dive, fully vetted, evaluated... and added fodder. And, your own words show it. They were absolutely "consulted" in every aspect of leaving. Everything about your specifics is made up. You nor anyone here knows any such specifics about each schools procedures & processes during the 12+ months. Finish that sentence. It matters. What is the whole quote? " I sincerely doubt any of the traitors consulted their legal teams about remaining assets, and how to access them..."
The remaining assets...That is what we are talking about. the complete sentence. Not a question about if legal was consulted, but if it was consulted on this specific topic. You were the one fighting that assertation. Literally zero people here think the schools didn't talk to lawyers. We all think they didn't talk to lawyers about how they could go plunder a now lifeless corpse of a once-was conference. Because that issue didn't even become a reality until the last second. I can practically assure you that any advice to leave the conference was given with the understanding that a school would forfeit future earnings from the conference and their role on the board. That was precedence. None of the departing schools departed in a manner in which they showed any inclination to attempt to retain rights to Pac-12 assets. If they had, if there was an evaluation or a plan, they would of acted in a manner to ensure the conference was formally dissolved prior to announcing new affiliation. They did not. Only Oregon and UW even made a half assed effort of a statement, and they used a carbon copied language from a Pac-12 lawyer. None of the other schools even made a statement that inferred they intend to remain a voting member of the Pac for the rest of the year. None of these public actions speak to an informed knowledge of what was going to happen when all but two left and there is a derelict treasure ship out there at sea and everybody wants a piece of it. All of this is a mad scramble over a situation that was not anticipated. I didn't leave it off to try to "win". I've already addressed it. And, again addressed in the same post. All aspects of such a move would be consulted. Finances wouldn't be ignored. You make up fantasy BS you want. I'm guessing you want to be seen as the smartest guy in the room with all the circumlocution. Go Beavs rally in Berkeley. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 6, 2023 12:44:56 GMT -8
Finish that sentence. It matters. What is the whole quote? " I sincerely doubt any of the traitors consulted their legal teams about remaining assets, and how to access them..."
The remaining assets...That is what we are talking about. the complete sentence. Not a question about if legal was consulted, but if it was consulted on this specific topic. You were the one fighting that assertation. Literally zero people here think the schools didn't talk to lawyers. We all think they didn't talk to lawyers about how they could go plunder a now lifeless corpse of a once-was conference. Because that issue didn't even become a reality until the last second. I can practically assure you that any advice to leave the conference was given with the understanding that a school would forfeit future earnings from the conference and their role on the board. That was precedence. None of the departing schools departed in a manner in which they showed any inclination to attempt to retain rights to Pac-12 assets. If they had, if there was an evaluation or a plan, they would of acted in a manner to ensure the conference was formally dissolved prior to announcing new affiliation. They did not. Only Oregon and UW even made a half assed effort of a statement, and they used a carbon copied language from a Pac-12 lawyer. None of the other schools even made a statement that inferred they intend to remain a voting member of the Pac for the rest of the year. None of these public actions speak to an informed knowledge of what was going to happen when all but two left and there is a derelict treasure ship out there at sea and everybody wants a piece of it. All of this is a mad scramble over a situation that was not anticipated. Here's a fun little anecdote for you: I sat in on Executive Board meetings during the reorganization that ultimately led to my departure from the organization. This was not a small organization - it's a $2.5B corporation. During said meetings, bad business decisions led to exposure to liability. The Executive Board, including our legal team, was discussing shuttering my product line, but our distribution agreement with our partner that made up the sales organization spelled out Liquidated Damages. I pointed this out on multiple occasions but was roundly ignored until the point where the Executive Board began discussing shuttering the product line. At this point, the LD's came front and center, and during the discussion - and I am not making this up - the CEO asked our legal counsel if "we could claim Force Majeur". Like an episode of The Office. I wish I was joking. Point is, thinking that just because an organization is mature and has the proper resources to do things correctly is absolutely not evidence that they will. I would say that the utter clownshow going on is proof of the opposite. And just so we are all on the same page here, this all-knowing, all-powerful board of Trustees to the University of Oregon, the one that would never make a decision without a deep and thorough legal review is made up entirely of political appointees from the Governor., and the chair of the board is the University President. They are not selected based on significant fiduciary experience, of the 14 volunteers, about 3 of them have explicit careers or training in large scale investments, funds or accounting. It is 14 volunteers that nod their head in agreement to whatever the President says is best. It is an unpaid, volunteer positions created to perpetuate the optics of financial oversight, when no functional oversight actually exists. And to be clear, OSU's board is exactly the same. Appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Senate, and 14 people that are generally going to go along with what the President recommends is best. It is the theatre of oversight, not actual oversight. |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Oct 6, 2023 12:58:18 GMT -8
Here's a fun little anecdote for you: I sat in on Executive Board meetings during the reorganization that ultimately led to my departure from the organization. This was not a small organization - it's a $2.5B corporation. During said meetings, bad business decisions led to exposure to liability. The Executive Board, including our legal team, was discussing shuttering my product line, but our distribution agreement with our partner that made up the sales organization spelled out Liquidated Damages. I pointed this out on multiple occasions but was roundly ignored until the point where the Executive Board began discussing shuttering the product line. At this point, the LD's came front and center, and during the discussion - and I am not making this up - the CEO asked our legal counsel if "we could claim Force Majeur". Like an episode of The Office. I wish I was joking. Point is, thinking that just because an organization is mature and has the proper resources to do things correctly is absolutely not evidence that they will. I would say that the utter clownshow going on is proof of the opposite. And just so we are all on the same page here, this all-knowing, all-powerful board of Trustees to the University of Oregon, the one that would never make a decision without a deep and thorough legal review is made up entirely of political appointees from the Governor., and the chair of the board is the University President. They are not selected based on significant fiduciary experience, of the 14 volunteers, about 3 of them have explicit careers or training in large scale investments, funds or accounting. It is 14 volunteers that nod their head in agreement to whatever the President says is best. It is an unpaid, volunteer positions created to perpetuate the optics of financial oversight, when no functional oversight actually exists. And to be clear, OSU's board is exactly the same. Appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Senate, and 14 people that are generally going to go along with what the President recommends is best. It is the theatre of oversight, not actual oversight. Sounds like you are describing about every state agency. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Oct 6, 2023 13:06:11 GMT -8
Not sure the WCC would care to partner with two public schools whose budgets and enrollments dwarf those in a conference of small, faith-based schools. They took BYU because they knew it would raise the league's profile, but most WCC schools did not like it.
And in the end BYU added little or nothing and created scheduling headaches. I don't think it ever won a conference championship in men's basketball, the only sport that matters in the WCC.
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 6, 2023 13:06:34 GMT -8
And just so we are all on the same page here, this all-knowing, all-powerful board of Trustees to the University of Oregon, the one that would never make a decision without a deep and thorough legal review is made up entirely of political appointees from the Governor., and the chair of the board is the University President. They are not selected based on significant fiduciary experience, of the 14 volunteers, about 3 of them have explicit careers or training in large scale investments, funds or accounting. It is 14 volunteers that nod their head in agreement to whatever the President says is best. It is an unpaid, volunteer positions created to perpetuate the optics of financial oversight, when no functional oversight actually exists. And to be clear, OSU's board is exactly the same. Appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Senate, and 14 people that are generally going to go along with what the President recommends is best. It is the theatre of oversight, not actual oversight. Sounds like you are describing about every state agency. Pretty much. Every state agency is run by a governor appointed director. Every major agency has a governor appointed oversight board. I have had to present to our own oversight board countless times. They have never, ever, in over a decade, asked for a legal opinion on any issue we have ever discussed. They always assume the agency has already vetted anything they are recommend the board approve. I cannot think of a single time they asked or checked. Maybe they should of on several occasions! |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Oct 6, 2023 13:54:28 GMT -8
Not sure the WCC would care to partner with two public schools whose budgets and enrollments dwarf those in a conference of small, faith-based schools. They took BYU because they knew it would raise the league's profile, but most WCC schools did not like it. And in the end BYU added little or nothing and created scheduling headaches. I don't think it ever won a conference championship in men's basketball, the only sport that matters in the WCC. It would be a temporary (probably one year) partnership that would include a chunk of change in exchange for adding OSU to the schedules of sports such as men's and women's soccer, cross country, golf...maybe volleyball. It's just a potential option if OSU and WSU chose to go the Pac-2 route. I doubt that they will and I'm not sure that they could and retain a qualifying status for the CFP anyway (I think they might have to have more than two conference members on the schedule to qualify. I've heard six). Maybe they will see more value in it if they think holding off for a year or two will strengthen their position to move into a power conference and that's the road they want to take. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 6, 2023 14:17:11 GMT -8
Finish that sentence. It matters. What is the whole quote? " I sincerely doubt any of the traitors consulted their legal teams about remaining assets, and how to access them..."
The remaining assets...That is what we are talking about. the complete sentence. Not a question about if legal was consulted, but if it was consulted on this specific topic. You were the one fighting that assertation. Literally zero people here think the schools didn't talk to lawyers. We all think they didn't talk to lawyers about how they could go plunder a now lifeless corpse of a once-was conference. Because that issue didn't even become a reality until the last second. I can practically assure you that any advice to leave the conference was given with the understanding that a school would forfeit future earnings from the conference and their role on the board. That was precedence. None of the departing schools departed in a manner in which they showed any inclination to attempt to retain rights to Pac-12 assets. If they had, if there was an evaluation or a plan, they would of acted in a manner to ensure the conference was formally dissolved prior to announcing new affiliation. They did not. Only Oregon and UW even made a half assed effort of a statement, and they used a carbon copied language from a Pac-12 lawyer. None of the other schools even made a statement that inferred they intend to remain a voting member of the Pac for the rest of the year. None of these public actions speak to an informed knowledge of what was going to happen when all but two left and there is a derelict treasure ship out there at sea and everybody wants a piece of it. All of this is a mad scramble over a situation that was not anticipated. I didn't leave it off to try to "win". I've already addressed it. And, again addressed in the same post. All aspects of such a move would be consulted. Finances wouldn't be ignored. You make up fantasy BS you want. I'm guessing you want to be seen as the smartest guy in the room with all the circumlocution. Go Beavs rally in Berkeley. Dude, you said "ALL ASPECTS". You must have a really really really high opinion of the powers that be and legal teams at those schools. Atown is just pointing out that it's quite likely SOME aspects weren't fully thought out, and gave some reasonably likely examples. |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Oct 6, 2023 14:46:18 GMT -8
Sounds like you are describing about every state agency. Pretty much. Every state agency is run by a governor appointed director. Every major agency has a governor appointed oversight board. I have had to present to our own oversight board countless times. They have never, ever, in over a decade, asked for a legal opinion on any issue we have ever discussed. They always assume the agency has already vetted anything they are recommend the board approve. I cannot think of a single time they asked or checked. Maybe they should of on several occasions! Can't disagree with you at all that they pretty much exist to rubber stamp things. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Oct 6, 2023 15:23:26 GMT -8
Pretty much. Every state agency is run by a governor appointed director. Every major agency has a governor appointed oversight board. I have had to present to our own oversight board countless times. They have never, ever, in over a decade, asked for a legal opinion on any issue we have ever discussed. They always assume the agency has already vetted anything they are recommend the board approve. I cannot think of a single time they asked or checked. Maybe they should of on several occasions! Can't disagree with you at all that they pretty much exist to rubber stamp things. They exist to give the appearance of oversight or public involvement. In truth, "in it" deep enough to be of that much use. I suppose, with their existence, you can't make overly crazy proposals, and it keeps things from looking too terribly insular. I would describe it as more of a preventative measure than actual oversight. |
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
Member is Online
|
Post by ftd on Oct 6, 2023 16:06:10 GMT -8
IF and I repeat IF the B12 thing happens...how fun would a secondary rivalry (primary being WSU) be with OK state? Same initials, same colors!
|
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Oct 6, 2023 16:08:34 GMT -8
You can argue about process, or you can argue about outcomes. Certainly, few people are privy to organizations processes, but we can all observe the outcomes...which are quite public. The turn-around time between agreeing to the GOR w Apple and the Pac to Oregon and Washington leaving for the B10 was demonstrably small. In addition, the sloppiness with which they conducted the BOT 'hearing' is also well known. Finally, the reality that SC and UCLA found themselves in when they left (no board seat, and seeming acceptance of that...along with Colorado) makes it a little hard to argue that they were legally prepared for the fallout from their decision.Â
You can claim that you're confident that the process was calculated and diligent, but the outcome doesn't really suggest that.
"... diligent... calculated..." Again your words not mine. And, the turn around time of public events has zero to do with what happened behind closed doors days, weeks, months prior. Again, sh&t all over those that left, but this wasn't some sudden change of direction that wasn't supported by previous input. You go down whatever fantasy road you want. The jump to the B10 or B12 wasn't "hey, let's do this instead". Funny, when this all begun there were post after post how this was in the works for some time. Now a small group thinks the short "public" timeline means there was no due diligence. 🤣 In one breath you claim no one knows what level of legal and trustee input was involved, then in the next you try to assure everyone this was a long-in-the works deliberate process handle with the utmost care and patience (a bunch of my words). What’s funny is that Barnes and other ADs claimed to be blindsided yet somehow you weren’t |
|
