|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 5, 2023 11:33:27 GMT -8
Those schools were looking to the future and decided that it was better to join the Big Ten or Big 12 or ACC rather than go forward with the Pac. It is pretty unlikely that 10 of 12 schools were all just stupid and completely overlooked the assets. They probably glossed over it to a degree because they were focusing on getting out as quickly as possible. They probably thought that they would get a share. There's no doubt in my mind that they had lawyers involved but to what degree they were looking at what would be left behind is questionable. I'm also not convinced that they made the assumption that OSU and WSU would be left out, which obviously led to our present situation of a potential lawsuit(s). But I also don't think they really thought about it. It was just every school for itself. It us probably unlikely 10 of the Pac-12 were "stupid". It could be likely that a chunk of them were, and the remaining ones were likely to be classified as in the "panicker/follower" category. My take, USC-greedy, UCLA-follower, Colorado-stupid, UW/UO-stupid, ASU/UA-panicker and follower (can't remember which one wanted out and which one liked the Apple deal), Utah-follower, Stanford- stupid and panicky, Cal-stupid and follower. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 5, 2023 12:03:32 GMT -8
I would gladly take my chances on that lawsuit. Not only is the rule of law being ignored and up for grabs in this country, the traitorous ten would have a helluva time in the court of public opinion. It would be like getting a divorce from your wife, before you really thought it through and realized you made a mistake, then after you hear she is getting remarried with the assets you willingly lost/ gave up - now you are going to sue?
It isn't like the rules or the assets were hidden from the traitors, they just chose to ignore them. I sincerely doubt any of the traitors consulted their legal teams about remaining assets, and how to access them, before they bailed - their entire focus was the shiny new trophy wife, not the wife they left behind. Wait... so you think the 10 defectors just up and bailed to new conferences and contracts (or memorandums of understanding) without any legal counsel? That they simply just ignored, or didn't get legal or financial advice in making the move?? You know that is nonsense, right? Each school has a plethora of legal consultants for every aspect of university administration and needed approval of each board to move forward. There is no way in he11 legal counsel wasn't sought and given on multiple levels. More than likely they all got similar legal advice (similar to what GK stated) that the "12" would all retain voting rights as "2" should in now way be able to control future revenue, that they was safety in numbers, and that they would get "the shiny new trophy" and to split the Pac12 assets. The speed in which some of this happened makes a thorough legal review impossible. That is just a fact. Plan and simple. There is a zero percent chance a lot of details were reviewed prior to jumping for the major jumpers of Oregon, Washington, then Utah and the AZ schools. It doesn't mean no legal review happened, but they could only do so much, so fast, and really had to focus on the big ticket items. I agree that future money and remaining assets were likely not a heavily evaluated option. and the decision was likely built on the media deal on the table, the other media deal option, and projections into the future of what it would look like in 5 or 10 years under those media deals. CFB payments and Pac-12 assets were not a part of this calculus whatsoever. You do not need any more evidence than how poorly the Pac-12 conference lawyers responded in the hearing, how ill prepared they were in general, and the widely varying responses to each departing member. Nobody was ready for the fight that OSU and WSU started. Edit to add: I think you will be stunned, and I mean STUNNED, to know just how frequently a high level leader does not ask a lawyer a question they need to ask. Happens all the time. Pubic and Private. Just think about how many times my own employer (OHA) has been in the paper because some executive didn't ask DOJ a question... |
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Oct 5, 2023 12:45:50 GMT -8
Just curious if the big12 offered today to join their league for 30 mil would you take it or roll the dice for the possible pac2 payday?
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Oct 5, 2023 12:56:40 GMT -8
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 false. What happens at a job that isn't run by a board if trustees, or not having time to gather full details is tangent but not what was posted or implied.
University boards do not leave and enter new mega financial contracts on some whim of personal ego. Nor is handing out LEGAL advice that can be taken or discarded a reason for losing a law license. Pass the buck and fire? Sure. But, they are not losing their license giving the board legal info than may or may not be acted upon.
What's funny is to think that some here think this was a willy nilly decision. That the board listened to the Prez or AD and just said, "... yeah let's do this." BTW it is the university boards that had to approve any such move. The Prez can sign off they agree, but aren't the decision maker.
And, to say they're wasn't time to vet... really? I'll say there is a far far greatly likelihood these moves were calculated, researched, vetted, and discussed by at least the other "8" as soon as SC & UCLA made their jump. And, even though OSU/WSU were left out, they probably had these same discussions. How do we keep the Pac10 as one? If not, what's our plan?
Do any of us know insider details? Nope. But, to think that the portion of the OP happened is really ludicrously naive. Or, some just want to be argumentative by adding all these tangents that were not at issue in the initial reply.
Feel free to connect with any of the Pac12 boards to see if such decisions are made sans legal advice. Because you know the answer...
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Oct 5, 2023 13:23:11 GMT -8
Just curious if the big12 offered today to join their league for 30 mil would you take it or roll the dice for the possible pac2 payday? I would take it. There's no guarantees as far as a legal outcome. I also don't know about how much impact the liabilities will have on the assets. I do think OSU and WSU will win the legal battle if it comes to that. I also think that the two schools might be in a really good position as far as leveraging what they want for the future, assuming that they win. If they did get an offer from the Big 12 after that and that's the road they want to take, they could command a better deal than $30 million. |
|
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 5, 2023 13:26:59 GMT -8
Just curious if the big12 offered today to join their league for 30 mil would you take it or roll the dice for the possible pac2 payday? I trust the OSU and WSU decision makers will make the best long term decision for both universities But...if it was up to me...if we got a B12 offer at full share and still get our share of the P12 assets..I;d take it...I think OSU/WSU should get a 2 share of the P12 where the other 10 get a 1 share. B12 keeps us in the Px conference, travel isn't super bad with a few exceptions, and sports other than FB have a good group in the B12 |
|
NativeBeav
Sophomore
Posts: 1,617 
Member is Online
|
Post by NativeBeav on Oct 5, 2023 13:44:09 GMT -8
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 false. What happens at a job that isn't run by a board if trustees, or not having time to gather full details is tangent but not what was posted or implied. University boards do not leave and enter new mega financial contracts on some whim of personal ego. Nor is handing out LEGAL advice that can be taken or discarded a reason for losing a law license. Pass the buck and fire? Sure. But, they are not losing their license giving the board legal info than may or may not be acted upon. What's funny is to think that some here think this was a willy nilly decision. That the board listened to the Prez or AD and just said, "... yeah let's do this." BTW it is the university boards that had to approve any such move. The Prez can sign off they agree, but aren't the decision maker. And, to say they're wasn't time to vet... really? I'll say there is a far far greatly likelihood these moves were calculated, researched, vetted, and discussed by at least the other "8" as soon as SC & UCLA made their jump. And, even though OSU/WSU were left out, they probably had these same discussions. How do we keep the Pac10 as one? If not, what's our plan? Do any of us know insider details? Nope. But, to think that the portion of the OP happened is really ludicrously naive. Or, some just want to be argumentative by adding all these tangents that were not at issue in the initial reply. Feel free to connect with any of the Pac12 boards to see if such decisions are made sans legal advice. Because you know the answer... Now that is rich - for both you and I!   I think where the conversation went off of the rails is your absolute interpretation of the traitorous 10 not seeking legal counsel before jumping. What I should have said was they did not fully vet their decision, and/or did not ask the right questions about forfeiture of future payouts. Most of the emphasis and time was speint on getting the contract right for the new conference, way less energy and time on separation clauses and/or benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 5, 2023 14:29:47 GMT -8
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 false. What happens at a job that isn't run by a board if trustees, or not having time to gather full details is tangent but not what was posted or implied. University boards do not leave and enter new mega financial contracts on some whim of personal ego. Nor is handing out LEGAL advice that can be taken or discarded a reason for losing a law license. Pass the buck and fire? Sure. But, they are not losing their license giving the board legal info than may or may not be acted upon. What's funny is to think that some here think this was a willy nilly decision. That the board listened to the Prez or AD and just said, "... yeah let's do this." BTW it is the university boards that had to approve any such move. The Prez can sign off they agree, but aren't the decision maker. And, to say they're wasn't time to vet... really? I'll say there is a far far greatly likelihood these moves were calculated, researched, vetted, and discussed by at least the other "8" as soon as SC & UCLA made their jump. And, even though OSU/WSU were left out, they probably had these same discussions. How do we keep the Pac10 as one? If not, what's our plan? Do any of us know insider details? Nope. But, to think that the portion of the OP happened is really ludicrously naive. Or, some just want to be argumentative by adding all these tangents that were not at issue in the initial reply. Feel free to connect with any of the Pac12 boards to see if such decisions are made sans legal advice. Because you know the answer... Now that is rich - for both you and I! I think where the conversation went off of the rails is your absolute interpretation of the traitorous 10 not seeking legal counsel before jumping. What I should have said was they did not fully vet their decision, and/or did not ask the right questions about forfeiture of future payouts. Most of the emphasis and time was speint on getting the contract right for the new conference, way less energy and time on separation clauses and/or benefits. Lawyers do not typically volunteer information in my experience. They answer the question you ask them and ONLY the question you ask them. Believe, me, I am pretty sure I am personally responsible for putting some AAG's kid through college in my life. I find it EXTREMELY doubtful any school deeply evaluated the potential situation of what happens if everyone leaves except for two schools and those two schools want to keep the Pac together, however now there is an opportunity to outright dissolve it and maybe we can get a little more money than we thought! I have no doubt schools closely evaluated what it would look like if they left the conference on their own. I also have no doubt they accepted that if they left, they are forfeiting all this money. It didn't matter because they would be gaining their other conference's CFB payouts, media deals and conferences assets. But I can assure you they did this only through the lens of themselves and not under the idea that they would be departing while the entire conference also collapses immediately... But, of course, the circumstances changed. Now it isn't just them leaving, it is everybody but two left and the two don't want to give up the conference. They didn't predict this. No way. Nobody did. Again, because of how vapidly incompetent the response to OSU/WSU stay was. The Pac-12 lawyer was WAY out of his depth. GK wasn't even there. There was no research ready, no work done, no "gotcha" provision ready to strike. You are telling me this is some kind of well researched 4D chess maneuver done in a room with big-brain lawyers and they can't even prevent a simple injunction on a meeting? They can't even come forward with any kind of convincing argument as to why the entire 12 teams of the Pac should be allowed to meet as requested and presumably vote to dissolve the Pac? They had literally nothing. Every public action, every public comment screams to me this is a scramble to get money that nobody anticipated would be available to scramble for. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Oct 5, 2023 14:43:13 GMT -8
From what I have read, UO and UW had done some research about joining the Big Ten but were committed to at least hearing George's offer and still in the Pac-12 on the night before the decisive meeting. After they saw the offer that night, they called the Big Ten, wrangled an invitation after FOX ponied up. They bailed overnight and let everyone know the following morning.
The Board of Trustees rubber-stamped the move the following morning in a 10-MINUTE ZOOM MEETING, with the chairman participating from a golf course in the middle of his round. You seriously think they were totally informed?
Now I'm sure they did some research. But it's a total stretch to assume they did a full, comprehensive deep dive on if the conference could be dissolved, how the future money would be divided, or even what the future money would be, before they jumped off the cliff.
The conference didn't even know the extent of its assets and liabilities. So how could UW and UO have an informed idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbred on Oct 5, 2023 14:48:23 GMT -8
Now that is rich - for both you and I! I think where the conversation went off of the rails is your absolute interpretation of the traitorous 10 not seeking legal counsel before jumping. What I should have said was they did not fully vet their decision, and/or did not ask the right questions about forfeiture of future payouts. Most of the emphasis and time was speint on getting the contract right for the new conference, way less energy and time on separation clauses and/or benefits. Lawyers do not typically volunteer information in my experience. They answer the question you ask them and ONLY the question you ask them. "Avoid offering off the cuff legal or business advice." Told to a room full of young lawyers by one of the venerable wise men, long time ago. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 5, 2023 14:49:50 GMT -8
atown's and Schrimshander's last 2 posts both make a ton of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Oct 5, 2023 14:51:54 GMT -8
From what I have read, UO and UW had done some research about joining the Big Ten but were committed to at least hearing George's offer and still in the Pac-12 on the night before the decisive meeting. After they saw the offer that night, they called the Big Ten, wrangled an invitation after FOX ponied up. They bailed overnight and let everyone know the following morning. The Board of Trustees rubber-stamped the move the following morning in a 10-MINUTE ZOOM MEETING, with the chairman participating from a golf course in the middle of his round. You seriously think they were totally informed? Now I'm sure they did some research. But it's a total stretch to assume they did a full, comprehensive deep dive on if the conference could be dissolved, how the future money would be divided, or even what the future money would be, before they jumped off the cliff. The conference didn't even know the extent of its assets and liabilities. So how could UW and UO have an informed idea? There was no mention if "totally informed", or "deep dive"! Legal counsel consulted or not was the issue. Even now there is no "deep dive" totally available. But, legal consultation was a part of every university involved total process. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Oct 5, 2023 14:53:24 GMT -8
atown's and Schrimshander's last 2 posts both make a ton of sense. And neither was on topic. Off the cuff legal advise was never at issue. Legal teams consulted and part of the process was. No other specifics were mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Oct 5, 2023 14:58:02 GMT -8
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 false. What happens at a job that isn't run by a board if trustees, or not having time to gather full details is tangent but not what was posted or implied. University boards do not leave and enter new mega financial contracts on some whim of personal ego. Nor is handing out LEGAL advice that can be taken or discarded a reason for losing a law license. Pass the buck and fire? Sure. But, they are not losing their license giving the board legal info than may or may not be acted upon. What's funny is to think that some here think this was a willy nilly decision. That the board listened to the Prez or AD and just said, "... yeah let's do this." BTW it is the university boards that had to approve any such move. The Prez can sign off they agree, but aren't the decision maker. And, to say they're wasn't time to vet... really? I'll say there is a far far greatly likelihood these moves were calculated, researched, vetted, and discussed by at least the other "8" as soon as SC & UCLA made their jump. And, even though OSU/WSU were left out, they probably had these same discussions. How do we keep the Pac10 as one? If not, what's our plan? Do any of us know insider details? Nope. But, to think that the portion of the OP happened is really ludicrously naive. Or, some just want to be argumentative by adding all these tangents that were not at issue in the initial reply. Feel free to connect with any of the Pac12 boards to see if such decisions are made sans legal advice. Because you know the answer... Now that is rich - for both you and I! I think where the conversation went off of the rails is your absolute interpretation of the traitorous 10 not seeking legal counsel before jumping. What I should have said was they did not fully vet their decision, and/or did not ask the right questions about forfeiture of future payouts. Most of the emphasis and time was speint on getting the contract right for the new conference, way less energy and time on separation clauses and/or benefits. Yep🤣 The rest of this add on stuff was never mentioned in your OP or my comments. |
|
thomasg86
Freshman
FTd
Posts: 376
Grad Year: 2009
|
Post by thomasg86 on Oct 5, 2023 14:58:21 GMT -8
Just curious if the big12 offered today to join their league for 30 mil would you take it or roll the dice for the possible pac2 payday? You take it running. The potential revenue in the next two years by maintaining the Pac-12 is tempting, but you have to look beyond those two years and the fate of all athletic programs. I see no sport where the Beavers would be in a better position by choosing a MWC merge over the Big-12. You have to think about baseball, gymnastics, wrestling, etc. Hopefully there is some behind the scenes work being done right now to get the Beavers in. I could see ASU/UA/UU/CU pushing the Big-12 in order to get it done and get their share of the assets of a dissolved Pac-12. You also have to remember the remaining P4 conferences are set up to receive a huge chunk of money if the Pac-12 were to disband. That CFP revenue we are tempted to stay and merge with the MWC for would instead be redistributed to the remaining conferences, with the P4 conferences getting the majority. I'm sure they are all hungry for that so who knows what kind of deal and calls they might be making the Big-12. I think there is a lot of pressure on the Big-12 to take us to clean up the realignment cycle mess. Time will tell! Hopefully we'll know by the end of the season. |
|
I think where the conversation went off of the rails is your absolute interpretation of the traitorous 10 not seeking legal counsel before jumping. What I should have said was they did not fully vet their decision, and/or did not ask the right questions about forfeiture of future payouts. Most of the emphasis and time was speint on getting the contract right for the new conference, way less energy and time on separation clauses and/or benefits. 
