|
|
Post by bennyskid on Nov 15, 2023 10:41:03 GMT -8
It's in everyone's interest to wrap up all these legal issues. So in the interest of finding a decent settlement, here's my out-of-the-box idea.
The Traitorous 10 simply agree to play a full schedule against the Pac-2 - home-and-home. For each of them, it simply means one or two non-conference games each year against teams that they really should welcome playing. Put for us, we get a game-of-the-week package that we can shop for real money to the networks. I would expect that those games would go for something a lot closer to a Pac12 payout than a MWC payout.
The challenge would be arranging the games through the whole season - we would need the other conferences to cooperate. But that's not that high of a hurdle. The rest is just coming to an agreement on the money.
Of course, I know this will never happen - not because it isn't a workable idea, but because the egos of certain schools will not allow it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Nov 15, 2023 10:46:18 GMT -8
It's in everyone's interest to wrap up all these legal issues. So in the interest of finding a decent settlement, here's my out-of-the-box idea.
The Traitorous 10 simply agree to play a full schedule against the Pac-2 - home-and-home. For each of them, it simply means one or two non-conference games each year against teams that they really should welcome playing. Put for us, we get a game-of-the-week package that we can shop for real money to the networks. I would expect that those games would go for something a lot closer to a Pac12 payout than a MWC payout.
The challenge would be arranging the games through the whole season - we would need the other conferences to cooperate. But that's not that high of a hurdle. The rest is just coming to an agreement on the money.
Of course, I know this will never happen - not because it isn't a workable idea, but because the egos of certain schools will not allow it.
Other than the agreement itself, it is by far the HIGHEST hurdle. The B10 and B12 have no legal obligation to accommodate such an agreement. Nor do the new schools have the power to force the conferences hand to do so. B10 and B12 will offer open dates, based on their scheduling... they aren't going to plan around two teams the didn't want in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverdude on Nov 15, 2023 11:27:30 GMT -8
Other than the agreement itself, it is by far the HIGHEST hurdle. The B10 and B12 have no legal obligation to accommodate such an agreement. Nor do the new schools have the power to force the conferences hand to do so. B10 and B12 will offer open dates, based on their scheduling... they aren't going to plan around two teams the didn't want in the first place. Not to mention it goes against those conferences unwritten rule that members may only add cupcakes to their non-conference schedules |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Nov 15, 2023 11:31:08 GMT -8
Other than the agreement itself, it is by far the HIGHEST hurdle. The B10 and B12 have no legal obligation to accommodate such an agreement. Nor do the new schools have the power to force the conferences hand to do so. B10 and B12 will offer open dates, based on their scheduling... they aren't going to plan around two teams the didn't want in the first place. Not to mention it goes against those conferences unwritten rule that members may only add cupcakes to their non-conference schedules We could add "North Western" to the front of an athletics website. Multidirectional universities seem to draw interest of the "elitists". |
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Nov 15, 2023 12:14:43 GMT -8
I have followed this whole process closely (for whatever that is worth!) and now have my "Christmas wish list ready" after the latest legal decision,
(1) Under no circumstances I can envision should OSU and WSU agree to a mediated settlement with the other former PAC 12 schools.
I believe that any settlement that does not give OSU and WSU all the remaining money and control would virtually ensure that both the Cougs and Beavs would end up in the Mountain West conference. That is the same result that will happen if they lose the legal battle so why agree to it in a settlement.
(2) When(and if) the Beavs and Cougs are given the legal go-ahead to form a new PAC12, the Fresno State, Boise State, UNLV, etc. western grouping will eventually be a big time winner in all ways for the teams that are in it.
Go Beavs!
I look forward to being enlightened and educated by the many members of this forum that are far more knowledgeable and insightful than myself!
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 15, 2023 13:56:55 GMT -8
It's in everyone's interest to wrap up all these legal issues. So in the interest of finding a decent settlement, here's my out-of-the-box idea.
The Traitorous 10 simply agree to play a full schedule against the Pac-2 - home-and-home. For each of them, it simply means one or two non-conference games each year against teams that they really should welcome playing. Put for us, we get a game-of-the-week package that we can shop for real money to the networks. I would expect that those games would go for something a lot closer to a Pac12 payout than a MWC payout.
The challenge would be arranging the games through the whole season - we would need the other conferences to cooperate. But that's not that high of a hurdle. The rest is just coming to an agreement on the money.
Of course, I know this will never happen - not because it isn't a workable idea, but because the egos of certain schools will not allow it. Other than the agreement itself, it is by far the HIGHEST hurdle. The B10 and B12 have no legal obligation to accommodate such an agreement. Nor do the new schools have the power to force the conferences hand to do so. B10 and B12 will offer open dates, based on their scheduling... they aren't going to plan around two teams the didn't want in the first place. With certain exceptions, conferences must schedule around nonconference games. Conferences can force teams to break agreements, only if the last-signed agreement causes a full schedule to be impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 15, 2023 14:09:48 GMT -8
It's in everyone's interest to wrap up all these legal issues. So in the interest of finding a decent settlement, here's my out-of-the-box idea.
The Traitorous 10 simply agree to play a full schedule against the Pac-2 - home-and-home. For each of them, it simply means one or two non-conference games each year against teams that they really should welcome playing. Put for us, we get a game-of-the-week package that we can shop for real money to the networks. I would expect that those games would go for something a lot closer to a Pac12 payout than a MWC payout.
The challenge would be arranging the games through the whole season - we would need the other conferences to cooperate. But that's not that high of a hurdle. The rest is just coming to an agreement on the money.
Of course, I know this will never happen - not because it isn't a workable idea, but because the egos of certain schools will not allow it. It is my measured opinion that this would be a terrible idea for all involved. It would in no way recompense Oregon State and Wazzu for what they are out. And it would make the departing 10's schedules very difficult, if not impossible to fill out. And that is before we get into things like the buyouts that would probably need to be involved for it to happen. That said, it would be great, if, as a part of the final settlement, we get an agreement that the Civil War will continue. And that at least two of the old Pac-12 universities will agree to play Oregon State every year for the next nine years (2023-2031), one home and one away. That would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 15, 2023 15:42:24 GMT -8
Other than the agreement itself, it is by far the HIGHEST hurdle. The B10 and B12 have no legal obligation to accommodate such an agreement. Nor do the new schools have the power to force the conferences hand to do so. B10 and B12 will offer open dates, based on their scheduling... they aren't going to plan around two teams the didn't want in the first place. With certain exceptions, conferences must schedule around nonconference games. Conferences can force teams to break agreements, only if the last-signed agreement causes a full schedule to be impossible. I'd like to see that "must schedule around" in writing. Conferences likely do work around pre-existing OOC schedules, some of which are set up years in advance. Some may even work their schedules around to get a member a game here and there (say a televised pre-season kick off game). But, is it written policy that conferences are "required" to work their schedules around to placate a team from another conference, even to the point of reworking many schedules well after they have been published? In this case it affects potentially many teams in one conference. I just question if the written policy obligation is there. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 15, 2023 20:22:43 GMT -8
With certain exceptions, conferences must schedule around nonconference games. Conferences can force teams to break agreements, only if the last-signed agreement causes a full schedule to be impossible. I'd like to see that "must schedule around" in writing. Conferences likely do work around pre-existing OOC schedules, some of which are set up years in advance. Some may even work their schedules around to get a member a game here and there (say a televised pre-season kick off game). But, is it written policy that conferences are "required" to work their schedules around to placate a team from another conference, even to the point of reworking many schedules well after they have been published? In this case it affects potentially many teams in one conference. I just question if the written policy obligation is there. This is why the conferences do not set up schedules until a couple of months before, though, to accommodate everyone's nonconference schedules. |
|
