|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 12, 2024 16:54:46 GMT -8
I realize that all this is opinion, but so much is rehashed that has been discussed, laid out, and dismissed as completely false before. Too much to even mention. But, not knowing what will actually happen... - If FSU "wins" it'll be years of appeals/court fights unless the ACC decides to jettison them for fairly large dollars. Dollars that benefit all the other ACC teams and could be as much as a 10% boost if some of the lower figures prove correct. The ACC will not just magically fall apart as the majority of the conference has no where to go and a guaranteed TV /GOR deal and they'll have sufficient teams and depth to continue. So something extremely deep in their contracts would have to exist for Cal and/or Furd to even consider coming back to a Pac4 situation; - The MWC and Gloria were FAR more astute that George and the Pac12 presidents in their conference setup and media contracts. They are not going to let the conference be torn apart, or leave it with too few members to function as a conference. The scheduling alliance earned her schools about $1.27 mil each (about 25% increase in some of their media payouts) to not have to go get killed for a payday. She saw the MWC had all the leverage and not only made $ but protected her conference. My guess she and many of the school presidents are all on the same page... OSU and WSU need to work with the MWC as a whole; - Folks are forgetting the MWC media deal has two years, but will be reopened, probably in the next 6-10 months if typical procedures are used. If the Pac2 hasn't figured their sh&t out they might be on the outside looking in of even a reverse merger. The MWC will have a new deal far before any team can opt out for free; - But, the MWC negotiations might indeed be a Pac2/MWC combined look at what a new media deal will be like. Many still believe the "alliance" will be a one year deal. It was to help slow down the merger process, let everyone catch their collective breath. Let all the revenue/liability issues finalized, see how it all plays out with audiences and gate receipts. And, give ample time for the new media deal to be negotiated with both MWC and Pac2 at the table to see if the reverse merger is indeed a viable option; - Unless the Pac2 has a substantial media deal to present to any of the aforementioned "select" teams they aren't agreeing to any kind of expenditure for a buyout. And, even then they might be hesitant when it is compared to their new media deal with no buyout. Or a total MWC/Pac2 reverse merger media deal; - The Pac2 can NOT afford to help in multiple buyouts of MWC teams with their revenue spread out over years unless they somehow land a pretty large media deal on the speculation that teams will indeed spend to buyout and join. Really? How many large athletic conference media deals are based on "maybes"... these teams may join IF? Hence, said teams would have to give notice, meaning huge buyouts, to then hopefully get a deal that works: - The Pac2 has zero leverage. They had to pay large guarantees to schedule games, and will have to do so for the WCC's help for the (10) other sports. Although I've yet to see any concrete financial details on this affiliated membership?! We'll all see what REALLY happens, but it is tough to ignore some simple common sense and financial realities. You underestimate how ruthlessly efficient a well-funded and well-run judiciary can be, when it is incentivized to be speedy. A Leon County judge, who is a Florida State grad, and who has to answer to a Leon County electorate is going to expedite that one case as fast as justice will bear. Oregon State and Washington State went from initial filing to winning at the Washington State Supreme Court in 14 weeks flat. It can clearly be done. If the ACC and Florida State can streamline discovery, Florida State could have its own ruling from the Florida State Supreme Court by the end of March. The ACC may be able to stall this thing out a couple more months, but it's probably ultimately a loser for the ACC. (The ACC can probably hold the conference together for 2024-25, but will probably lose beyond that.) If Florida State wins, the GOR is illusory, and the ACC as we know it will almost immediately implode. Florida State is gunning for a great ruling from a Florida court by August, so that they can do something completely different in 2025. Clemson and Miami are probably both in the same boat. And the Virginia schools would likely jump on board, if those three leave. And California, Notre Dame, and Stanford will be looking for new homes, if Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and the Virginias leave. The conference will be DOA. Secondly, if Florida State wins, the Mountain West's GOR is likely just as unenforceable, if not more so. Once the ACC implodes, the Mountain West implodes second. Thirdly, if in the unlikely situation Florida State loses, I believe that you underestimate that six Mountain West teams can basically implement the nuclear option and implode the conference from the inside. If six Mountain West teams want to, they could veto all new media deals. The GOR is based on the media deal. If there is ever a year without a media deal, any Mountain West team can leave for free the year following. If the six Mountain West teams want to, they can put the other Mountain West teams over a barrel. We will get out this year, or the Mountain West will functionally be nonexistent in 2027 and be completely gone in 2028. Your choice. Granted, the Pac-12 will have to make promises to those six Mountain West teams, but because the contract runs out in 2026, six unified Mountain West schools will have a lot of power in 2026. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 12, 2024 17:01:53 GMT -8
Nothing regarding the future of the Pac-2 has been factually dismissed as completely false. Nothing. Yeah... well read some of the past posts including your own. But, overall there were some crazy arse posts about OSU's/Pac2's future. Most were of course on the basics and the key word is "future" cuz how long are we talking? But lets begin with the recruiting. You, know, that there is no chance to sign a decent class, who's want to come here? Or the same with the portal. Or, the foreseen " mass exodus of players? Or even the questions about hiring a coach and staff... those negative posts seemed to think OSU was doomed to not attract anyone of quality. False... every single one. Neither OSU or WSU (the Pac2) has seen any of that. Plus they both have a stable and solid schedule. Another common issue that folks said would be an issue and tough to achieve. Now if one keeps extending the "future" goalposts from their initial statements that a B12 or ACC invite would or is near to happening... I guess that can never be dismissed as false. But, since it seems it was never enough of a consideration to ever be more than a rumor and "expert" opinion on message boards... probably tells you right there. But, then again some have gotten a bit more "political" and softened their negative stances to toss in some kudos, but always seem to have that backhanded take on the future. But, again when that is the posting style concerning all this Pac12 mess as it effects OSU it is more about being part of the "I told you so crowd" if negatives do happen. And, change the goal posts if they don't. So... how far out is the future we're talking now that recruiting is pretty much over, scheduling alliance/conference affiliation set, and coaching staff pretty much set? Again, your statement had no factual basis. And for about the fifth time, if a team is already losing half their starters to eligibility and the NFL and lose the other half to the portal, including many key starters and a 4-star QB who was in line to start to the school that the coach and much of the staff went to, that is a mass exodus. Virtually EVERY starter gone. You can label it any other way you want. I really don't care at this point and this is the last time I'm addressing it with you. The future as in when we find out what conference the Pac-2 schools will wind up in or create through whatever means. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 12, 2024 17:16:33 GMT -8
Yeah... well read some of the past posts including your own. But, overall there were some crazy arse posts about OSU's/Pac2's future. Most were of course on the basics and the key word is "future" cuz how long are we talking? But lets begin with the recruiting. You, know, that there is no chance to sign a decent class, who's want to come here? Or the same with the portal. Or, the foreseen " mass exodus of players? Or even the questions about hiring a coach and staff... those negative posts seemed to think OSU was doomed to not attract anyone of quality. False... every single one. Neither OSU or WSU (the Pac2) has seen any of that. Plus they both have a stable and solid schedule. Another common issue that folks said would be an issue and tough to achieve. Now if one keeps extending the "future" goalposts from their initial statements that a B12 or ACC invite would or is near to happening... I guess that can never be dismissed as false. But, since it seems it was never enough of a consideration to ever be more than a rumor and "expert" opinion on message boards... probably tells you right there. But, then again some have gotten a bit more "political" and softened their negative stances to toss in some kudos, but always seem to have that backhanded take on the future. But, again when that is the posting style concerning all this Pac12 mess as it effects OSU it is more about being part of the "I told you so crowd" if negatives do happen. And, change the goal posts if they don't. So... how far out is the future we're talking now that recruiting is pretty much over, scheduling alliance/conference affiliation set, and coaching staff pretty much set? Again, your statement had no factual basis. And for about the fifth time, if a team is already losing half their starters to eligibility and the NFL and lose the other half to the portal, including many key starters and a 4-star QB who was in line to start to the school that the coach and much of the staff went to, that is a mass exodus. Virtually EVERY starter gone. You can label it any other way you want. I really don't care at this point and this is the last time I'm addressing it with you. The future as in when we find out what conference the Pac-2 schools will wind up in or create through whatever means. 🤣🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 12, 2024 21:08:47 GMT -8
I realize that all this is opinion, but so much is rehashed that has been discussed, laid out, and dismissed as completely false before. Too much to even mention. But, not knowing what will actually happen... - If FSU "wins" it'll be years of appeals/court fights unless the ACC decides to jettison them for fairly large dollars. Dollars that benefit all the other ACC teams and could be as much as a 10% boost if some of the lower figures prove correct. The ACC will not just magically fall apart as the majority of the conference has no where to go and a guaranteed TV /GOR deal and they'll have sufficient teams and depth to continue. So something extremely deep in their contracts would have to exist for Cal and/or Furd to even consider coming back to a Pac4 situation; - The MWC and Gloria were FAR more astute that George and the Pac12 presidents in their conference setup and media contracts. They are not going to let the conference be torn apart, or leave it with too few members to function as a conference. The scheduling alliance earned her schools about $1.27 mil each (about 25% increase in some of their media payouts) to not have to go get killed for a payday. She saw the MWC had all the leverage and not only made $ but protected her conference. My guess she and many of the school presidents are all on the same page... OSU and WSU need to work with the MWC as a whole; - Folks are forgetting the MWC media deal has two years, but will be reopened, probably in the next 6-10 months if typical procedures are used. If the Pac2 hasn't figured their sh&t out they might be on the outside looking in of even a reverse merger. The MWC will have a new deal far before any team can opt out for free; - But, the MWC negotiations might indeed be a Pac2/MWC combined look at what a new media deal will be like. Many still believe the "alliance" will be a one year deal. It was to help slow down the merger process, let everyone catch their collective breath. Let all the revenue/liability issues finalized, see how it all plays out with audiences and gate receipts. And, give ample time for the new media deal to be negotiated with both MWC and Pac2 at the table to see if the reverse merger is indeed a viable option; - Unless the Pac2 has a substantial media deal to present to any of the aforementioned "select" teams they aren't agreeing to any kind of expenditure for a buyout. And, even then they might be hesitant when it is compared to their new media deal with no buyout. Or a total MWC/Pac2 reverse merger media deal; - The Pac2 can NOT afford to help in multiple buyouts of MWC teams with their revenue spread out over years unless they somehow land a pretty large media deal on the speculation that teams will indeed spend to buyout and join. Really? How many large athletic conference media deals are based on "maybes"... these teams may join IF? Hence, said teams would have to give notice, meaning huge buyouts, to then hopefully get a deal that works: - The Pac2 has zero leverage. They had to pay large guarantees to schedule games, and will have to do so for the WCC's help for the (10) other sports. Although I've yet to see any concrete financial details on this affiliated membership?! We'll all see what REALLY happens, but it is tough to ignore some simple common sense and financial realities. You underestimate how ruthlessly efficient a well-funded and well-run judiciary can be, when it is incentivized to be speedy. A Leon County judge, who is a Florida State grad, and who has to answer to a Leon County electorate is going to expedite that one case as fast as justice will bear. Oregon State and Washington State went from initial filing to winning at the Washington State Supreme Court in 14 weeks flat. It can clearly be done. If the ACC and Florida State can streamline discovery, Florida State could have its own ruling from the Florida State Supreme Court by the end of March. The ACC may be able to stall this thing out a couple more months, but it's probably ultimately a loser for the ACC. (The ACC can probably hold the conference together for 2024-25, but will probably lose beyond that.) If Florida State wins, the GOR is illusory, and the ACC as we know it will almost immediately implode. Florida State is gunning for a great ruling from a Florida court by August, so that they can do something completely different in 2025. Clemson and Miami are probably both in the same boat. And the Virginia schools would likely jump on board, if those three leave. And California, Notre Dame, and Stanford will be looking for new homes, if Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and the Virginias leave. The conference will be DOA. Secondly, if Florida State wins, the Mountain West's GOR is likely just as unenforceable, if not more so. Once the ACC implodes, the Mountain West implodes second. Thirdly, if in the unlikely situation Florida State loses, I believe that you underestimate that six Mountain West teams can basically implement the nuclear option and implode the conference from the inside. If six Mountain West teams want to, they could veto all new media deals. The GOR is based on the media deal. If there is ever a year without a media deal, any Mountain West team can leave for free the year following. If the six Mountain West teams want to, they can put the other Mountain West teams over a barrel. We will get out this year, or the Mountain West will functionally be nonexistent in 2027 and be completely gone in 2028. Your choice. Granted, the Pac-12 will have to make promises to those six Mountain West teams, but because the contract runs out in 2026, six unified Mountain West schools will have a lot of power in 2026. Not to hop topics... but I only have vaguely followed the FSU case. I am actually very fascinated to know if there is any merit or justification to FSU's case. Is there something there? or is it really just a legal hail mary to hope and pray to get out of the GOR? |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 13, 2024 16:21:07 GMT -8
If the Pac-12 brand is so valuable and joining the Pac-2 will be a boon as far as the MWC getting a better broadcast deal and rebuilding the Pac-12 with the MWC has been the plan all along, why doesn't the Pac-2 just make the move with the stipulation that OSU and WSU get to keep all the Pac-12 payments? Why did they go ahead and pay $14 million for a football scheduling alliance as well as agree to all the extra fees to bring in fewer MWC teams if that's what they wanted to do? Seems like a lot to lay out to have a year or two of extra time to see if something better comes along, nothing more than a pipe dream to some. I'm not saying there won't be a full merger with the MWC. But I do believe that there is a high chance that the Pac-2 leaders either have some information or reason why they are willing to go the route they have chosen. Quoting myself here because I can no longer edit this post... I wanted to add the fact that the Pac-2 chose an alliance with the WCC for men's and women's basketball, etc., rather than the MWC also makes me question their intentions as far as the MWC. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 13, 2024 16:47:37 GMT -8
If the Pac-12 brand is so valuable and joining the Pac-2 will be a boon as far as the MWC getting a better broadcast deal and rebuilding the Pac-12 with the MWC has been the plan all along, why doesn't the Pac-2 just make the move with the stipulation that OSU and WSU get to keep all the Pac-12 payments? Why did they go ahead and pay $14 million for a football scheduling alliance as well as agree to all the extra fees to bring in fewer MWC teams if that's what they wanted to do? Seems like a lot to lay out to have a year or two of extra time to see if something better comes along, nothing more than a pipe dream to some. I'm not saying there won't be a full merger with the MWC. But I do believe that there is a high chance that the Pac-2 leaders either have some information or reason why they are willing to go the route they have chosen. Quoting myself here because I can no longer edit this post... I wanted to add the fact that the Pac-2 chose an alliance with the WCC for men's and women's basketball, etc., rather than the MWC also makes me question their intentions as far as the MWC. It was cost-related. The WCC wanted far less than the MWC per sport for affiliation. Our alliance with the WCC is a two-year arrangement that should have little to do with what happens in 2026-27. What's best for football will be paramount, as it always is. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 13, 2024 17:49:30 GMT -8
Quoting myself here because I can no longer edit this post... I wanted to add the fact that the Pac-2 chose an alliance with the WCC for men's and women's basketball, etc., rather than the MWC also makes me question their intentions as far as the MWC. It was cost-related. The WCC wanted far less than the MWC per sport for affiliation. Our alliance with the WCC is a two-year arrangement that should have little to do with what happens in 2026-27. What's best for football will be paramount, as it always is. First, whether or not it cost less to go with the WCC does not change my OP (meaning the one that I added the WCC comment to). And the fact remains that they chose the WCC, not the MWC. Seems like the Pac-2 and MWC would be more interesting in working together to make something happen. Second, do you have a source on this? Not doubting that it's true but all I've seen is that it was about logistical issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 13, 2024 20:30:45 GMT -8
It was cost-related. The WCC wanted far less than the MWC per sport for affiliation. Our alliance with the WCC is a two-year arrangement that should have little to do with what happens in 2026-27. What's best for football will be paramount, as it always is. First, whether or not it cost less to go with the WCC does not change my OP (meaning the one that I added the WCC comment to). And the fact remains that they chose the WCC, not the MWC. Seems like the Pac-2 and MWC would be more interesting in working together to make something happen. Second, do you have a source on this? Not doubting that it's true but all I've seen is that it was about logistical issues. Yes, a very good source. Supposedly the MWC wanted $1 million per affiliated sport and the WCC much, much less. The WCC will have fewer logistical problems, we will be an easy travel partner with UP and it will be easy to play two basketball, volleyball or soccer games on a weekend because the WCC schools are close (WSU/Gonzaga, SMC/USF, SC/UOP, Pepperdine/LMU/USD). It works great as a temporary solution. But we need a Pac-12 conference, both for football and to maintain the NCAA men's basketball payouts. That conference will involve some, if not all, of the MWC. There's simply no other way around it. |
|
|
|
Post by ostate on Jan 13, 2024 20:56:51 GMT -8
Quoting myself here because I can no longer edit this post... I wanted to add the fact that the Pac-2 chose an alliance with the WCC for men's and women's basketball, etc., rather than the MWC also makes me question their intentions as far as the MWC. It was cost-related. The WCC wanted far less than the MWC per sport for affiliation. Our alliance with the WCC is a two-year arrangement that should have little to do with what happens in 2026-27. What's best for football will be paramount, as it always is. It's a one-year scheduling agreement, not a two-year... |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 13, 2024 21:38:46 GMT -8
Yes, they will have payouts through 2030, I believe. That money has been estimated at around 65.6 million, so a little less than $33 million apiece for OSU and WSU but spread over a six-year period.
The Pac-2 will already have a chunk of the current year's revenue along with the Pac-12 assets.
So would the Pac-2 representatives feel locked into a specific situation based on money coming in through the NCAA tournament payments (and they will get some of that as the Pac-2 for the next 1-2 years)? IMO, not really. Of course, it will factor into any decision they make based on whatever option opens up to them. If they get a (most likely much) better offer or situation due to power conference dominoes falling or whatever, I'm saying they would take it.
If no offer is forthcoming, then no harm, no foul as far as that money coming in for a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 13, 2024 22:21:54 GMT -8
Yes, they will have payouts through 2030, I believe. That money has been estimated at around 65.6 million, so a little less than $33 million apiece for OSU and WSU but spread over a six-year period. The Pac-2 will already have a chunk of the current year's revenue along with the Pac-12 assets. So would the Pac-2 representatives feel locked into a specific situation based on money coming in through the NCAA tournament payments (and they will get some of that as the Pac-2 for the next 1-2 years)? IMO, not really. Of course, it will factor into any decision they make based on whatever option opens up to them. If they get a (most likely much) better offer or situation due to power conference dominoes falling or whatever, I'm saying they would take it. If no offer is forthcoming, then no harm, no foul as far as that money coming in for a few years. The Pac-12 should have payouts through 2030. Jon Wilner projected the total amounts of the payouts to be around $65.6 million, but the final number will depend on how the Pac-12 does this year. As of this moment, using Wilner's numbers, the payouts will be: 2025 $14 million2026 $11.55 million2027 $11.55 million2028 $4.9 million2029 $2.45 million
Total $44.45 million
Whatever is earned this year would be tacked onto those numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 13, 2024 23:16:25 GMT -8
Yes, they will have payouts through 2030, I believe. That money has been estimated at around 65.6 million, so a little less than $33 million apiece for OSU and WSU but spread over a six-year period. The Pac-2 will already have a chunk of the current year's revenue along with the Pac-12 assets. So would the Pac-2 representatives feel locked into a specific situation based on money coming in through the NCAA tournament payments (and they will get some of that as the Pac-2 for the next 1-2 years)? IMO, not really. Of course, it will factor into any decision they make based on whatever option opens up to them. If they get a (most likely much) better offer or situation due to power conference dominoes falling or whatever, I'm saying they would take it. If no offer is forthcoming, then no harm, no foul as far as that money coming in for a few years. The Pac-12 should have payouts through 2030. Jon Wilner projected the total amounts of the payouts to be around $65.6 million, but the final number will depend on how the Pac-12 does this year. As of this moment, using Wilner's numbers, the payouts will be: 2025 $14 million2026 $11.55 million2027 $11.55 million2028 $4.9 million2029 $2.45 million
Total $44.45 million
Whatever is earned this year would be tacked onto those numbers.Yes...the article I took the estimates from (it might actually have been by Wilner, I can't remember) guesstimated this season's total as 10 units just to come up with the overall estimate. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 14, 2024 9:20:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by 415hawaiiboy on Jan 14, 2024 9:25:57 GMT -8
I don’t see the rationale for the PAC-2 to spend millions on buyouts of MWC teams to create arguably a clone of the MWC. The PAC-12 residuals are finite, and trickles in over time, only to give the money to someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 14, 2024 10:23:57 GMT -8
I don’t see the rationale for the PAC-2 to spend millions on buyouts of MWC teams to create arguably a clone of the MWC. The PAC-12 residuals are finite, and trickles in over time, only to give the money to someone else. Yep. Wait and get them for free. |
|
