(09-01-2022 01:52 PM)Boots Wrote:  Oregon and Washington would make more money in the Big 10 no doubt.

But their path to the CFB Playoff is WAY easier by staying in the PAC. Those two would have a high shot at the playoff each year.

You think Ohio State and Michigan want to add 4 new schools and more competition for those playoff spots? Unlikely.

Also, high caliber G5s have a good shot as well in the new system. Boise, SDSU, Memphis, and SMU have to be licking their chops at the new playoff system.

Could the CFB playoff halt the expansion wave for the time being...hmm..

SMU hasn't ended the season in the AP poll since their Resurrection. They've only even won double digit games ONCE. Not sure what they're licking these days, but they have a lot more to worry about than an expanded playoffs.

(09-01-2022 02:31 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its Wilner's imagination.

When he first mentioned that he said, "he believed" OSU was opposed. He's not basing that on talking to anyone involved. He's apparently just hearing rumors. He has never stated why he believed that. Maybe he got an e-mail from MHVer3.

Pretty safe bet Wilner's source is Kliavkoff.

It's no problem for King George to channel his messaging through "credible" well-known mainstream media sources who allow the commissioner to speculate or even fabricate without being quoted.

Stanford and Cal appear to be laying low, not wanting to ruffle any feathers as they wait for the green light from Kevin Warren.

Doubt either president or AD is saying anything of much interest to media types.

Assuming a relatively paltry annual return of 5%, Stanford makes about $1.5b a year just on investment of their endowment. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that their President spends almost no time worrying about their Athletics conference, unless it's to block peasant schools like BYU or SDSU from joining his Conference.

(09-02-2022 01:14 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:31 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its Wilner's imagination.

When he first mentioned that he said, "he believed" OSU was opposed. He's not basing that on talking to anyone involved. He's apparently just hearing rumors. He has never stated why he believed that. Maybe he got an e-mail from MHVer3.

Pretty safe bet Wilner's source is Kliavkoff.

It's no problem for King George to channel his messaging through "credible" well-known mainstream media sources who allow the commissioner to speculate or even fabricate without being quoted.

Stanford and Cal appear to be laying low, not wanting to ruffle any feathers as they wait for the green light from Kevin Warren.

Doubt either president or AD is saying anything of much interest to media types.

Assuming a relatively paltry annual return of 5%, Stanford makes about $1.5b a year just on investment of their endowment. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that their President spends almost no time worrying about their Athletics conference, unless it's to block peasant schools like BYU or SDSU from joining his Conference.

I agree. With Stanford, athletics is just about institutional affiliation, who it doesn't want to rub elbows with.

Stanford is IMO almost unique among schools out there in that it doesn't depend on athletics for anything. The notion of a "front porch" or "back porch" effect for a school with a $38B endowment and a top-5 global academic ranking on just about any scale out there is nonsensical.

(09-02-2022 01:06 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 01:52 PM)Boots Wrote:  Oregon and Washington would make more money in the Big 10 no doubt.

But their path to the CFB Playoff is WAY easier by staying in the PAC. Those two would have a high shot at the playoff each year.

You think Ohio State and Michigan want to add 4 new schools and more competition for those playoff spots? Unlikely.

Also, high caliber G5s have a good shot as well in the new system. Boise, SDSU, Memphis, and SMU have to be licking their chops at the new playoff system.

Could the CFB playoff halt the expansion wave for the time being...hmm..

SMU hasn't ended the season in the AP poll since their Resurrection. They've only even won double digit games ONCE. Not sure what they're licking these days, but they have a lot more to worry about than an expanded playoffs.

good point on SMU. Agree.

Without Cincy, Houston, and UCF....the future path got easier in the AAC.

Am I missing something? Has anyone from the B1G actually said they are actively looking/planning to expand ? All I have seen have been comments that "they could see the league expanding" When I was in college I could see myself getting married and having kids. That didnt men i was going to do so the day after graduation. The opportunity for P12 schools to join the B1G will still be there in a few years, Signing a short term GOR wont change that. If P12 comes to an agreement the B1G isnt going to announce in April oh well Oregon you had you chance we are looking elsewhere. There is no where else to go at this time. Anyone the B1G has their eyes on will still be there in 7 years
Of course the B1G could put this all to rest and just announce they are done with expansion for now. The longer they don't do that the longer the speculation grows about when amd what will happen

(09-02-2022 07:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-02-2022 01:14 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:31 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its Wilner's imagination.

When he first mentioned that he said, "he believed" OSU was opposed. He's not basing that on talking to anyone involved. He's apparently just hearing rumors. He has never stated why he believed that. Maybe he got an e-mail from MHVer3.

Pretty safe bet Wilner's source is Kliavkoff.

It's no problem for King George to channel his messaging through "credible" well-known mainstream media sources who allow the commissioner to speculate or even fabricate without being quoted.

Stanford and Cal appear to be laying low, not wanting to ruffle any feathers as they wait for the green light from Kevin Warren.

Doubt either president or AD is saying anything of much interest to media types.

Assuming a relatively paltry annual return of 5%, Stanford makes about $1.5b a year just on investment of their endowment. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that their President spends almost no time worrying about their Athletics conference, unless it's to block peasant schools like BYU or SDSU from joining his Conference.

I agree. With Stanford, athletics is just about institutional affiliation, who it doesn't want to rub elbows with.

Stanford is IMO almost unique among schools out there in that it doesn't depend on athletics for anything. The notion of a "front porch" or "back porch" effect for a school with a $38B endowment and a top-5 global academic ranking on just about any scale out there is nonsensical.

I wouldn't quite go that far.

In academia, Stanford's biggest competition for top students consist of Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT. The fact that Stanford participates at the top level of athletics *is* a factor in why its acceptance rate is the lowest out of all of them (and every other school in the country).

Essentially, Stanford's pitch is: "You can go to those Ivy League schools or MIT and freeze yourself all winter where 'school spirit' consists of bonding over how much you have to study... or come here where you get just as great or better academics with startup companies throwing money and stock options at you down the street and perfect weather AND we actually have real power conference football and basketball teams." It's a powerful pitch as Stanford consistently ranks as the top dream college for students in the country.

At the same time, as I've pointed out elsewhere, while Stanford doesn't define itself by football or basketball success in athletics (although I'll point out again that Stanford has been materially better at football over the past decade than either USC or Texas), it *does* have a culture of top elite level Olympic sports success. They do *not* have an Ivy League model in recruiting athletes. Far from it, they're actively looking for athletes that will become Olympic champions. Remember that if Stanford were its own country, it would have been in the top 10 of the medal count in the last Summer Olympics.

I look at Stanford's athletic department as pretty inherent in the overall culture of the university and why it's distinct from its Ivy/MIT competition. It would be a mistake to think that Stanford doesn't care about athletics because their actions and the way they recruit them speak otherwise. They see being in a power conference not so much as football and/or basketball being integral to their school brand, but rather it's a de facto requirement to having a top athletic department that can get the top Olympic athletes... and Stanford actually *does* actively look to "collect" alums that are Olympic medalists just as much as it wants Silicon Valley startup founders and Nobel Prize winners.

To me, that's the holistic allure of Stanford and I believe that the school cares very deeply about it. It's not that it's just an elite academic school with a large endowment, as you will find that at Harvard, MIT or places like the University of Chicago. Instead, it's rather that Stanford sees its competitive advantage as being seen as the school that has it ALL: top academics with top sports in a great environment that cultivates top leaders and entrepreneurs. Being in a top sports conference is inherently part of the "all" part of that statement.

(09-02-2022 08:01 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  Am I missing something? Has anyone from the B1G actually said they are actively looking/planning to expand ? All I have seen have been comments that "they could see the league expanding" ...

No, but then again IIRC there wasn't any word from the Big Ten about the USC/UCLA move until the move was actually announced.

What we are getting are scraps of reporting about the Big Ten going through a process of evaluating candidates. From what Matt Brown says, at least some of these are leaks from the process, coming from consultants involved.

Given those source, we shouldn't expect that they would know whether the Big Ten is "planning on expanding" and just hammering out the specific decision of who to expand with, or whether the Big Ten is "deciding whether to expand", which, as we saw with the Big 12 a few years back, doesn't always end with a decision to expand.

And we have the one report from Wilner, which might come from inside the PAC-12 (since he has PAC-12 contacts) about Ohio State seemingly pushing back on expansion. He did break the USC/UCLA move, but that was so close to the announcement itself that it seems USC and UCLA (at least) are able to keep secrets from Wilner for an extended period of time.

(09-02-2022 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-02-2022 07:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-02-2022 01:14 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:31 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its Wilner's imagination.

When he first mentioned that he said, "he believed" OSU was opposed. He's not basing that on talking to anyone involved. He's apparently just hearing rumors. He has never stated why he believed that. Maybe he got an e-mail from MHVer3.

Pretty safe bet Wilner's source is Kliavkoff.

It's no problem for King George to channel his messaging through "credible" well-known mainstream media sources who allow the commissioner to speculate or even fabricate without being quoted.

Stanford and Cal appear to be laying low, not wanting to ruffle any feathers as they wait for the green light from Kevin Warren.

Doubt either president or AD is saying anything of much interest to media types.

Assuming a relatively paltry annual return of 5%, Stanford makes about $1.5b a year just on investment of their endowment. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that their President spends almost no time worrying about their Athletics conference, unless it's to block peasant schools like BYU or SDSU from joining his Conference.

I agree. With Stanford, athletics is just about institutional affiliation, who it doesn't want to rub elbows with.

Stanford is IMO almost unique among schools out there in that it doesn't depend on athletics for anything. The notion of a "front porch" or "back porch" effect for a school with a $38B endowment and a top-5 global academic ranking on just about any scale out there is nonsensical.

I wouldn't quite go that far.

In academia, Stanford's biggest competition for top students consist of Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT. The fact that Stanford participates at the top level of athletics *is* a factor in why its acceptance rate is the lowest out of all of them (and every other school in the country).

Essentially, Stanford's pitch is: "You can go to those Ivy League schools or MIT and freeze yourself all winter where 'school spirit' consists of bonding over how much you have to study... or come here where you get just as great or better academics with startup companies throwing money and stock options at you down the street and perfect weather AND we actually have real power conference football and basketball teams." It's a powerful pitch as Stanford consistently ranks as the top dream college for students in the country.

At the same time, as I've pointed out elsewhere, while Stanford doesn't define itself by football or basketball success in athletics (although I'll point out again that Stanford has been materially better at football over the past decade than either USC or Texas), it *does* have a culture of top elite level Olympic sports success. They do *not* have an Ivy League model in recruiting athletes. Far from it, they're actively looking for athletes that will become Olympic champions. Remember that if Stanford were its own country, it would have been in the top 10 of the medal count in the last Summer Olympics.

I look at Stanford's athletic department as pretty inherent in the overall culture of the university and why it's distinct from its Ivy/MIT competition. It would be a mistake to think that Stanford doesn't care about athletics because their actions and the way they recruit them speak otherwise. They see being in a power conference not so much as football and/or basketball being integral to their school brand, but rather it's a de facto requirement to having a top athletic department that can get the top Olympic athletes... and Stanford actually *does* actively look to "collect" alums that are Olympic medalists just as much as it wants Silicon Valley startup founders and Nobel Prize winners.

To me, that's the holistic allure of Stanford and I believe that the school cares very deeply about it. It's not that it's just an elite academic school with a large endowment, as you will find that at Harvard, MIT or places like the University of Chicago. Instead, it's rather that Stanford sees its competitive advantage as being seen as the school that has it ALL: top academics with top sports in a great environment that cultivates top leaders and entrepreneurs. Being in a top sports conference is inherently part of the "all" part of that statement.

Points taken. Stanford does invest a lot in and field a lot of athletic teams at the highest level, so they must see value in it.

(09-02-2022 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-02-2022 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-02-2022 07:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-02-2022 01:14 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:31 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Pretty safe bet Wilner's source is Kliavkoff.

It's no problem for King George to channel his messaging through "credible" well-known mainstream media sources who allow the commissioner to speculate or even fabricate without being quoted.

Stanford and Cal appear to be laying low, not wanting to ruffle any feathers as they wait for the green light from Kevin Warren.

Doubt either president or AD is saying anything of much interest to media types.

Assuming a relatively paltry annual return of 5%, Stanford makes about $1.5b a year just on investment of their endowment. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that their President spends almost no time worrying about their Athletics conference, unless it's to block peasant schools like BYU or SDSU from joining his Conference.

I agree. With Stanford, athletics is just about institutional affiliation, who it doesn't want to rub elbows with.

Stanford is IMO almost unique among schools out there in that it doesn't depend on athletics for anything. The notion of a "front porch" or "back porch" effect for a school with a $38B endowment and a top-5 global academic ranking on just about any scale out there is nonsensical.

I wouldn't quite go that far.

In academia, Stanford's biggest competition for top students consist of Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT. The fact that Stanford participates at the top level of athletics *is* a factor in why its acceptance rate is the lowest out of all of them (and every other school in the country).

Essentially, Stanford's pitch is: "You can go to those Ivy League schools or MIT and freeze yourself all winter where 'school spirit' consists of bonding over how much you have to study... or come here where you get just as great or better academics with startup companies throwing money and stock options at you down the street and perfect weather AND we actually have real power conference football and basketball teams." It's a powerful pitch as Stanford consistently ranks as the top dream college for students in the country.

At the same time, as I've pointed out elsewhere, while Stanford doesn't define itself by football or basketball success in athletics (although I'll point out again that Stanford has been materially better at football over the past decade than either USC or Texas), it *does* have a culture of top elite level Olympic sports success. They do *not* have an Ivy League model in recruiting athletes. Far from it, they're actively looking for athletes that will become Olympic champions. Remember that if Stanford were its own country, it would have been in the top 10 of the medal count in the last Summer Olympics.

I look at Stanford's athletic department as pretty inherent in the overall culture of the university and why it's distinct from its Ivy/MIT competition. It would be a mistake to think that Stanford doesn't care about athletics because their actions and the way they recruit them speak otherwise. They see being in a power conference not so much as football and/or basketball being integral to their school brand, but rather it's a de facto requirement to having a top athletic department that can get the top Olympic athletes... and Stanford actually *does* actively look to "collect" alums that are Olympic medalists just as much as it wants Silicon Valley startup founders and Nobel Prize winners.

To me, that's the holistic allure of Stanford and I believe that the school cares very deeply about it. It's not that it's just an elite academic school with a large endowment, as you will find that at Harvard, MIT or places like the University of Chicago. Instead, it's rather that Stanford sees its competitive advantage as being seen as the school that has it ALL: top academics with top sports in a great environment that cultivates top leaders and entrepreneurs. Being in a top sports conference is inherently part of the "all" part of that statement.

Points taken. Stanford does invest a lot in and field a lot of athletic teams at the highest level, so they must see value in it.

IOW, they spend a lot of money to not be Rice.

(09-02-2022 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To me, that's the holistic allure of Stanford and I believe that the school cares very deeply about it. It's not that it's just an elite academic school with a large endowment, as you will find that at Harvard, MIT or places like the University of Chicago. Instead, it's rather that Stanford sees its competitive advantage as being seen as the school that has it ALL: top academics with top sports in a great environment that cultivates top leaders and entrepreneurs. Being in a top sports conference is inherently part of the "all" part of that statement.

Note that where that can go with being in an "Major" conference in a "Superpower 2 / Major [2 or 3]" football ecosystem, it doesn't go with being in a "Group of Six" conference.

So Stanford wouldn't have any urgent need to do anything in the short to medium term if the Big Ten calls a halt to expansion ... and of course, it is fine if the Big Ten expands the year after UCLA/USC, and Stanford is included.

A question arises, however, if the Big Ten expands out of the PN4 with the PNW schools. Could that PAC-8 be reconstituted as a PAC-10 or PAC-12 that will still be a "major", or would Stanford be looking around elsewhere?

(09-01-2022 02:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 01:31 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 01:06 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  We wouldn't be hearing all these leaks if the B1G was going to add these schools. This is like the PAC16 that fell through. The B1G Presidents are probably pissed this is all getting leaked and are tired of the press being on them. I think it's 60% chance these teams aren't added this cycle. At least to preserve the Rose Bowl contract through 26' and beyond. I mean, has anyone here addressed this? Can't the Rose Bowl sue the B1G up the ass for taking all of the PACs assets? They will need some compensation. You are not going to put MWC backfills tagging along with OSU/WSU in the Rose Bowl.

It's all a cluster ****. Expansion could very well be dead until the 2030's...

The expanded playoffs is a bigger issue for Rose Bowl.

A 20+ school BIG with at least 6 PAC schools, and the Rose Bowl functioning as BIG championship game and 1st round of playoffs is probably the best way to preserve Rose Bowl

USC and UCLA don't join the Big Ten until 2024. Oregon and Washington and all other PAC 12 schools have missed the notice deadline and would have to wait until 2025 to move or negotiate significant exit payments.

So, we're likely talking the single 2025 season where the Rose Bowl might have a watered-down PAC representative....may be 2024 and 2025. The easy business solution is for the Rose Bowl to host all-Big Ten matchup after the 2025 (and may be 2024) season but make the contractual payment to the PAC.

But that's only an issue if the CFP doesn't expand by then.

Can anyone explain this mysterious “notice deadline” that certain reporters mention? The PAC 12 bylaws are online here: https://pac-12compliance.org/wp-content/...ook.V1.pdf

I don’t see anything about August 1, 2022 or any other date to deliver a notice. In fact, it seems to clearly state that no team shall deliver a notice of their intention to withdraw before August 1, 2024. Why can’t the remaining PAC schools simply along their departure with USC/UCLA?

Notre Dame has a test case this season - they are ranked in Top 5,start out playing No 2 Ohio State, and are a legit final four contender.

They will watch ratings and revenues from this best-case season then compare it to what could happen to them in a conference.

Note, if they join a conference, don't be surprised if it's the ACC and that holds the ACC together.

(09-02-2022 09:16 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 01:31 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 01:06 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  We wouldn't be hearing all these leaks if the B1G was going to add these schools. This is like the PAC16 that fell through. The B1G Presidents are probably pissed this is all getting leaked and are tired of the press being on them. I think it's 60% chance these teams aren't added this cycle. At least to preserve the Rose Bowl contract through 26' and beyond. I mean, has anyone here addressed this? Can't the Rose Bowl sue the B1G up the ass for taking all of the PACs assets? They will need some compensation. You are not going to put MWC backfills tagging along with OSU/WSU in the Rose Bowl.

It's all a cluster ****. Expansion could very well be dead until the 2030's...

The expanded playoffs is a bigger issue for Rose Bowl.

A 20+ school BIG with at least 6 PAC schools, and the Rose Bowl functioning as BIG championship game and 1st round of playoffs is probably the best way to preserve Rose Bowl

USC and UCLA don't join the Big Ten until 2024. Oregon and Washington and all other PAC 12 schools have missed the notice deadline and would have to wait until 2025 to move or negotiate significant exit payments.

So, we're likely talking the single 2025 season where the Rose Bowl might have a watered-down PAC representative....may be 2024 and 2025. The easy business solution is for the Rose Bowl to host all-Big Ten matchup after the 2025 (and may be 2024) season but make the contractual payment to the PAC.

But that's only an issue if the CFP doesn't expand by then.

Can anyone explain this mysterious “notice deadline” that certain reporters mention? The PAC 12 bylaws are online here: https://pac-12compliance.org/wp-content/...ook.V1.pdf

I don’t see anything about August 1, 2022 or any other date to deliver a notice. In fact, it seems to clearly state that no team shall deliver a notice of their intention to withdraw before August 1, 2024. Why can’t the remaining PAC schools simply along their departure with USC/UCLA?

Good point.

Quote:3. Withdrawal.
No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; provided, that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024, in violation of this chapter, the Conference shall be entitled to an injunction and other equitable relief to prevent such breach, and if a court of competent jurisdiction shall deny the Conference such injunctive relief, the Conference shall be entitled to retain all the media and sponsorship rights in the multi-player video distribution (MPVD) and telecommunications/wireless categories of the member purporting to withdraw through August 1, 2024, even if the member is then a member of another conference or an independent school for some or all intercollegiate sports competitions. Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation
of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group.

(09-01-2022 09:32 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...6hm7krAAAA

As far as I'm concerned, anything I read on Twitter isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

(09-01-2022 12:56 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Should Oregon and Washington not get into the B1G this time around, I feel like a media deal and GOR that runs through the end of the B1G's current/upcoming contract is the best way to maximize for the PAC. Everyone should see the writing on the wall at this point, and locking in all the members until the next likely conference expansion date would keep it simple.

Also the PAC should expand in that case, without a doubt.

The PAC doesn’t want to expand because all of the options would dilute revenue. It’s the same reason the Big 12 didn’t expand for a long time.

I’m inclined to believe that Oregon and Washington will get invited to the Big Ten because McMurphy certainly seems to think the move will happen, and he’s a lot more credible than Jon Wilner. Plus I’m not even sure that Oregon and Washington would be publicly making noise unless they felt an invite was imminent.

However, the invite might not come until late June 2023.

(09-02-2022 09:16 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 01:31 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 01:06 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  We wouldn't be hearing all these leaks if the B1G was going to add these schools. This is like the PAC16 that fell through. The B1G Presidents are probably pissed this is all getting leaked and are tired of the press being on them. I think it's 60% chance these teams aren't added this cycle. At least to preserve the Rose Bowl contract through 26' and beyond. I mean, has anyone here addressed this? Can't the Rose Bowl sue the B1G up the ass for taking all of the PACs assets? They will need some compensation. You are not going to put MWC backfills tagging along with OSU/WSU in the Rose Bowl.

It's all a cluster ****. Expansion could very well be dead until the 2030's...

The expanded playoffs is a bigger issue for Rose Bowl.

A 20+ school BIG with at least 6 PAC schools, and the Rose Bowl functioning as BIG championship game and 1st round of playoffs is probably the best way to preserve Rose Bowl

USC and UCLA don't join the Big Ten until 2024. Oregon and Washington and all other PAC 12 schools have missed the notice deadline and would have to wait until 2025 to move or negotiate significant exit payments.

So, we're likely talking the single 2025 season where the Rose Bowl might have a watered-down PAC representative....may be 2024 and 2025. The easy business solution is for the Rose Bowl to host all-Big Ten matchup after the 2025 (and may be 2024) season but make the contractual payment to the PAC.

But that's only an issue if the CFP doesn't expand by then.

Can anyone explain this mysterious “notice deadline” that certain reporters mention? The PAC 12 bylaws are online here: https://pac-12compliance.org/wp-content/...ook.V1.pdf

I don’t see anything about August 1, 2022 or any other date to deliver a notice. In fact, it seems to clearly state that no team shall deliver a notice of their intention to withdraw before August 1, 2024. Why can’t the remaining PAC schools simply along their departure with USC/UCLA?

Upon further review, I believe you are correct. I do not see any notice requirement or deadline in the PAC 12 handbook, simply that a member cannot deliver a notice of withdrawal before August 1, 2024.

Also, I cannot find any reports that USC and UCLA sent a notice of withdrawal to the PAC 12, only that their applications to join the Big Ten were accepted. Here's a relevant quote from USC's official release:

"The Big Ten Conference has voted to accept both USC and crosstown rival UCLA as full members of the conference effective August 2, 2024, enabling both schools to remain in the Pac-12 Conference for the duration of the Pac-12's existing media rights agreements."

https://usctrojans.com/news/2022/6/30/us...-2024.aspx

It seems very intentionally written that the *Big Ten* voted to accepted USC (not that USC gave a notice of withdrawal to the PAC 12) and the August 2, 2024 date aligns perfectly with the PAC 12 Handbook....allowing USC to submit a notice of withdrawal after the August 1, 2024 timeframe outlined in Chapter 2, Section 3 of the PAC 12 handbook. Not a coincidence.

So, it seems that Oregon and Washington could also leave as soon as August 2024 without any penalties or exit fees. So, you have a potential watered-down Rose Bowl issue for the 2024 and 2025 seasons. But, again, that's only if the CFP doesn't expand by then.

(09-02-2022 09:38 AM)Poster Wrote:  I’m inclined to believe that Oregon and Washington will get invited to the Big Ten because McMurphy certainly seems to think the move will happen, and he’s a lot more credible than Jon Wilner. Plus I’m not even sure that Oregon and Washington would be publicly making noise unless they felt an invite was imminent.

However, the invite might not come until late June 2023.

So here is where I get lost, I haven't heard anything from UW that they are meeting with the B1G. Everything I'm seeing is from McMurphy, who is obviously very well connected, about lawyers and consultants from Oregon, Washington, and the B1G meeting. All credit to Matt Brown who said in another thread that it's the consultants leaking this info and the B1G is not happy about it, my question is which consultants? The B1G's or the schools?

I believe is a reason for the big 12 to seek early extension of their media contract, to accommodate taking p12 teams in 2024 rather than 2025 when the current contracts end.

(09-02-2022 09:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-02-2022 09:16 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 02:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 01:31 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 01:06 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  We wouldn't be hearing all these leaks if the B1G was going to add these schools. This is like the PAC16 that fell through. The B1G Presidents are probably pissed this is all getting leaked and are tired of the press being on them. I think it's 60% chance these teams aren't added this cycle. At least to preserve the Rose Bowl contract through 26' and beyond. I mean, has anyone here addressed this? Can't the Rose Bowl sue the B1G up the ass for taking all of the PACs assets? They will need some compensation. You are not going to put MWC backfills tagging along with OSU/WSU in the Rose Bowl.

It's all a cluster ****. Expansion could very well be dead until the 2030's...

The expanded playoffs is a bigger issue for Rose Bowl.

A 20+ school BIG with at least 6 PAC schools, and the Rose Bowl functioning as BIG championship game and 1st round of playoffs is probably the best way to preserve Rose Bowl

USC and UCLA don't join the Big Ten until 2024. Oregon and Washington and all other PAC 12 schools have missed the notice deadline and would have to wait until 2025 to move or negotiate significant exit payments.

So, we're likely talking the single 2025 season where the Rose Bowl might have a watered-down PAC representative....may be 2024 and 2025. The easy business solution is for the Rose Bowl to host all-Big Ten matchup after the 2025 (and may be 2024) season but make the contractual payment to the PAC.

But that's only an issue if the CFP doesn't expand by then.

Can anyone explain this mysterious “notice deadline” that certain reporters mention? The PAC 12 bylaws are online here: https://pac-12compliance.org/wp-content/...ook.V1.pdf

I don’t see anything about August 1, 2022 or any other date to deliver a notice. In fact, it seems to clearly state that no team shall deliver a notice of their intention to withdraw before August 1, 2024. Why can’t the remaining PAC schools simply along their departure with USC/UCLA?

Upon further review, I believe you are correct. I do not see any notice requirement or deadline in the PAC 12 handbook, simply that a member cannot deliver a notice of withdrawal before August 1, 2024.

Also, I cannot find any reports that USC and UCLA sent a notice of withdrawal to the PAC 12, only that their applications to join the Big Ten were accepted. Here's a relevant quote from USC's official release:

"The Big Ten Conference has voted to accept both USC and crosstown rival UCLA as full members of the conference effective August 2, 2024, enabling both schools to remain in the Pac-12 Conference for the duration of the Pac-12's existing media rights agreements."

https://usctrojans.com/news/2022/6/30/us...-2024.aspx

It seems very intentionally written that the *Big Ten* voted to accepted USC (not that USC gave a notice of withdrawal to the PAC 12) and the August 2, 2024 date aligns perfectly with the PAC 12 Handbook....allowing USC to submit a notice of withdrawal after the August 1, 2024 timeframe outlined in Chapter 2, Section 3 of the PAC 12 handbook. Not a coincidence.

So, it seems that Oregon and Washington could also leave as soon as August 2024 without any penalties or exit fees. So, you have a potential watered-down Rose Bowl issue for the 2024 and 2025 seasons. But, again, that's only if the CFP doesn't expand by then.

I might also suggest that the bylaws could be interpreted to allow a notice of withdrawal to be delivered at any time so long as that withdrawal is not before August 1, 2024. Not trying to quibble, as you may also be correct. Regardless, I can’t find anything other than a few reporters quoting “unnamed sources” to suggest the remaining PAC schools can’t also leave in 2024.