(01-28-2023 05:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 04:32 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I don’t understand why some posters think it’s a foregone conclusion that the B1G will stand pat until 2030. Seven years is a long time. Something could happen next week that changes the landscape and convinces the B1G or SEC or both to resume expanding.

Given that, any school outside the P2 that’s at or near the top of the candidate list to receive a future P2 invitation would be foolish to bind itself to its current conference from now until 2030. And I don’t think the administrators at Washington and Oregon are fools.

I don’t think that it’s a foregone conclusion that the Big Ten won’t add more prior to the end of its new TV deal.

However, I do think the fact that Kevin Warren left for the Bears job is a huge deal because he was uniformly reported as someone that openly wanted more expansion (whether the reports came from Big Ten expansion supporters or skeptics). The Big Ten university presidents may not be interested in a new commissioner that’s going to push further on that front (and expansion views are definitely going to be a major topic in interviews). Reading the tea leaves, the Big Ten presidents didn’t agree with Warren’s expansion plans and that was a major (if not *the*) reason why he left. It’s hard to think of a new Big Ten commissioner being *more* aggressive than Warren on expansion.

I agree. With Warren leaving and the comments around that, it seems unlikely, but its not a sure thing that the Big 10 is done for 7 years.

(01-28-2023 02:18 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 01:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  You're reading too much into this about the big 12. Technically, the deal was just a continuation of their old deal. As the old deal had a GoR, they probably just updated that for the 8 remaining schools, while the 4 newbies probably all flew to Kliavkoff's party the night the deal was announced so that they could sign whatever they needed to before the big 12 changed their minds.

Uh, no. That did not happen.

Reports as of the B12 handshake agreement at the end of October say an extended grant of rights for all 12 members going forward 'can' be discussed and sign once the final, formal media agreement is presented and approved.

As far as anyone can tell, that contract presentation and approval with grant discussion has not yet taken place.

And it will not be finalized until Texas and OKlahoma reach exit terms with the conference and new members officially join.

(01-28-2023 01:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  As I mentioned yesterday, I still haven’t seen any proof that the Big 12 has signed a GOR. There were multiple articles from right before the Big 12 deal was signed saying the conference was “expected” to sign a GOR, but after the Big 12 deal was signed I never saw an article definitively saying they actually had signed a GOR.


If the Big 12 didn’t sign a GOR, I doubt the PAC will.

This is critical point that suggests to me (should the Pac-12 numbers be in the range of 40-45 million) that schools like Kansas or Texas Tech might be sniffing the Pac-12.

If they absolutely refuse to sign a GOR, then the other members of the conference would have to agree to do a media deal without a GOR, or else imo the conference is effectively broken up.

(01-28-2023 04:50 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 03:12 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...ultimately...

the options for UO/UW are either to:

- stay in the PAC, with less conference $$$ per year (in theory), and make the playoffs every other season (in theory), or;

- join the BIG XII, with more conference $$$ per year (in theory), but make the playoffs every 4-5 seasons (in theory).

OR, radically, become an INDY until the B1G relents and invites them in at whatever '$$$ level' they can agree upon (this one is a 'Gold and Blue Dude' type deal )

I would say that, if they can make the playoffs more in the PAC, that may be where they camp out for awhile... the overall $$$ would most likely better what they could get as a member of the "BigXII but with less frequent playoff trips" option...

(ALL of the 'playoff probabilities' are of course theory and conjecture... who knows, Oregon STATE might start up a ten-year dynasty in the PAC even with UO/UW in it... )

Yes. UW and OU will continue their string of PAC titles until the Beavers show up.

...well, I DID say every OTHER season... I just figured it was a given the UTES would take the 'OTHER every other seasons'...

(01-28-2023 09:26 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 01:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  As I mentioned yesterday, I still haven’t seen any proof that the Big 12 has signed a GOR. There were multiple articles from right before the Big 12 deal was signed saying the conference was “expected” to sign a GOR, but after the Big 12 deal was signed I never saw an article definitively saying they actually had signed a GOR.


If the Big 12 didn’t sign a GOR, I doubt the PAC will.

This is critical point that suggests to me (should the Pac-12 numbers be in the range of 40-45 million) that schools like Kansas or Texas Tech might be sniffing the Pac-12.

If the Pac had even $30m, much less $40-45m, they'd have already signed.

(01-28-2023 01:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  As I mentioned yesterday, I still haven’t seen any proof that the Big 12 has signed a GOR. There were multiple articles from right before the Big 12 deal was signed saying the conference was “expected” to sign a GOR, but after the Big 12 deal was signed I never saw an article definitively saying they actually had signed a GOR.


If the Big 12 didn’t sign a GOR, I doubt the PAC will.

The existing GOR for the Big XII is in effect until 2025. There is no real need to sign before then.

(01-28-2023 01:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:57 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:27 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  If Washington and Oregon can get a few extra million for signing a GOR, then they might as well sign it. The B1G isn't going to consider expansion again until their media contract is up so there's no reason to miss out on the extra money.

The big issue would be if the other conference members want to implement an exit fee. I think that would be a hard no for both Washington and Oregon.

GORs are far more expensive than exit fees, and an exit fee could be passed over the objection of two members and possibly even four. I'm not sure if an exit fee requires a 75% vote or just a simple majority, but I seriously doubt it would require unanimous agreement like a GOR.

Where's Washington and Oregon going in the next 5-6 years? The MWC? The Big Sky? Because they're not going to the B1G. The financials don't work for the B1G so that move isn't going to happen in the next 5-6 years.

They should sign a short-term media deal with a short-term GOR and use that as leverage to ensure there is no exit fee when the GOR expires.

You need to start pondering unequal revenue sharing for new members of the SEC and Big 10. It is possible that a school from the PAC 12, Big 12 (only Kansas), or ACC could add markets and value to the SEC or Big 10 if they didn't have to enter at full conference distribution, but rather at their actual value to the conference. The latter can be significant enough to the school if they can accept that they enter at their actual value.

So, let's say Washington is worth 50 million in the Big 10, but only 28 million if they remain in the PAC 12. The markets and West Coast time slot games are valuable to FOX and the other media partners and the number of games UW would play against better competition within the Big 10 adds real content value to the contract, just not enough to cover 75 million. Would the Huskies move for 22 million more? Likely. Would the Big 10 accept them at 50 million? If they want the added market and the synergy such a move could create on the West Coast for the BTN and to their other carriers, then yes. Would it require a departure from their current policies? Yes.

What does such a departure mean for the SEC/Big 10 besides markets and content games? It means a likely consolidation to a P3, a possible breakaway from the NCAA in order to monetize not only football but hoops and by setting a new upper tier a larger share of the CFP, which is where the money will be. What do you think the networks and FOX/ESPN would rather have? A 12-team playoff in which 1/3rd of the schools was from lower viewership end of their marketing, or one where 12 schools were all large draws? The money is in the playoffs and the networks might be willing to put up with more consolidation if they could virtually guarantee large audience share for the 11 games.

For the Big 10 it will mean a broader door for the academic consortium and for the SEC it means more control of their region. For both conferences it means much more leverage in contract negotiations. What it requires is a mindset that says extraordinary times call for extraordinary adjustments. Rivalries can be preserved, regionality maintained, and conference objectives met by making the mandate for equal revenue distributions a value-based equation in terms of conference share and equity distributions. Our commissioners should be singing "Don't Fence Me In" to the presidents.

I have no doubt that there are people who think the P2/3 should eventually breakaway but I think that would be a massive mistake. The recent trend in sports has been more teams, more games, more access. The top European Soccer clubs tried to breakaway and it was met with severe backlash and they backtracked almost instantly.

We are assuming that there is a 5-6 year contract option available at a price a school will be willing to sign a GoR. What happened if ESPN's $25m offer was for a ten year deal? It would be unlikely for both Washington and Oregon to sign that length, and a shorter length would mean less money per year.

On the B12 GoR... There has been no word it has been signed, but there has been no word that there are any issues either. If there was any dissonance, I would expect rumors/whispers would have trickled out. I would guess they are waiting on the PAC contract before they finalize to prevent any potential new additions from having to take a pay cut.

(01-28-2023 10:59 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  What happens to Kliavkoff's negotiations with potential media partners?

How does that impact any dealings or moves among the Four Corners 4 and the Big XII?

Can the Pac even get a media deal if UW and UO won't sign a GoR?

Is the conference kaput?

It's not catastrophic to the media negotiations because the media company can include verbiage that reduces payments if certain schools leave or voids the contract all together. But I think they might get another 5% or 10% if they got a GoR that lasts until the next B1G contract ends.

If Kliavkoff can't get more than $22 mil per school per year for the Pac12 schools and additional B12 schools can get $40+ mil per school per year then he's going to lose at least 4 schools to the B12.

The biggest problem the Pac12 has is that 2-3 games a week including the 6, now 5, rivalry games are committed to the Pac12N for a measly $2 mil extra per school per year. From what I've read, it seems like the Pac12 can get out of this deal and if that's true they should do it asap because they can probably get a lot closer to what the B12 is getting with those extra games. If they can't get out of that deal, then they may be screwed because even if the Pac12 wanted to go all streaming, it doesn't look like any streaming company is going to pay them enough to stay together.

They can get a media deal..... it just won't be enough. And really it's looking like it won't be enough even if they did sign a 6 year GoR.

The conference is destined to be OSU, WSU and assorted MWC and AAC western teams. Eventually that is..... by 2030. They have until next year to get a media deal signed. If they lose the 4 corners schools June 30,2024, they'll just add 3 more G5 schools until the B1G cleans out the rest of them.

(01-28-2023 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  GORs are relatively new and we’re done for network startups. They aren’t essential. There are conference composition clauses

Great point. And it makes me wonder if that’s what’s taking so long on their tv contract. Maybe there are so many clauses needed for “what if’s”, that there are a lot of legal I’s and T’s to be dotted and crossed for all pac parties involved.

(01-29-2023 06:45 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  GORs are relatively new and we’re done for network startups. They aren’t essential. There are conference composition clauses

Great point. And it makes me wonder if that’s what’s taking so long on their tv contract. Maybe there are so many clauses needed for “what if’s”, that there are a lot of legal I’s and T’s to be dotted and crossed for all pac parties involved.

These are massively complicated documents, FWIW, so that wouldn't be surprising.

A few notes here that might be helpful...

1) Big Ten leaders got TV numbers from two leading media consulting firms on Oregon and Washington back in 2022. Individuals who saw those numbers told me that adding both schools *would* net each Big Ten school a revenue increase, but a relatively modest one. The current Big Ten presidents crop decided that TV money from UO/UW was not worth the political, administrative and logistical costs.

Now, over the next six years, how likely is it that the TV math changes dramatically? I don't think that's especially likely. Is it possible that the political calculus could change, especially as the Big Ten hires a new commissioner, almost entirely new senior staff, and turns over a third of their university presidents? That's entirely possible...and something for all parties to think about as they do their negotiations.

2) There's not a huge market for Pac-12 media rights at the moment. Fox isn't interested in the entire bundle now that they have the Big Ten and MWC. As far as I know, Discovery or NBC haven't made bids...so it's basically just ESPN, Amazon, Apple, and potentially a small package for Fox. The ability of the Pac-12 to command the value that they need is very much dependent on their ability to promise to their rightsholders that the league will exist throughout the length of that deal, which would be very, very hard to do without a GOR.

3) Oregon and UW (or Cal and Stanford, if they're feeling particularly delusional) could decline to sign one, but there's basically only one league that might take them right now that their presidents would sign off on, and there's absolutely no guarantee the Big Ten ever takes them...or at least, takes them over the next five years. Declining would unquestionably hurt them (and their peers) in the short term.

(01-29-2023 12:23 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 09:26 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 01:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  As I mentioned yesterday, I still haven’t seen any proof that the Big 12 has signed a GOR. There were multiple articles from right before the Big 12 deal was signed saying the conference was “expected” to sign a GOR, but after the Big 12 deal was signed I never saw an article definitively saying they actually had signed a GOR.


If the Big 12 didn’t sign a GOR, I doubt the PAC will.

This is critical point that suggests to me (should the Pac-12 numbers be in the range of 40-45 million) that schools like Kansas or Texas Tech might be sniffing the Pac-12.

If the Pac had even $30m, much less $40-45m, they'd have already signed.

This^.
They may squeak out a 30 million deal, but it will be mostly Amazon. which isn't good.

(01-29-2023 10:13 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 06:45 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  GORs are relatively new and we’re done for network startups. They aren’t essential. There are conference composition clauses

Great point. And it makes me wonder if that’s what’s taking so long on their tv contract. Maybe there are so many clauses needed for “what if’s”, that there are a lot of legal I’s and T’s to be dotted and crossed for all pac parties involved.

These are massively complicated documents, FWIW, so that wouldn't be surprising.

A few notes here that might be helpful...

1) Big Ten leaders got TV numbers from two leading media consulting firms on Oregon and Washington back in 2022. Individuals who saw those numbers told me that adding both schools *would* net each Big Ten school a revenue increase, but a relatively modest one. The current Big Ten presidents crop decided that TV money from UO/UW was not worth the political, administrative and logistical costs.

Now, over the next six years, how likely is it that the TV math changes dramatically? I don't think that's especially likely. Is it possible that the political calculus could change, especially as the Big Ten hires a new commissioner, almost entirely new senior staff, and turns over a third of their university presidents? That's entirely possible...and something for all parties to think about as they do their negotiations.

2) There's not a huge market for Pac-12 media rights at the moment. Fox isn't interested in the entire bundle now that they have the Big Ten and MWC. As far as I know, Discovery or NBC haven't made bids...so it's basically just ESPN, Amazon, Apple, and potentially a small package for Fox. The ability of the Pac-12 to command the value that they need is very much dependent on their ability to promise to their rightsholders that the league will exist throughout the length of that deal, which would be very, very hard to do without a GOR.

3) Oregon and UW (or Cal and Stanford, if they're feeling particularly delusional) could decline to sign one, but there's basically only one league that might take them right now that their presidents would sign off on, and there's absolutely no guarantee the Big Ten ever takes them...or at least, takes them over the next five years. Declining would unquestionably hurt them (and their peers) in the short term.

Interesting what you’ve said about Oregon and Washington increasing the value of the Big Ten TV contract (even if it’s a modest increase). In any event, considering all of this, I’d be surprised if Oregon and Washington would decline signing a GOR for 5-7 years if that maximizes a 5-7 year Pac-12 TV deal. That’s in range (or even before) the end of the new Big Ten TV deal, so it’s not the completely prohibitive handcuff on UO and UW (or anyone else in the Pac-12). The other Big Ten options would be all ACC schools and they’re in an even longer GOR, so it’s not as if though UO or UW would be concerned that, say, FSU or Miami would be taking their spots. Now, if the Pac-12 and its TV partners want these schools signing a GOR for a decade or more, then it would be logical to see pushback there.

(01-29-2023 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 10:13 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 06:45 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  GORs are relatively new and we’re done for network startups. They aren’t essential. There are conference composition clauses

Great point. And it makes me wonder if that’s what’s taking so long on their tv contract. Maybe there are so many clauses needed for “what if’s”, that there are a lot of legal I’s and T’s to be dotted and crossed for all pac parties involved.

These are massively complicated documents, FWIW, so that wouldn't be surprising.

A few notes here that might be helpful...

1) Big Ten leaders got TV numbers from two leading media consulting firms on Oregon and Washington back in 2022. Individuals who saw those numbers told me that adding both schools *would* net each Big Ten school a revenue increase, but a relatively modest one. The current Big Ten presidents crop decided that TV money from UO/UW was not worth the political, administrative and logistical costs.

Now, over the next six years, how likely is it that the TV math changes dramatically? I don't think that's especially likely. Is it possible that the political calculus could change, especially as the Big Ten hires a new commissioner, almost entirely new senior staff, and turns over a third of their university presidents? That's entirely possible...and something for all parties to think about as they do their negotiations.

2) There's not a huge market for Pac-12 media rights at the moment. Fox isn't interested in the entire bundle now that they have the Big Ten and MWC. As far as I know, Discovery or NBC haven't made bids...so it's basically just ESPN, Amazon, Apple, and potentially a small package for Fox. The ability of the Pac-12 to command the value that they need is very much dependent on their ability to promise to their rightsholders that the league will exist throughout the length of that deal, which would be very, very hard to do without a GOR.

3) Oregon and UW (or Cal and Stanford, if they're feeling particularly delusional) could decline to sign one, but there's basically only one league that might take them right now that their presidents would sign off on, and there's absolutely no guarantee the Big Ten ever takes them...or at least, takes them over the next five years. Declining would unquestionably hurt them (and their peers) in the short term.

Interesting what you’ve said about Oregon and Washington increasing the value of the Big Ten TV contract (even if it’s a modest increase). In any event, considering all of this, I’d be surprised if Oregon and Washington would decline signing a GOR for 5-7 years if that maximizes a 5-7 year Pac-12 TV deal. That’s in range (or even before) the end of the new Big Ten TV deal, so it’s not the completely prohibitive handcuff on UO and UW (or anyone else in the Pac-12). The other Big Ten options would be all ACC schools and they’re in an even longer GOR, so it’s not as if though UO or UW would be concerned that, say, FSU or Miami would be taking their spots. Now, if the Pac-12 and its TV partners want these schools signing a GOR for a decade or more, then it would be logical to see pushback there.

Agree, if the deal is short and the $$ is there, Oregon and Washington will sign.

(01-29-2023 02:22 AM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  We are assuming that there is a 5-6 year contract option available at a price a school will be willing to sign a GoR.

Also lots of assuming on this message board and elsewhere that FOX and ESPN prefer the Pac survives as Power 5 conference — as opposed to collapse whereby the B1G, Big XII and MWC absorb the remains.

The B1G presidents and FOX/ESPN bigwigs may not want the blood of the Pac-12's demise (or a messy lawsuit) on their hands, but they're certainly not going to turn their backs on consolidation that ultimately benefits all of their bottom lines.

Not one of those entities has publicly questioned the Big XII commissioner's open pursuit of Pac-12 schools and a "coast to coast" conference. Yappy is serving both their purpose and his own by trying to destabilize the Pac and (further) weaken Kliavkoff's negotiating position

Neither UO or UW have any place to go. They will sign a GOR because they cannot afford not to. The B1G won't be looking to expand until, at least, 2030. UO and UW need to get paid for the 6 years from 2024- 2030.

(01-29-2023 02:22 AM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  We are assuming that there is a 5-6 year contract option available at a price a school will be willing to sign a GoR. ...

Baked into the question as posed is that we are in scenario where the best deal available to the PAC10 (maybe +X) does not see Washington and Oregon starting talks with the Big12.

If that's the case, the best deal requires a GOR, and a deal without a GOR will be for less.

One wrinkle would be where a 7 year deal gets the best money, and UW/UOregon are reluctant to grant more than 5 or 6, but that is a different question from the one posed. "Not signing a GOR, period" directly says even a 5 year GOR is off the table.

Unless Washingon and Oregon are in talks with the Big Ten that are making headway, they are going to sign a short GOR. You cannot turn down millions of dollars on the table because "maybe something will change". Eventually it comes time to stop dithering.

As far as it seems anyone on this site would know, perhaps the rumors of the deal getting worked out "in the first quarter" are on target, and they are just finalizing the mechanics of how the transition of the P12N content to ESPN is going to work.

(01-29-2023 11:26 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 02:22 AM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  We are assuming that there is a 5-6 year contract option available at a price a school will be willing to sign a GoR.

Also lots of assuming on this message board and elsewhere that FOX and ESPN prefer the Pac survives as Power 5 conference — as opposed to collapse whereby the B1G, Big XII and MWC absorb the remains.

The B1G presidents and FOX/ESPN bigwigs may not want the blood of the Pac-12's demise (or a messy lawsuit) on their hands, but they're certainly not going to turn their backs on consolidation that ultimately benefits all of their bottom lines.

Not one of those entities has publicly questioned the Big XII commissioner's open pursuit of Pac-12 schools and a "coast to coast" conference. Yappy is serving both their purpose and his own by trying to destabilize the Pac and (further) weaken Kliavkoff's negotiating position

I think the disproportionately-biased assumption on this message board is the opposite: there’s a lot more bias toward, “The TV networks want consolidation of the P5!” compared to the general fan population even though that’s very much not the case. They all want more sellers in the marketplace, especially as sports rights fees continue to skyrocket. The fact that they’re not taking a public position on any Big 12 statements (whether positive or negative) is because it would be outright legal tampering to do so. The only relevant public comments that I’ve seen so far from a current executive from the networks on realignment was Burke Magnus from ESPN a few weeks after the USC/UCLA news broke effectively telling the ACC schools to quit whining about their rights fees and how ESPN took a huge risk on their contract and forming the ACC Network, so suck it up and quit whining. I only bring up the ACC situation because that directly contradicts this whole “ESPN and the networks want everyone to consolidate into a P2/P3” line of thinking.(I still don’t know how anyone could have listened to that interview with the person that actually negotiates ESPN’s rights fees with the college conferences to think that ESPN wants anything to do with touching that ACC contract. You don’t make public comments putting some partner schools in a child time out situation unless you’re going to stick to every comma in the current contract.) I only bring up the ACC situation because that directly contradicts this whole “ESPN and the networks want everyone to consolidate into a P2/P3” line of thinking.

(01-29-2023 10:13 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 06:45 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  GORs are relatively new and we’re done for network startups. They aren’t essential. There are conference composition clauses

Great point. And it makes me wonder if that’s what’s taking so long on their tv contract. Maybe there are so many clauses needed for “what if’s”, that there are a lot of legal I’s and T’s to be dotted and crossed for all pac parties involved.

These are massively complicated documents, FWIW, so that wouldn't be surprising.

A few notes here that might be helpful...

1) Big Ten leaders got TV numbers from two leading media consulting firms on Oregon and Washington back in 2022. Individuals who saw those numbers told me that adding both schools *would* net each Big Ten school a revenue increase, but a relatively modest one. The current Big Ten presidents crop decided that TV money from UO/UW was not worth the political, administrative and logistical costs.

Now, over the next six years, how likely is it that the TV math changes dramatically? I don't think that's especially likely. Is it possible that the political calculus could change, especially as the Big Ten hires a new commissioner, almost entirely new senior staff, and turns over a third of their university presidents? That's entirely possible...and something for all parties to think about as they do their negotiations.

2) There's not a huge market for Pac-12 media rights at the moment. Fox isn't interested in the entire bundle now that they have the Big Ten and MWC. As far as I know, Discovery or NBC haven't made bids...so it's basically just ESPN, Amazon, Apple, and potentially a small package for Fox. The ability of the Pac-12 to command the value that they need is very much dependent on their ability to promise to their rightsholders that the league will exist throughout the length of that deal, which would be very, very hard to do without a GOR.

3) Oregon and UW (or Cal and Stanford, if they're feeling particularly delusional) could decline to sign one, but there's basically only one league that might take them right now that their presidents would sign off on, and there's absolutely no guarantee the Big Ten ever takes them...or at least, takes them over the next five years. Declining would unquestionably hurt them (and their peers) in the short term.

As always thank you for your reporting Matt, you are a true professional and I would definitely vote for you to become the next B1G commissioner

Reading thru your statement it makes me wonder if the B1G presidents are really resistant to further expansion or just resistant to following Warren's lead. I have seen many leaders lose the ability to direct their subordinates when confidence and trust has been lost. It will be interesting to see if more comments come out about Warrens leadership in the future.

As to the OP, "IF" U-Dub and Oregon refuse to sign a GOR it means they have a legitimate opportunity elsewhere. That could be from the B1G, the BigXII, the ACC, or maybe some type of independence. I will not speculate on exactly what it would be but the refusal to sign a GOR with the PAC would signal the end of a 100 year relationship.