(11-08-2023 12:00 PM)clunk Wrote:  Since the hangup is SMU getting a full per school share of the overall CFP instead of how the ACC splits its per conference distribution, can we finally put to rest the idea that 2PAC is going to get $80M in 2024/5?

This seems pretty solid confirmation. I may have been the last skeptic, and this is good enough for me.

Commissioners agreed earlier this year to tweak the model as it relates to distribution per conference. Instead of leagues in the Power Five receiving the same amount to distribute to a different number of teams, leagues will receive varying amounts based on their membership number. For instance, the new Big Ten, at 18 teams, will receive two extra units compared to the new-look Big 12 and SEC, both at 16 teams.

This is the first I've seen specify a per school distribution, rather than a more complicated formula. And this dates it to "this year", which says to me that a vote happened unknown to the press at the time. Last previous update was Nov 2022.

WSU, OSU are scheduled to get the same CFP share as Alabama and Oregon and BC and Purdue. Unless things change.

EDIT: Never mind, the $80M number is Rose Bowl money, outside the CFP. I don't know if that money still happens -- when I have nothing to do I might pull up the Tournament of Roses Form 990 for a year when they were a semifinal, and see if they paid the PAC and Big Ten that year or not.

OF course, I have no way of proving whether the CFP paid the Big Ten and PAC that year or not, in compensation for giving up their Contract Bowl that year.

CFB is losing its blue-collar vibes very fast these days

(11-08-2023 12:35 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:01 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  This is going to be a really easy vote to strip the Pac-2 of their P5 distribution.

ACC would prefer SMU get a P5 share over Pac-2
Big Ten would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
Big 12 would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
SEC will probably go with the flow

G5 won't stand-up for Pac-2
Notre Dame is probably your only pity ally

Doesn't the CFP require unanimity to change the rules? Aresco has already said that he'll fight any changes at all, and the 2Pac might have something to say about stripping away their rights.

In the article, Aresco's position is no changes to 6+6 for 2024 and 2025 without guarantees that 5+7 continues in the new playoff post 2026. Which is a pretty reasonable position.

(11-08-2023 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

From the article, it seems as if the other Power conferences would have to take a cut in order for SMU to get a full Power-level share next year. But read the linked article yourself and maybe you will read it otherwise.

The solution is a simple one. Agree on the number of P conferences to be paid a CFP (looks like 4 to me) share. Pay the conferences. Let them divide it among their members as they see fit. ACC would divide it 17 ways and a partial. The SEC would divided it 16 ways. The Big 10 18 ways, and the Big 12, 16 ways.

It's not hard. It might make some folks consider size if they deliver equal shares. How many schools a conference has beyond the required minimum is their business. If the P conferences get equal shares of the CFP then each conference is treated equally. If one has 18 and another 16 so the one with 16 distributes more to its schools than the one with 18 that's nobody's problem but the conference.

(11-08-2023 12:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:52 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:01 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  This is going to be a really easy vote to strip the Pac-2 of their P5 distribution.

ACC would prefer SMU get a P5 share over Pac-2
Big Ten would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
Big 12 would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
SEC will probably go with the flow

G5 won't stand-up for Pac-2
Notre Dame is probably your only pity ally

I think they will accept OSU/WSU getting a P5 share for 2 years, just not a P5 conference and no ability to bring in schools to get a P5 share.

Maybe that is the hangup on SMU, how it impacts their arguments vs. the 2Pac's expansion.

I think that’s exactly what’s hanging up a power conference level CFP distribution to SMU.

The B1G, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are probably fine with OSU and WSU continuing to receive power conference level distributions for the final two years of the current CFP contract. However they don’t want to see the Pac inviting new members from the MWC and/or AAC during that period and then pointing to SMU’s situation as a precedent for the new Pac additions to receive power conference level CFP distributions as well.

The way out of the conundrum is to either immediately strip the Pac of its status as a power conference in the eyes of the CFP, with an exemption grandfathering OSU’s and WSU’s current distributions, OR leave the Pac’s power conference status alone for the remainder of the contract period but establish a rule that says any more G5 move-ups to a power conference during that time will not receive power conference level distributions (sorry SMU).

Unless and until there’s an agreement on the first option, the second option will be on the table.

Something tells me that will be written into the next CFP agreement. There will be specific schools named to receive the "P4 share", anyone moving up will have to wait until the next CFP, assuming that their Conference is part of the P5/4/3/2/1 at that time.

I'm not a big antitrust worrier, but I think it's more likely that the Big Ten and SEC cook up a "performance based" formula that gives them the lions share of the money, rather than equal shares for the entire P4.

Something like, top of my head, 1 unit for finishing in the top 25, 25 units for finishing No 1. Or 1-50, or 1-100. Or maybe 50-100 all get 1 unit each, 25-50 all get 2 units each, 24-1 get 2-25 units. Maybe half performance based, half per-conference (with specifications that a conference has to meet all requirements). Maybe 30-70 or 60-40. Whatever makes the math come out to numbers that reflect the balance of power.

(11-08-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

From the article, it seems as if the other Power conferences would have to take a cut in order for SMU to get a full Power-level share next year. But read the linked article yourself and maybe you will read it otherwise.

The solution is a simple one. Agree on the number of P conferences to be paid a CFP (looks like 4 to me) share. Pay the conferences. Let them divide it among their members as they see fit. ACC would divide it 17 ways and a partial. The SEC would divided it 16 ways. The Big 10 18 ways, and the Big 12, 16 ways.

It's not hard. It might make some folks consider size if they deliver equal shares. How many schools a conference has beyond the required minimum is their business. If the P conferences get equal shares of the CFP then each conference is treated equally. If one has 18 and another 16 so the one with 16 distributes more to its schools than the one with 18 that's nobody's problem but the conference.

It's certainly simple. But it's politically unrealistic. The Big Ten and SEC would be building in a disincentive to expanding. Why would they do that?

If the answer is "as part of a broader compromise with the ACC and Big 12" that's a solid answer. But I don't see why the Big Ten and SEC would prefer an assumption of equality among the power conferences.

(11-08-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ... The solution is a simple one. Agree on the number of P conferences to be paid a CFP (looks like 4 to me) share. ...

We may not be anti-trust worriers, but if there are any anti-trust worriers among the P4 Presidents, the "write the contract to be an explicit trust arrangement among four FBS conferences" strategy seems like it would set off alarm bells.

It does seem like the CFP4 system was set up to avoid writing an explicit trust arrangement into the core CFP contract ...

... and, instead, to have the trust arrangement emerge from the set of contracts as the market outcome of the NY6 bowls deciding which conferences they wanted to have bowl arrangements with.

(11-08-2023 12:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 12:35 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:01 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  This is going to be a really easy vote to strip the Pac-2 of their P5 distribution.

ACC would prefer SMU get a P5 share over Pac-2
Big Ten would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
Big 12 would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
SEC will probably go with the flow

G5 won't stand-up for Pac-2
Notre Dame is probably your only pity ally

Doesn't the CFP require unanimity to change the rules? Aresco has already said that he'll fight any changes at all, and the 2Pac might have something to say about stripping away their rights.

In the article, Aresco's position is no changes to 6+6 for 2024 and 2025 without guarantees that 5+7 continues in the new playoff post 2026. Which is a pretty reasonable position.

Yeah, after reading the entire article, I think it's clear that he's going to play ball b/c Sankey and the rest of the P4 will just freeze the g5 out after 2025 if he doesn't. A couple of other interesting things in the article:

1. Current payout is $460m, with per-team payouts to P5 members in the $5-6m range. Bidding is still ongoing for the 8 new (non final or SF) games starting next year, with bids expected to start at $1b. That would be an EXTRA $10m + per P5 school.
2. The 2Pac isn't getting $80m next year, at least not from the CFP, but WOSU are expecting to receive their full P5 share through the end of the current CFP contract.

(11-08-2023 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 12:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:52 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:01 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  This is going to be a really easy vote to strip the Pac-2 of their P5 distribution.

ACC would prefer SMU get a P5 share over Pac-2
Big Ten would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
Big 12 would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
SEC will probably go with the flow

G5 won't stand-up for Pac-2
Notre Dame is probably your only pity ally

I think they will accept OSU/WSU getting a P5 share for 2 years, just not a P5 conference and no ability to bring in schools to get a P5 share.

Maybe that is the hangup on SMU, how it impacts their arguments vs. the 2Pac's expansion.

I think that’s exactly what’s hanging up a power conference level CFP distribution to SMU.

The B1G, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are probably fine with OSU and WSU continuing to receive power conference level distributions for the final two years of the current CFP contract. However they don’t want to see the Pac inviting new members from the MWC and/or AAC during that period and then pointing to SMU’s situation as a precedent for the new Pac additions to receive power conference level CFP distributions as well.

The way out of the conundrum is to either immediately strip the Pac of its status as a power conference in the eyes of the CFP, with an exemption grandfathering OSU’s and WSU’s current distributions, OR leave the Pac’s power conference status alone for the remainder of the contract period but establish a rule that says any more G5 move-ups to a power conference during that time will not receive power conference level distributions (sorry SMU).

Unless and until there’s an agreement on the first option, the second option will be on the table.

Something tells me that will be written into the next CFP agreement. There will be specific schools named to receive the "P4 share", anyone moving up will have to wait until the next CFP, assuming that their Conference is part of the P5/4/3/2/1 at that time.

I'm not a big antitrust worrier, but I think it's more likely that the Big Ten and SEC cook up a "performance based" formula that gives them the lions share of the money, rather than equal shares for the entire P4.

Something like, top of my head, 1 unit for finishing in the top 25, 25 units for finishing No 1. Or 1-50, or 1-100. Or maybe 50-100 all get 1 unit each, 25-50 all get 2 units each, 24-1 get 2-25 units. Maybe half performance based, half per-conference (with specifications that a conference has to meet all requirements). Maybe 30-70 or 60-40. Whatever makes the math come out to numbers that reflect the balance of power.

I don't think that even a combined Petitti/Sankey plan would fly without support from the rest of the P4. They have too much money at stake, with the g5 no doubt clamoring for an ever-greater share in the next round. When/if we drop down to 3 "P" Conferences, sure, 2/3 of them might be able to ram something down the 3rd Conference's throat, but not yet.

(11-08-2023 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 12:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:52 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:01 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  This is going to be a really easy vote to strip the Pac-2 of their P5 distribution.

ACC would prefer SMU get a P5 share over Pac-2
Big Ten would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
Big 12 would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
SEC will probably go with the flow

G5 won't stand-up for Pac-2
Notre Dame is probably your only pity ally

I think they will accept OSU/WSU getting a P5 share for 2 years, just not a P5 conference and no ability to bring in schools to get a P5 share.

Maybe that is the hangup on SMU, how it impacts their arguments vs. the 2Pac's expansion.

I think that’s exactly what’s hanging up a power conference level CFP distribution to SMU.

The B1G, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are probably fine with OSU and WSU continuing to receive power conference level distributions for the final two years of the current CFP contract. However they don’t want to see the Pac inviting new members from the MWC and/or AAC during that period and then pointing to SMU’s situation as a precedent for the new Pac additions to receive power conference level CFP distributions as well.

The way out of the conundrum is to either immediately strip the Pac of its status as a power conference in the eyes of the CFP, with an exemption grandfathering OSU’s and WSU’s current distributions, OR leave the Pac’s power conference status alone for the remainder of the contract period but establish a rule that says any more G5 move-ups to a power conference during that time will not receive power conference level distributions (sorry SMU).

Unless and until there’s an agreement on the first option, the second option will be on the table.

Something tells me that will be written into the next CFP agreement. There will be specific schools named to receive the "P4 share", anyone moving up will have to wait until the next CFP, assuming that their Conference is part of the P5/4/3/2/1 at that time.

I'm not a big antitrust worrier, but I think it's more likely that the Big Ten and SEC cook up a "performance based" formula that gives them the lions share of the money, rather than equal shares for the entire P4.

Something like, top of my head, 1 unit for finishing in the top 25, 25 units for finishing No 1. Or 1-50, or 1-100. Or maybe 50-100 all get 1 unit each, 25-50 all get 2 units each, 24-1 get 2-25 units. Maybe half performance based, half per-conference (with specifications that a conference has to meet all requirements). Maybe 30-70 or 60-40. Whatever makes the math come out to numbers that reflect the balance of power.

Aw heck no. The Big Ten paper tiger is consistently overrated

(11-08-2023 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... I'm not a big antitrust worrier, but I think it's more likely that the Big Ten and SEC cook up a "performance based" formula that gives them the lions share of the money, rather than equal shares for the entire P4.

Something like, top of my head, 1 unit for finishing in the top 25, 25 units for finishing No 1. Or 1-50, or 1-100. Or maybe 50-100 all get 1 unit each, 25-50 all get 2 units each, 24-1 get 2-25 units. Maybe half performance based, half per-conference (with specifications that a conference has to meet all requirements). Maybe 30-70 or 60-40. Whatever makes the math come out to numbers that reflect the balance of power.

Except that University Presidents tend to be risk averse, so nudging it above the flat per-school payout with appearance money seems more likely than making payouts change in any noticeable way if your best school finishes 4th rather than 1st.

Something like, 80% flat per school, 10% distributed per Q4 host, 10% distributed per first round appearance. In a down year, the SEC is going to get at least a quarter of the 20% appearance money, in a normal year more like 30%-40% of it.

But, as esayem notes, if they offer the Big10 extra money for having extra schools in the non-CFP12 ranks of the CFP top 25, I am sure that the Big10 would deposit the check.

(11-08-2023 12:54 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

From the article, it seems as if the other Power conferences would have to take a cut in order for SMU to get a full Power-level share next year. But read the linked article yourself and maybe you will read it otherwise.

The solution is a simple one. Agree on the number of P conferences to be paid a CFP (looks like 4 to me) share. Pay the conferences. Let them divide it among their members as they see fit. ACC would divide it 17 ways and a partial. The SEC would divided it 16 ways. The Big 10 18 ways, and the Big 12, 16 ways.

It's not hard. It might make some folks consider size if they deliver equal shares. How many schools a conference has beyond the required minimum is their business. If the P conferences get equal shares of the CFP then each conference is treated equally. If one has 18 and another 16 so the one with 16 distributes more to its schools than the one with 18 that's nobody's problem but the conference.

It's certainly simple. But it's politically unrealistic. The Big Ten and SEC would be building in a disincentive to expanding. Why would they do that?

If the answer is "as part of a broader compromise with the ACC and Big 12" that's a solid answer. But I don't see why the Big Ten and SEC would prefer an assumption of equality among the power conferences.

John, you never sell a negative incentive, you sell the positive sounding disincentive. What happens to the P4 if they split the playoff money equally? It becomes the P2. If the SEC and Big 10 are disincentivized to current advantages it spurs them to create new ones. If you absorb enough schools between the two the P4 becomes the P2 and you create a mid tier conference in the place of the other two.

You can't sell the incentive to become the Super 2. It's not popular. So you disincentivize the top two conferences of the P4 if you want to obtain the Super 2. Equal splits accomplish that. All four agree to get the expanded CFP money flowing and then the two most powerful do what the two most powerful will do. The networks know this. Adding teams looks to be an impairment to revenue growth, but in reality, it isn't. Meanwhile nobody thinks of it as an incentive to eradicate two more conferences. If there are only 2 then their size doesn't matter. The money is no longer split 4 ways regardless of size. Since the Big 10 and SEC will not absorb all of the remaining schools from the other 2 conferences then all 4 shares are distributed among fewer schools and the pie grows by getting larger, even though initially it appears to be a disincentive to further growth. So, you get the conferences to agree to equal splits to pave the way for the expanded CFP, and the equal splits become the incentive for the SEC and Big 10 to absorb parts of the other two, which creates what the networks would like to have anyway. You sell a disincentive to paying by the school, which is really just pro rata, and you get an incentive to consolidate further. It's simply magic performed by contract. You focus on the left hand while the right hand hides the object that will appear as a result of the focus on the left hand.

(11-08-2023 11:08 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:01 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  This is going to be a really easy vote to strip the Pac-2 of their P5 distribution.

ACC would prefer SMU get a P5 share over Pac-2
Big Ten would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
Big 12 would prefer the Pac-2 dissolve since their departing members want their assets back
SEC will probably go with the flow

G5 won't stand-up for Pac-2
Notre Dame is probably your only pity ally

Just another lawsuit that would end up costing you more than you would actually save by attempting this.

The contract goes through 2025. OSU and WSU are not responsible for the PAC collapse. Definitely would end up in court.

(11-08-2023 11:55 AM)solohawks Wrote:  PAC 12 court date is on Tuesday. Wonder if that will provide any clarification on a path foward for the PAC2 or if the can will be kicked

Still doesn't resolve the 24-25 distribution issues.

(11-08-2023 12:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 12:00 PM)clunk Wrote:  Since the hangup is SMU getting a full per school share of the overall CFP instead of how the ACC splits its per conference distribution, can we finally put to rest the idea that 2PAC is going to get $80M in 2024/5?

This seems pretty solid confirmation. I may have been the last skeptic, and this is good enough for me.

Commissioners agreed earlier this year to tweak the model as it relates to distribution per conference. Instead of leagues in the Power Five receiving the same amount to distribute to a different number of teams, leagues will receive varying amounts based on their membership number. For instance, the new Big Ten, at 18 teams, will receive two extra units compared to the new-look Big 12 and SEC, both at 16 teams.

This is the first I've seen specify a per school distribution, rather than a more complicated formula. And this dates it to "this year", which says to me that a vote happened unknown to the press at the time. Last previous update was Nov 2022.

WSU, OSU are scheduled to get the same CFP share as Alabama and Oregon and BC and Purdue. Unless things change.

EDIT: Never mind, the $80M number is Rose Bowl money, outside the CFP. I don't know if that money still happens -- when I have nothing to do I might pull up the Tournament of Roses Form 990 for a year when they were a semifinal, and see if they paid the PAC and Big Ten that year or not.

OF course, I have no way of proving whether the CFP paid the Big Ten and PAC that year or not, in compensation for giving up their Contract Bowl that year.

Don't know how many times people have to explain to you that the Rose Bowl contract is gone with the 12 team playoff. And its been clearly talked about many times how there was no payout in years when the contract bowl was a part of the 4 team playoff, every year when they talk about conference distributions.

And they've said very clearly before that the power payout would be per school, not per conference.

(11-08-2023 01:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... I'm not a big antitrust worrier, but I think it's more likely that the Big Ten and SEC cook up a "performance based" formula that gives them the lions share of the money, rather than equal shares for the entire P4.

Something like, top of my head, 1 unit for finishing in the top 25, 25 units for finishing No 1. Or 1-50, or 1-100. Or maybe 50-100 all get 1 unit each, 25-50 all get 2 units each, 24-1 get 2-25 units. Maybe half performance based, half per-conference (with specifications that a conference has to meet all requirements). Maybe 30-70 or 60-40. Whatever makes the math come out to numbers that reflect the balance of power.

Except that University Presidents tend to be risk averse, so nudging it above the flat per-school payout with appearance money seems more likely than making payouts change in any noticeable way if your best school finishes 4th rather than 1st.

Something like, 80% flat per school, 10% distributed per Q4 host, 10% distributed per first round appearance. In a down year, the SEC is going to get at least a quarter of the 20% appearance money, in a normal year more like 30%-40% of it.

But, as esayem notes, if they offer the Big10 extra money for having extra schools in the non-CFP12 ranks of the CFP top 25, I am sure that the Big10 would deposit the check.

Yes. I think it will be something like that. Right now, there is minimal financial incentive for participation. Its $6 million for the first school and $4 million for additional. That figure will be much higher, but there will still be a large fixed component.

(11-08-2023 02:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:55 AM)solohawks Wrote:  PAC 12 court date is on Tuesday. Wonder if that will provide any clarification on a path foward for the PAC2 or if the can will be kicked

Still doesn't resolve the 24-25 distribution issues.

As long as the WSU president represents the PAC on the CFP board I don't see how they get out of paying WSU and OSU till the end of the contract.

As for SMU, I don't know what they will do. If the contract calls for all members of a P5 conference to get X dollars and SMU is a member of the ACC then everyone is gunna have to take a paycut unless SMU volunteers to forego more money for 2 years.

(11-08-2023 01:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... I'm not a big antitrust worrier, but I think it's more likely that the Big Ten and SEC cook up a "performance based" formula that gives them the lions share of the money, rather than equal shares for the entire P4.

Something like, top of my head, 1 unit for finishing in the top 25, 25 units for finishing No 1. Or 1-50, or 1-100. Or maybe 50-100 all get 1 unit each, 25-50 all get 2 units each, 24-1 get 2-25 units. Maybe half performance based, half per-conference (with specifications that a conference has to meet all requirements). Maybe 30-70 or 60-40. Whatever makes the math come out to numbers that reflect the balance of power.

Except that University Presidents tend to be risk averse, so nudging it above the flat per-school payout with appearance money seems more likely than making payouts change in any noticeable way if your best school finishes 4th rather than 1st.

Something like, 80% flat per school, 10% distributed per Q4 host, 10% distributed per first round appearance. In a down year, the SEC is going to get at least a quarter of the 20% appearance money, in a normal year more like 30%-40% of it.

But, as esayem notes, if they offer the Big10 extra money for having extra schools in the non-CFP12 ranks of the CFP top 25, I am sure that the Big10 would deposit the check.

The presidents like predictability. But you can write a formula that's pretty predictable, like the NCAA tournament formula, which minimizes spikes and troughs.
I think the Big Ten and SEC are going to push for a formula that gives them more money than the ACC and Big 12, and the ACC and Big 12 more money than the Mountain West and American and Sun Belt, without writing into the contract "the Big Ten and SEC shall get more money than the ACC and Big 12."

And, because the presidents are risk-averse / like predictability, I don't think "per appearance" is going to be a big part of the formula. Looking at last week to this week, I don't think they want a huge sum of money to swing from the SEC to the Big Ten because Oklahoma got upset and was replaced by Penn State. Or vice versa.

Right now, (future) Big Ten has 6 teams in the top 25, (future) SEC has 8, (future) Big 12 has 5, ACC has 3. That's ballpark what you'd expect in any given week, any given year. Future Big 10 has 5 in the top ten, future SEC has 4. Nobody is suprised at those counts, I don't think.

(11-08-2023 02:32 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 02:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:55 AM)solohawks Wrote:  PAC 12 court date is on Tuesday. Wonder if that will provide any clarification on a path foward for the PAC2 or if the can will be kicked

Still doesn't resolve the 24-25 distribution issues.

As long as the WSU president represents the PAC on the CFP board I don't see how they get out of paying WSU and OSU till the end of the contract.

As for SMU, I don't know what they will do. If the contract calls for all members of a P5 conference to get X dollars and SMU is a member of the ACC then everyone is gunna have to take a paycut unless SMU volunteers to forego more money for 2 years.

From what I've read, I don't think they care if WSU/OSU get a power conference unit share. But they definitely don't want a revamped Pac to get a power distribution for every member.

There's an obvious solution that I don't think anyone has a problem with, but it hasn't happened yet. Just treat WSU/OSU like Notre Dame for the next two years, regardless of their conference.

(11-08-2023 02:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 02:32 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 02:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:55 AM)solohawks Wrote:  PAC 12 court date is on Tuesday. Wonder if that will provide any clarification on a path foward for the PAC2 or if the can will be kicked

Still doesn't resolve the 24-25 distribution issues.

As long as the WSU president represents the PAC on the CFP board I don't see how they get out of paying WSU and OSU till the end of the contract.

As for SMU, I don't know what they will do. If the contract calls for all members of a P5 conference to get X dollars and SMU is a member of the ACC then everyone is gunna have to take a paycut unless SMU volunteers to forego more money for 2 years.

From what I've read, I don't think they care if WSU/OSU get a power conference unit share. But they definitely don't want a revamped Pac to get a power distribution for every member.

There's an obvious solution that I don't think anyone has a problem with, but it hasn't happened yet. Just treat WSU/OSU like Notre Dame for the next two years, regardless of their conference.

If the judge wont give control of the PAC to the PAC2 then the likelihood that anything happens in 2024 in regards to MWC schools to the PAC conferece shell goes down.