Oregon Ducks 2023!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Tince said:
Yes. I'd say it would be easier to join the Mountain West at this late of a date than it would be to independently schedule a bunch of non-conference games in Oct/Nov.

And certainly there has been an agreement between WSU/OSU and the MWC for months now, but the Pac2 is trying to get as many resources as possible before announcing. If they announced two months ago, they would have done the same thing the other 10 schools did, which would have all but eliminated their court case.
Click to expand...
Couldn't they still join the MWC?
 
Hoopguru said:
Couldn't they still join the MWC?
Click to expand...

I believe WSU and OSU do not want to join the MWC and instead wants the MWC to join the Pac-2. The Pac-2 is still considered a Power 5 conference and eligible to be in the expanded College Football Playoffs next year. The MWC is not a Power 5 conference so they would not be playoff-eligible.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
At this late date?
Click to expand...

that's probably another reason they want to land some kind of windfall from the PAC's dissolution.

the current MWC media deal is tiny:

upload_2023-11-16_11-9-52.png


so, for 12 schools. That would be about 96M divided 12 ways over the next two seasons. 8M per school. If OSU/WSU join and took an even split, that share for each school would drop from about 8M to 6.85M. When you're only making 8M, a 1.2M cut is substantial

but if the Pac-2 joined and didn't take a share because they had made an extra 20-30M off of the departing Pac-10, they could leave the other schools 'whole'

theoretically, Fox/CBS could kick some additional money the MWC's way for adding OSU/WSU and getting those two on the TV schedule. But Fox/CBS know that the Pac-2 has been talking to the MWC about breaking their GOR with Fox/CBS. They also have to be aware that the Pac-2 threatened them with litigation and discovery. So I don't know if Fox-CBS would be willing to add money to their annual pay-out to the MWC
 
I don’t know what a “fair” split is, but I’m not sure it’s a good look for the schools moving to other conferences for bigger pay days to be insisting on a “fair” split. There’s no doubt that OSU and WSU have been economically screwed by the actions of the departing universities.
 
the Athletic has an article out to day with some 'new' info:

"Now, the schools hope to finalize their future scheduling arrangements, possibly within the next few days.
There are several possibilities on the table, but numerous questions over their feasibility must be hammered out. A Mountain West president’s meeting is scheduled for Thursday.

According to three sources involved in the discussions, the most imminent possibility is for the two schools to remain “Pac-12” members, but form a football scheduling alliance with the Mountain West. The Beavers and Cougars would not be eligible for the championship of that conference but would play the majority of their games against each other and various MWC schools for either one or two years. While the schools would operate under the Pac-12 “umbrella,” they would not attempt to stage a conference championship for themselves."

"A source involved in the discussions said “dialogue has increased” recently between the “Pac-2” and the Mountain West. The NCAA allows a two-year grace period for FBS conferences to get back to the eight-school requirement.

"Under the model being discussed, the schools’ other sports teams would compete as “affiliate members” in the MWC and other Division I conferences like the Big West or WCC. In those sports, they could play a full conference schedule and be eligible for those leagues’ championships as well as automatic berths to NCAA tournaments."

"Oregon State and Washington State would be “keeping the Pac-12 open” as an entity, to preserve the league’s IP and, most importantly, its assets. In addition to media rights and other revenue from its last year as a 12-school league, the two expect to receive future revenue streams like the league’s already-earned NCAA tournament units (an estimated $60 million), the remaining two years of their Rose Bowl contract (around $80 million) and two more years of CFP distributions (each Power 5 league received $79 million last year, though it’s not yet determined whether a two-team Pac-12 would receive the same amount)"

"The MWC does not have a Grant of Rights and believes its exit fee bylaw extends in perpetuity, according to a league source. That means it would cost at least $17 million for a member to leave with more than one year’s notice or at least $35 million if leaving with less than one year’s notice, no matter the status of the TV deal, which runs through 2025-26.

"The possibility of Oregon State and Washington State using their Pac-12 money to pay those exit fees has been discussed informally, but it’s not clear how desirable that option is, nor exactly when the schools would have full control over that money. The Pac-2 schools have said they plan to keep their budgets at a Power 5 level, and they’d need a good chunk of that money to do that."

"It’s also not clear if any MWC schools want to rebuild the Pac-12. Some members have been frustrated by a lack of proactiveness within the MWC, such as letting the American Athletic Conference scoop up several Texas schools in 2021. But joining the Pac-2 would come with all kinds of unknowns. Other than leftover money and a severely diminished brand, it’s not obvious what advantages there would be, especially with the College Football Playoff close to moving to a 5+7 12-team model next year. (Of note: WSU president Kirk Schulz must approve that change in order for it to happen, as the Pac-12 CFP representative. He’s indicated a willingness to negotiate)"

"The Pac-2 also don’t have a media rights deal for next year, and the conference is named in several lawsuits and an ongoing case with the National Labor Relations Board. What would make the league appealing enough for MWC schools to pay an exit fee or try to dissolve the MWC to leave a few stragglers behind?"

https://theathletic.com/5068234/2023/11/16/oregon-state-washington-state-conference-future/
 
e_blazer said:
I don’t know what a “fair” split is, but I’m not sure it’s a good look for the schools moving to other conferences for bigger pay days to be insisting on a “fair” split. There’s no doubt that OSU and WSU have been economically screwed by the actions of the departing universities.
Click to expand...

how many years is it that Oregon, and some other PAC schools have a tangible obligation to subsidize OSU/WSU? They have been doing it for decades already

I linked an article above that had this info:

"Oregon State and Washington State would be “keeping the Pac-12 open” as an entity, to preserve the league’s IP and, most importantly, its assets. In addition to media rights and other revenue from its last year as a 12-school league, the two expect to receive future revenue streams like the league’s already-earned NCAA tournament units (an estimated $60 million), the remaining two years of their Rose Bowl contract (around $80 million) and two more years of CFP distributions (each Power 5 league received $79 million last year, though it’s not yet determined whether a two-team Pac-12 would receive the same amount)"

if the Pac-2 actually gets all that money...and it's important here to note that the Pac-10 teams have already conceded in legal filings that money goes to the Pac-2, just how much have they really hurt those two schools? That would mean OSU/WSU split 220M over the next 2 years. 110M each. That's a lot of cheddar. And that does not include any money over and above what they are owed for the current athletic year.

college sports is a business. It has always been so, but it's true now more than ever. Meaning that conferences exist because of business; and those businesses are based upon the GOR's they sign. That's the glue holding conferences together a lot more than history. The Pac-12's GOR expires this year and the Pac-12 failed because it couldn't secure another effective GOR. It was a business failure. The other 10 Pac-12 teams went out to the open market and secured their table at other business ventures. They were able to land in GOR's that paid them the equivalent of what they have been making in the Pac-12 Gor. Except for Stanford and Cal of course, who went out and got completely bent over by the ACC

OSU and WSU tried the same thing. They went out and discovered that the market didn't value them like it valued other Pac-12 teams. I really don't see how Oregon, for instance, had any obligation to carry any OSU water when the market had already said not interested
 
Last edited:
wizenheimer said:
how many years is it that Oregon, and some other PAC schools have a tangible obligation to subsidize OSU/WSU? They have been doing it for decades already

I linked an article above that had this info:

"Oregon State and Washington State would be “keeping the Pac-12 open” as an entity, to preserve the league’s IP and, most importantly, its assets. In addition to media rights and other revenue from its last year as a 12-school league, the two expect to receive future revenue streams like the league’s already-earned NCAA tournament units (an estimated $60 million), the remaining two years of their Rose Bowl contract (around $80 million) and two more years of CFP distributions (each Power 5 league received $79 million last year, though it’s not yet determined whether a two-team Pac-12 would receive the same amount)"

if the Pac-2 actually gets all that money...and it's important here to note that the Pac-10 teams have already conceded in legal filings that money goes to the Pac-2, just how much have they really hurt those two schools? That would mean OSU/WSU split 220M over the next 2 years. 110M each. That's a lot of cheddar. And that does not include any money over and above what they are owed for the current athletic year.

college sports is a business. It has always been so, but it's true now more than ever. Meaning that conferences exist because of business; and those businesses are based upon the GOR's they sign. That's the glue holing conferences together a lot more than history. The Pac-12's GOR expires this year and the Pac-12 failed because it couldn't secure another effective GOR. It was a business failure. The other 10 Pac-12 teams went out to the open market and secured their table at other business ventures. They were able to land in GOR's that paid them the equivalent of what they have been making in the Pac-12 Gor. Except for Stanford and Cal of course, who went out and got completely bent over by the ACC

OSU and WSU tried the same thing. They went out and discovered that the market didn't value them like it valued other Pac-12 teams. I really don't see how Oregon, for instance, had any obligation to carry any OSU water when the market had already said not interested
Click to expand...
It would be like if you worked at a job for a year and instead of paying you when you leave, they expect you to donate your pay to the remaining people who are staying at the job.

The other schools helped earn these funds. They did it under the agreement that they would be entitled to a portion at the end of the year. I can understand OSU and WSU keeping the Pac assets after the other school is gone, but I don’t understand them keeping the funds that are meant to be divided by the schools.
 
wizenheimer said:
how many years is it that Oregon, and some other PAC schools have a tangible obligation to subsidize OSU/WSU? They have been doing it for decades already

I linked an article above that had this info:

"Oregon State and Washington State would be “keeping the Pac-12 open” as an entity, to preserve the league’s IP and, most importantly, its assets. In addition to media rights and other revenue from its last year as a 12-school league, the two expect to receive future revenue streams like the league’s already-earned NCAA tournament units (an estimated $60 million), the remaining two years of their Rose Bowl contract (around $80 million) and two more years of CFP distributions (each Power 5 league received $79 million last year, though it’s not yet determined whether a two-team Pac-12 would receive the same amount)"

if the Pac-2 actually gets all that money...and it's important here to note that the Pac-10 teams have already conceded in legal filings that money goes to the Pac-2, just how much have they really hurt those two schools? That would mean OSU/WSU split 220M over the next 2 years. 110M each. That's a lot of cheddar. And that does not include any money over and above what they are owed for the current athletic year.

college sports is a business. It has always been so, but it's true now more than ever. Meaning that conferences exist because of business; and those businesses are based upon the GOR's they sign. That's the glue holing conferences together a lot more than history. The Pac-12's GOR expires this year and the Pac-12 failed because it couldn't secure another effective GOR. It was a business failure. The other 10 Pac-12 teams went out to the open market and secured their table at other business ventures. They were able to land in GOR's that paid them the equivalent of what they have been making in the Pac-12 Gor. Except for Stanford and Cal of course, who went out and got completely bent over by the ACC

OSU and WSU tried the same thing. They went out and discovered that the market didn't value them like it valued other Pac-12 teams. I really don't see how Oregon, for instance, had any obligation to carry any OSU water when the market had already said not interested
Click to expand...

Man, does the Dog pay you by the word?
 
wizenheimer said:
is that all you got? dismiss what I'm saying because of word count?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I was simply going for a chuckle because the laughs are basically my main reason for posting here. I’m a Duck fan and I don’t have too much problem with many of your points. That said, I do have concerns.

As is often the case, having the upper hand in an issue does not negate the fact that sometimes that demanding full compensation can have significant PR damage. Oregon and Oregon State are the two major state universities here. Leaving the PAC 12 in shambles is an unavoidable outcome of 5/6 of the conference bailing for greener pastures. It seems to me that being generous in helping OSU and WSU transit the changes as smoothly as possible is a good PR play.

You ask how long the Ducks and other PAC schools should be expected to subsidize OSU and WSU. You’re old enough to know that that question could well have been asked by California and Arizona schools about U of O back in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Absent Phil Knight’s largesse would that have changed anytime soon? It’s also in need of saying that the Beavers are doing damned well for themselves lately. Pulling the rug out from under them before they can realize the benefits of becoming a winning program makes this especially painful. The short term money you refer to is sure to lessen quickly once the PAC effectively folds. The recruiting is going to go shitter too. So, yeah, I hope the Beavers and Cougars end up with more than their fair share.

Sly! You’re going to have to up my check next month after this epistle.
 
e_blazer said:
You ask how long the Ducks and other PAC schools should be expected to subsidize OSU and WSU. You’re old enough to know that that question could well have been asked by California and Arizona schools about U of O back in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Absent Phil Knight’s largesse would that have changed anytime soon? It’s also in need of saying that the Beavers are doing damned well for themselves lately. Pulling the rug out from under them before they can realize the benefits of becoming a winning program makes this especially painful. The short term money you refer to is sure to lessen quickly once the PAC effectively folds. The recruiting is going to go shitter too. So, yeah, I hope the Beavers and Cougars end up with more than their fair share. .
Click to expand...

I don't believe TV revenue, bowl revenue sharing, etc. were a substantial part of the budgets back in the 80s.
 
e_blazer said:
Of course not. I was simply going for a chuckle because the laughs are basically my main reason for posting here. I’m a Duck fan and I don’t have too much problem with many of your points. That said, I do have concerns.

As is often the case, having the upper hand in an issue does not negate the fact that sometimes that demanding full compensation can have significant PR damage. Oregon and Oregon State are the two major state universities here. Leaving the PAC 12 in shambles is an unavoidable outcome of 5/6 of the conference bailing for greener pastures. It seems to me that being generous in helping OSU and WSU transit the changes as smoothly as possible is a good PR play.

You ask how long the Ducks and other PAC schools should be expected to subsidize OSU and WSU. You’re old enough to know that that question could well have been asked by California and Arizona schools about U of O back in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Absent Phil Knight’s largesse would that have changed anytime soon? It’s also in need of saying that the Beavers are doing damned well for themselves lately. Pulling the rug out from under them before they can realize the benefits of becoming a winning program makes this especially painful. The short term money you refer to is sure to lessen quickly once the PAC effectively folds. The recruiting is going to go shitter too. So, yeah, I hope the Beavers and Cougars end up with more than their fair share.

Sly! You’re going to have to up my check next month after this epistle.
Click to expand...

"It seems to me that being generous in helping OSU and WSU transit the changes as smoothly as possible is a good PR play."

the Pac-10 will be leaving the Pac-2 around 200-220M in revenue for the next 2 years. That's pretty generous. Now you can say that's directed by the bylaws and timing of contracts, and it is. But as of the filings in the lawsuit the Pac-10 is not challenging the Pac-2 for that money. They are conceding it. That might change though if this gets nasty

what the Pac-10 teams want is their share of the current year's money...as outlined by the rules and bylaws. The Pac-2 has made a big deal out of USC and UCLA being excluded from the board after the announced exit. In fact that's the heart of the judge's ruling. Two things about that: one is that the only business USC/UCLA were excluded from was the negotiations on the next media deal. The other thing was that USC and UCLA have not been shorted a single dollar from their 1/12th share of the revenue; and they announced during last season's athletic calendar. And there is plenty of reporting that the Pac-2 want to grab as much of this year's money as they can. If they didn't, this would have been settled already
 
Tince said:
I don't believe TV revenue, bowl revenue sharing, etc. were a substantial part of the budgets back in the 80s.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don’t know when that started. Probably when cable TV rights became a thing. USC and UCLA gorged themselves before sharing evened things up a bit.
 
wizenheimer said:
"It seems to me that being generous in helping OSU and WSU transit the changes as smoothly as possible is a good PR play."

the Pac-10 will be leaving the Pac-2 around 200-220M in revenue for the next 2 years. That's pretty generous. Now you can say that's directed by the bylaws and timing of contracts, and it is. But as of the filings in the lawsuit the Pac-10 is not challenging the Pac-2 for that money. They are conceding it. That might change though if this gets nasty

what the Pac-10 teams want is their share of the current year's money...as outlined by the rules and bylaws. The Pac-2 has made a big deal out of USC and UCLA being excluded from the board after the announced exit. In fact that's the heart of the judge's ruling. Two things about that: one is that the only business USC/UCLA were excluded from was the negotiations on the next media deal. The other thing was that USC and UCLA have not been shorted a single dollar from their 1/12th share of the revenue; and they announced during last season's athletic calendar. And there is plenty of reporting that the Pac-2 want to grab as much of this year's money as they can. If they didn't, this would have been settled already
Click to expand...

I’m sure that you are right that the PAC-2 are looking to grab as much as they can. This is going to be a nasty divorce. I don’t know what’s “fair”. I just know that the departing 10 are going to be in a lot better position to make money and compete than the two schools left behind. That needs to be factored into the settlement, IMHO.
 
It's been in the hands of the courts for a while now, so I expect all sides to be dissatisfied with any resolution. That's already happening.. The lawyers will get richer. About the only safe bet here.
 
ok...legal language can be vague and cryptic, but apparently, this was part of the legal documents presented to the Washington Supreme Court before they issued the TRO today:

upload_2023-11-16_21-50-25.jpeg


I don't have any of the other pages so context could be way off

but pretty clearly the Pac-10 is arguing they have the power to vote for dissolution and in that circumstance the Pac-12 board would be subordinate to the membership. At least according to California law and the Pac-12 is actually a California entity.

I suspect this is a negotiating ploy. A shot across the bow of the Pac-2. A nuclear option the Pac-10 probably doesn't want to take but are threatening to go that route if the Pac-2 don't negotiate a settlement.

I have no clue if the Pac-10 can get all this moved to California and away from Washington
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top