Pac 12... 11... 10... 9... 8... 7...6...5...4... POOF!

[SharpesTriumph]

I wonder what previously has happened to departing schools share of revenue and assets when they switch conferences? IE when Utah/Colorado came over to the Pac did they get any of the prior year share of big12 revenue? When Texas A&M went to the SEC?

We haven't seen a power 5 conference collapse in a year like this before - but we have seen many huge programs switch conferences so there is probably precedent for this situation. Unless the pac12 has very specific bylaws or rules to specify what happens.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Makes sense for OSU/WSU to push for most or nearly all of that money to pay off any required PAC liability or expenses, and afterwards stay with the members of the conference. Not saying they will ultimately get to keep it all, but theres a very logical argument that schools leaving forfeit their claim to those future PAC disbursements.

I am confused with all of this. What future disbursements are they talking about? After next August? That would make sense.
Before that time would not. And why would there be future disbursements....from who?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I am confused with all of this. What future disbursements are they talking about? After next August? That would make sense.
Before that time would not. And why would there be future disbursements....from who?

I don't understand it precisely, but Wiz posted earlier about how for example march madness is disbursed over 5 future years so for instance the 2024 march madness tournament would have 80 % of the proceeds undisbursed when the 10 teams leave and not be disbursed until 2028. Perhaps theres some much more from bowl games and other TV revenue. I assumed it was just a few million but Wiz was throwing around a 300 million figure.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I don't understand it precisely, but Wiz posted earlier about how for example march madness is disbursed over 5 future years so for instance the 2024 march madness tournament would have 80 % of the proceeds undisbursed when the 10 teams leave and not be disbursed until 2028. Perhaps theres some much more from bowl games and other TV revenue. I assumed it was just a few million but Wiz was throwing around a 300 million figure.

In that case, I don't think the Pac 2 will be able to keep it all. Will the Big 10 or Big 12 pay the new schools for income from the last 4 years? No way. It seems to me in this particular situation, what is owed from March Madness, is owed to the schools that were in the conference at that point in time. (After expenses)

 

[SharpesTriumph]

In that case, I don't think the Pac 2 will be able to keep it all. Will the Big 10 or Big 12 pay the new schools for income from the last 4 years? No way. It seems to me in this particular situation, what is owed from March Madness, is owed to the schools that were in the conference at that point in time. (After expenses)

Well what you and I think conceptually might not matter.

Thats why I wonder what happens with other schools that leave conferences? Surely theres many cases that have happened where they have pending future disbursements of revenue.

Also what is in the PAC agreements.

Certainly think OSU/WSU should push for all the money they can get. If there is a legel route that lets them keep more of that prior revenue then good for them. They are totally screwed out of future revenue at this point and have major unique budget shortfalls from other school leaving the conference abruptly.

 

[wizenheimer]

When USC/UCLA announced they would leave they lost their conference votes. So there is a precedent for OSU/WSU to push for the same with the now 10 schools that have announced they will leave..

I'm not sure how accurate that is, and it may pivot on what constitutes an official notice, but maybe

I'm pretty sure USC/UCLA did not challenge the exclusion. Colorado didn't either. If any had challenged, not sure what would have happened

I don't understand it precisely, but Wiz posted earlier about how for example march madness is disbursed over 5 future years so for instance the 2024 march madness tournament would have 80 % of the proceeds undisbursed when the 10 teams leave and not be disbursed until 2028. Perhaps theres some much more from bowl games and other TV revenue. I assumed it was just a few million but Wiz was throwing around a 300 million figure.

my math was quick and dirty. The NCAA disburses tournament money according to 'units', which are essentially earned by number of games played by conference teams . In 2021 it was 19 games and a unit earns around 2M; so the Pac earned 38M. In 2022 it was only 7 units, so about 14M. So, the PAC earned 52M in 2 years of a 6 year cycle that is pooled. I'm guessing that 2 year sample was probably much more than normal due to 2021. If you assume the other two 2-year samples were around 20M/year, on average, that would be 80M added to that 52M. So, around 100-150M in the Pac's MM pool moving ahead thru time.

for example, if the pool is floating forward at an average amount of 120M, then after next season's payout the pool would be around 100M after the 2024 season. If the courts find that only OSU/WSU are eligible for that, it could bump their revenue by 9-10M/year for 5 years. Say it was 90M. an extra 45M would mean a lot to OSU/WSU. But divided 12 ways, that's 7.5M for each school and I'm inclined to think if that's the only bone of contention, the 10 departing schools won't fight it

I've found conflicting information on how much Bowls pay to conferences. I overshot by a lot I'm thinking. The pool is probably closer to 25-30M than 100M. There is a lot of information here, but it's kind of confusing, at least it is to me:

https://www.rookieroad.com/football/how-much-do-colleges-make-from-football-bowl-games-7398370/

but Bowl payouts, as far as I know are disbursed in the current year. That's entirely different from March Madness which pays current and future based upon past

 

[THE HCP]

Hold on….so we are supposed to feel sorry for the poor Beavs and Cougs and now they’re just going to turn around and do the same thing to another conference?

 

[Pinwheel1]

but Bowl payouts, as far as I know are disbursed in the current year. That's entirely different from March Madness which pays current and future based upon past

Yeah, I think you are right here. It seems to me that I recall there not being much left over after expenses for most Bowl games anyway.

 

[wizenheimer]

couldn't edit my post above for some reason but I found this:



https://businessofcollegesports.com/college-football-playoff-payouts/

so it is a substantial amount of money

 

[noknobs]

Hold on….so we are supposed to feel sorry for the poor Beavs and Cougs and now they’re just going to turn around and do the same thing to another conference?

No, clearly they're the bad guys in all this.

 

[BBert]

MWC has Fresno, san Diego State and San Jose state. So I guess they have decent regional coverage for bay area and LA.

I've been thinking the PAC 2 should only admit schools with "State" in their title.

 

[BBert]

Hold on….so we are supposed to feel sorry for the poor Beavs and Cougs and now they’re just going to turn around and do the same thing to another conference?

The schools that bailed on the PAC weren't gasping their last breath when they bolted for bigger stacks of cheddar, the way the Cougs and the Beavs are. They are just trying to survive. Also, I think it would be good for the MWC teams to rebrand to the PAC.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I've been thinking the PAC 2 should only admit schools with "State" in their title.

GO STATE OF CONFUSION!

 

[THE HCP]

The schools that bailed on the PAC weren't gasping their last breath when they bolted for bigger stacks of cheddar, the way the Cougs and the Beavs are. They are just trying to survive. Also, I think it would be good for the MWC teams to rebrand to the PAC.

Had OSU/WSU had programs that were desirable, they would have been offered the chance to join the other 10 schools that left and would have gladly accepted. They can’t blame the lack of success of their athletic departments on other schools. Plain and simple they would have bolted too if invited.

 

[THE HCP]

I hope they get a bunch of schools from the west to join them, then have some years of success to build their brand.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Had OSU/WSU had programs that were desirable, they would have been offered the chance to join the other 10 schools that left and would have gladly accepted. They can’t blame the lack of success of their athletic departments on other schools. Plain and simple they would have bolted too if invited.

What a stupid take. So Colorado and Cal have "programs that were desirable"? What has Colorado won recently?

Just be grateful Phil Knight / Nike have built up U of O the last two decades - if this happened back then your Ducks would be in the same position as the Beavs and Cougs. Go back the prior 50 years and Ducks football has the same history of losing much more than winning - same as OSU/WSU.

This is all just a money grab for schools that are in bigger TV markets. Obviously Pulman and Corvallis don't have that. Nothing the Beavs had done would have changed that.

I'm not saying PAC or Presidents including OSU's have no fault here as they certainly do - but the Beavers winning or losing the last couple years is irrelevant.

 

[BIG Q]

Had OSU/WSU had programs that were desirable, they would have been offered the chance to join the other 10 schools that left and would have gladly accepted. They can’t blame the lack of success of their athletic departments on other schools. Plain and simple they would have bolted too if invited.

But OSU/WSU are just playing the loyalty card, right? They have been loyal to the Pac 12, erm, I mean themselves. Where have we recently heard that? As SharpesTriumph points out above, OSU/WSU are disinvited because of location. And He points out that the Eugene school is lucky to have Uncle Phil or they would be disinvited themselves.

 

[e_blazer]

I've been thinking the PAC 2 should only admit schools with "State" in their title.

Oregon State Penitentiary Welding School?

 

[superfly4201]

What a stupid take. So Colorado and Cal have "programs that were desirable"? What has Colorado won recently?

Just be grateful Phil Knight / Nike have built up U of O the last two decades - if this happened back then your Ducks would be in the same position as the Beavs and Cougs. Go back the prior 50 years and Ducks football has the same history of losing much more than winning - same as OSU/WSU.

This is all just a money grab for schools that are in bigger TV markets. Obviously Pulman and Corvallis don't have that. Nothing the Beavs had done would have changed that.

I'm not saying PAC or Presidents including OSU's have no fault here as they certainly do - but the Beavers winning or losing the last couple years is irrelevant.

Throw in AU and ASU if we’re just talking football programs. The 10 schools just need to run along, join these conferences and enjoy running their student athletes into the ground with travel, subpar learning and college campus experiences. Let OSU and WSU keep the Pac in place, benefit those student athletes that want to stay regional, have that regional bond and let their families see them compete. Should be a huge boost to both programs for recruiting.

 

[handiman]

What a stupid take. So Colorado and Cal have "programs that were desirable"? What has Colorado won recently?

Cal does well in the smaller sports, and Colorado has their share of Cross Country titles.

That doesn't do much to explain TV market appeal, though.

 

[Tince]

What a stupid take. So Colorado and Cal have "programs that were desirable"? What has Colorado won recently?

Just be grateful Phil Knight / Nike have built up U of O the last two decades - if this happened back then your Ducks would be in the same position as the Beavs and Cougs. Go back the prior 50 years and Ducks football has the same history of losing much more than winning - same as OSU/WSU.

This is all just a money grab for schools that are in bigger TV markets. Obviously Pulman and Corvallis don't have that. Nothing the Beavs had done would have changed that.

I'm not saying PAC or Presidents including OSU's have no fault here as they certainly do - but the Beavers winning or losing the last couple years is irrelevant.

The Colorado and California situations are different from each other.

Colorado jumped early and were regionally located in an area that made sense for them and the B12 to get back together.

California, while not dedicated to sports like the schools that left to the B1G, is in a massive market and partnered up with a travel partner. That travel partner has a huge link to Notre Dame, which the ACC appears to be trying to keep happy. OSU/WSU do not have a travel partner or a school in such high demand that could sway them to take them with.

Because of this, I think it's safe to say that yes, Colorado was more desirable to the B12 than WSU/OSU. And yes, California is more desirable to the ACC than WSU/OSU.

It's not just about the TV markets though, because if it were, Stanford/Cal (Bay Area) would've got a B1G invite over Oregon (Eugene).

 

[Tince]

Cal does well in the smaller sports, and Colorado has their share of Cross Country titles.

That doesn't do much to explain TV market appeal, though.

Also factor in recruiting foot-print and academics (which the Presidents care about)

 

[tlongII]

Throw in AU and ASU if we’re just talking football programs. The 10 schools just need to run along, join these conferences and enjoy running their student athletes into the ground with travel, subpar learning and college campus experiences. Let OSU and WSU keep the Pac in place, benefit those student athletes that want to stay regional, have that regional bond and let their families see them compete. Should be a huge boost to both programs for recruiting.

I agree with much of what you're saying except the last sentence. This is a disaster for recruiting.

 

[superfly4201]

I agree with much of what you're saying except the last sentence. This is a disaster for recruiting.

Disaster, no. Different for sure. There’s going to be a lot a pluses and minuses. Big fish in small pond will have good exposure. I see the Beavs making a haul on those Hawaiian recruits.

 

[tlongII]

Disaster, no. Different for sure. There’s going to be a lot a pluses and minuses. Big fish in small pond will have good exposure. I see the Beavs making a haul on those Hawaiian recruits.

It's a disaster. The best want to play against the best. There's a reason why Mountain West teams rarely beat Pac-12 teams.

 

[bigbailes]

Had OSU/WSU had programs that were desirable, they would have been offered the chance to join the other 10 schools that left and would have gladly accepted. They can’t blame the lack of success of their athletic departments on other schools. Plain and simple they would have bolted too if invited.

This is the most infuriating part of all this, it has NOTHING to do with success on the field and building a brand. I'm not naive to think that WSU has a brand on par with Nike U or USC but it's not some podunk school either. We've seen seven straight bowl games (yes I know bowls aren't what they used to be), made headlines constantly with Leach and get covered by the preeminent college football preview show more than most because of the flag waving efforts of Ol' Crimson and as of last year had a 5 year run as one of the most watched teams outside the B10/SEC. I'm sorry but over the past two decades or so, Arizona, Colorado and Cal have been markedly worse in football, while UCLA, ASU, OSU and WSU have all been about the same. This decision seems to be coming down to A. decisions made over 100 years ago about where to put these universities and B. having partner institutions in their state that were totally self serving. I get it, end of the day it's every man for themselves, but fans of these schools (especially UO) need to stop with this holier than thou thinking about OSU and WSU.

 

[bigbailes]

It's a disaster. The best want to play against the best. There's a reason why Mountain West teams rarely beat Pac-12 teams.

Interesting comment, MW has actually fared pretty well against the P12 the last few years in both football and basketball. Now obviously you'd expect that gap to widen with the amount of money difference that will coming into the other conferences vs. the MWC but the records haven't been as lopsided as one might expect.

 

[wizenheimer]

But OSU/WSU are just playing the loyalty card, right? They have been loyal to the Pac 12, erm, I mean themselves. Where have we recently heard that? As SharpesTriumph points out above, OSU/WSU are disinvited because of location. And He points out that the Eugene school is lucky to have Uncle Phil or they would be disinvited themselves.

yeah, I know...in an alternate universe OSU would have plenty of company in the wambulance

It was 1996 when Phil Knight, after talking to Mike Bellotti, decided to get involved. It was not till 1998 before any facilities improvements were completed (practice facility). In the decade that ended in 1998 the Ducks played in 7 bowl games; the Beevs played in none. Oregon had won a Pac-10 championship and had played in the Rose Bowl. Oregon's record in that decade was 70-49; the Beavers record was 26-83. It was not a case that both programs were dead even, Phil Knight waved a magic wand, and overnight, the Ducks eclipsed the Beavers. The Ducks had already significantly eclipsed the Beavers before Knight got involved.

That seems to get lost in all the whiny complaints about how it was ALL Phil Knight. Oregon simply hired better coaches, and coaches turn a program around. Oregon had Rich Brooks while the Beavs were going with Dave Kragthorpe and Jerry Pettibone. Then the Ducks hired Mike Bellotti and he was responsible for turning Oregon into a winning program while the Beavs were posting a winning percentage of .239. It was also Bellotti who decided that the Ducks needed to implement a spread offense so he hired Chip Kelly to accomplish that

yeah, Oregon is lucky to have Phil Knight. USC/UCLA are lucky to be dead center in a major recruiting hotbed like LA. Cal-Stanford in the Bay Area. Washington is lucky to have established themselves before there was an 85 scholarship limit (IIRC one season they had 137 players on scholarships) and to be in a big market like Seattle. ASU is lucky to be in Phoenix. Colorado is lucky to be in a suburb of Denver. Alabama, Georgia, Texas, LSU....they are all lucky to be in regions that produces so many recruits and treat football like a religion.

There's circumstantial luck, and there's luck you make for yourself. Oregon has made a lot of their own luck. For instance: branding. I distinctly remember a whole bunch of Beaver fans ridiculing the Ducks many uniform combos. And the promotion of Joey Harrington for the Heisman. But those things, along with the wins, helped create Oregon's brand. And that's what got them into the Big-10. It sure the fuck wasn't the Eugene TV market. Oregon understood how to build a national program years before OSU got a clue, and a lot of it began before Uncle Phil showed up.

 

[bigbailes]

yeah, I know...in an alternate universe OSU would have plenty of company in the wambulance

It was 1996 when Phil Knight, after talking to Mike Bellotti, decided to get involved. It was not till 1998 before any facilities improvements were completed (practice facility). In the decade that ended in 1998 the Ducks played in 7 bowl games; the Beevs played in none. Oregon had won a Pac-10 championship and had played in the Rose Bowl. Oregon's record in that decade was 70-49; the Beavers record was 26-83. It was not a case that both programs were dead even, Phil Knight waved a magic wand, and overnight, the Ducks eclipsed the Beavers. The Ducks had already significantly eclipsed the Beavers before Knight got involved.

That seems to get lost in all the whiny complaints about how it was ALL Phil Knight. Oregon simply hired better coaches, and coaches turn a program around. Oregon had Rich Brooks while the Beavs were going with Dave Kragthorpe and Jerry Pettibone. Then the Ducks hired Mike Bellotti and he was responsible for turning Oregon into a winning program while the Beavs were posting a winning percentage of .239. It was also Bellotti who decided that the Ducks needed to implement a spread offense so he hired Chip Kelly to accomplish that

yeah, Oregon is lucky to have Phil Knight. USC/UCLA are lucky to be dead center in a major recruiting hotbed like LA. Cal-Stanford in the Bay Area. Washington is lucky to have established themselves before there was an 85 scholarship limit (IIRC one season they had 137 players on scholarships) and to be in a big market like Seattle. ASU is lucky to be in Phoenix. Colorado is lucky to be in a suburb of Denver. Alabama, Georgia, Texas, LSU....they are all lucky to be in regions that produces so many recruits and treat football like a religion.

There's circumstantial luck, and there's luck you make for yourself. Oregon has made a lot of their own luck. For instance: branding. I distinctly remember a whole bunch of Beaver fans ridiculing the Ducks many uniform combos. And the promotion of Joey Harrington for the Heisman. But those things, along with the wins, helped create Oregon's brand. And that's what got them into the Big-10. It sure the fuck wasn't the Eugene TV market. Oregon understood how to build a national program years before OSU got a clue, and a lot of it began before Uncle Phil showed up.

This is a lot of word salad to basically say, Knight and Nike were your lifeline! Yea you guys were a decent program, but Phil took you to levels most ducks never dreamed of. As for the 'branding' I mean I'm sure it didn't help at all that the guy created and runs a company that MAYBE next to Apple has been the best at marketing their products over the last 30+ years, I'm sure that had nothing to do with the ducks branding. Don't get me wrong, I'd kill to have someone like that at WSU and we always hoped PA would step up but he never cared about WSU athletics one bit. If OSU/WSU fans have to 'accept their fate' then duck fans really need to get over this thought that they'd be any different if it wasn't for Uncle Phil.

 

[noknobs]

Had OSU/WSU had programs that were desirable, they would have been offered the chance to join the other 10 schools that left and would have gladly accepted. They can’t blame the lack of success of their athletic departments on other schools. Plain and simple they would have bolted too if invited.

Oregon State is one of only a few schools in the country to go to the elite 8, college world series and have a ten win season in football in the last five years. But don't let that stop you from talking out of your ass.