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.
I don't believe TV revenue, bowl revenue sharing, etc. were a substantial part of the budgets back in the 80s.
"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
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.
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.
BlazersMike is a big Beaver fan. That he believes that the UofO/UofW had the leverage to force the Big-10 to accept OSU/WSU is fucking insane
Oregon didn't have leverage on their own, let alone trying to drag along one of the least desirable programs in the conference.
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: 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
