Washington Supreme Court denies review of Pac-12

[ralphiewvu]

I think they should go to a 2+10 model.

Disagree, HIGHLY

 

[ralphiewvu]

The problem is that the next 2 years are under the old contract, exclusive to ESPN, and all material changes have to be unanimous. They were able to require that a conference had to have at least 8 teams because no one was going to let a 2-team P5 conference get in AQ. They will likely get to 5+7 only because the G5 schools don't want to alienate the P5 schools.

But the new contract in 2026, which will have multiple media participants, will be heavily influenced by the SEC and B1G, as you point out. They have already hinted at the 5+7 They won't go 4+8 for anti-trust reasons. You need to give at least one G5 a guaranteed shot. It also adds a potential Cinderella aspect to it all. And no one is going to care about the 12th P5 team that gets left out. They will have lost at least 2 games, maybe 3.

Would anti trust law be the reason they wouldn’t go at large only? I still think 4+8 will be the number, especially if the P2 start picking up some ACC schools in a few years.

 

[Wizardhawk]

You know it's going to 12, not 16 - yet. It's a discussion for another day, but they will go to 16 when they get rid of the conference championship games, but not until then.

But relying on a bunch of sports writers is no better than a committee. If you want to get rid of the committee, which I am fine with, then do the BCS rankings that include a variety of polls.

I like the auto-qualifications for conference champs, but going to 16 might alleviate the need for that.

If I were king of CFB today, without a ton of thought, wanting to simplify it and get rid of controversy:

1. No conference championship games - the formula can decide who is the best of 3 one-loss teams in the conferences that didn't play each other.

2. BCS Rankings - P4 champs are in, top G5 is in. The rest go in order of the BCS rankings.

3. Sweet 16 - on campus, 1st weekend of December

4. Elite 8 - on campus, 2nd weekend of December

5. Final 4 - NY Bowl Games on New Years Day

6, Finals - Monday a week later.

Of course I knew it was going to 12. I said might as well do 16 and not do any of that first round bye bullshit.

If you are so f'n good that you deserve the title, PLAY in every round and PROVE IT.

Everyone talking about 4+ or 5+ this or that and knowing we aren't even close to the final version of conference realignment as it is. Just seed by the AP and be done with it.

Again, for the record I've never been in favor of big bloated playoffs. Just seems stupid to have all these weird rules to appease various groups.

If you had to take the top AP ranked G5 that is lower than 16 to keep the peace, then so be it. But even then I'd say if you can't reach 16 why on earth do you belong in a big bloated playoff anyway.

 

[Wizardhawk]

Wilner's take on the conf court battles and what is coming next.

Pac-12 legal saga: What’s next for the ‘Pac-2’ and the ‘Pac-10’ after Washington’s high court sides with WSU and OSU

<p>According to the only authority that truly matters, the Pac-12 is now the Pac-2. Washington State and Oregon State were given control of the conference’s governing board Friday through a momentous display…</p>

sports360az.com

Following the high court’s ruling Friday, fans of the departing schools wondered if WSU and OSU would use sole control of the board to hoard the Pac-12’s expected $420 million in revenue for the 2023-24 competition year.

The schools smartly have not divulged their plans, but the Hotline would be surprised if they acted in authoritarian fashion.

One reason: They have been warned against that tactic.

Upon granting his preliminary injunction last month, Whitman County (Wash.) Superior Court Judge Gary Libey was clear in his expectation that WSU and OSU act in a reasonable manner.

“This is not a shutout,” he said at the time. “The (preliminary injunction) is going to be modified to make sure the other 10 are still treated in a fair manner … Nobody’s going to take advantage of somebody else.”

The notion that WSU and OSU would divide $420 million by two never squared with their strategic intentions or the legal reality.

The outbound 10 would seek a temporary restraining order immediately, and the very last thing WSU and OSU want is a return to court.

Yes, everyone agrees there is no scenario where the last 2 get left holding the bag, but the idea they could hold more than what they were entitled to is ludicrous. Wilner was interviewed on it today and according to what he has heard close to the process, the teams are likely looking at something closer to $30m each (including WSU and OSU themselves) than the $36m or so coming in with the remainder to cover liabilities such as the outgoing commish $9m they owe that jackass, the NCAA case, etc. The remainder also including whatever was in the coffers already.

He also said he would be shocked if those values were not settled within the next week at the longest.

Given that the Pac 2 has already been warned by the courts not to try to take more than their share it would do nothing but cost them a lot more money being dragged back into court again to even try it.

Split up the revenues and move on.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Of course I knew it was going to 12. I said might as well do 16 and not do any of that first round bye bullshit.

If you are so f'n good that you deserve the title, PLAY in every round and PROVE IT.

Everyone talking about 4+ or 5+ this or that and knowing we aren't even close to the final version of conference realignment as it is. Just seed by the AP and be done with it.

Again, for the record I've never been in favor of big bloated playoffs. Just seems stupid to have all these weird rules to appease various groups.

If you had to take the top AP ranked G5 that is lower than 16 to keep the peace, then so be it. But even then I'd say if you can't reach 16 why on earth do you belong in a big bloated playoff anyway.

First, there is a reason for everything they did. You might not agree with all the reasons, but it's not like they just made it up. We can dislike a lot about those in charge, but they are pretty bright people.

1. AQs are a must for two connected reasons - you have to let the G5 have a team in for (1) general peace, and (2) to avoid anti-trust issues.

2. There are 12 teams on purpose ... you have to have an odd number to have byes. You have to have byes so long as you have conference championships. You can't penalize the conference champion and make them play and win an extra game and then turn around the next week and play a team that didn't have to play in a conference championship. You would basically be penalizing your conference champs and that make zero sense. It's the only reason that I would go with 16 ... you could probably generate enough money in the extra games to replace the conference championship revenue.

3. 6 would never work as there would be no at-large teams.

4. AQs were required so as to give every conference a path to the CFP - we don't have to look past FSU not getting in this year to see that would be a good idea. Also, with 132 teams and 4 P5 conferences you can't play enough cross-conference games to really decide whether a team played a good enough schedule to deserve to be in. This way, each team has a path to the CFP guaranteed.

5. 8 wouldn't work for the byte reason above, but also because ND would often take one spot, and the P2 weren't going to give up having multiple teams getting in when they have the most best teams.

6. 16 is too many teams unless you get rid of the conference championships.

7. The power of the bowls is in there somewhere, but with the Rose Bowl fatally wounded, that isn't really an issue any more.

Finally, your insistence on the AP instead of the committee doesn't make sense to me. You want a bunch of sports writers with regional and other biases instead of a committee. They are both bad. That's where the BCS formula comes in. No one group has the power to do what they did to FSU.

IMO, realignment is dead until the mid-30s when the ACC GOR us up.

As for big bloated playoffs, they are fun and they make a lot of money. No pro sports franchise has shrunk its playoffs in my lifetime. Generally speaking, people like more games not less.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Would anti trust law be the reason they wouldn’t go at large only? I still think 4+8 will be the number, especially if the P2 start picking up some ACC schools in a few years.

Yeah, for now. So long as a G5 and P4 exist, you will have to do that.

 

[Wizardhawk]

First, there is a reason for everything they did. You might not agree with all the reasons, but it's not like they just made it up. We can dislike a lot about those in charge, but they are pretty bright people.

1. AQs are a must for two connected reasons - you have to let the G5 have a team in for (1) general peace, and (2) to avoid anti-trust issues.

2. There are 12 teams on purpose ... you have to have an odd number to have byes. You have to have byes so long as you have conference championships. You can't penalize the conference champion and make them play and win an extra game and then turn around the next week and play a team that didn't have to play in a conference championship. You would basically be penalizing your conference champs and that make zero sense. It's the only reason that I would go with 16 ... you could probably generate enough money in the extra games to replace the conference championship revenue.

3. 6 would never work as there would be no at-large teams.

4. AQs were required so as to give every conference a path to the CFP - we don't have to look past FSU not getting in this year to see that would be a good idea. Also, with 132 teams and 4 P5 conferences you can't play enough cross-conference games to really decide whether a team played a good enough schedule to deserve to be in. This way, each team has a path to the CFP guaranteed.

5. 8 wouldn't work for the byte reason above, but also because ND would often take one spot, and the P2 weren't going to give up having multiple teams getting in when they have the most best teams.

6. 16 is too many teams unless you get rid of the conference championships.

7. The power of the bowls is in there somewhere, but with the Rose Bowl fatally wounded, that isn't really an issue any more.

Finally, your insistence on the AP instead of the committee doesn't make sense to me. You want a bunch of sports writers with regional and other biases instead of a committee. They are both bad. That's where the BCS formula comes in. No one group has the power to do what they did to FSU.

IMO, realignment is dead until the mid-30s when the ACC GOR us up.

As for big bloated playoffs, they are fun and they make a lot of money. No pro sports franchise has shrunk its playoffs in my lifetime. Generally speaking, people like more games not less.

You do enjoy reading your own words and repeating yourself don't you.

16 is what you get if you remove byes. Add 4 to 12 and 4 don't sit home, they play in the first round. Doesn't add more weeks, just doesn't let 4 teams sit on their asses gaining one added week of rest/recovery/practice than everyone else in the tournament. It's not needed and not warranted IMO. Isn't compatible with the CCG's? Do away with them then. You are getting 8 first round games that are even better than the matchups of what have become far too often terrible CCG's anyway. With the removal of divisions some have made it more likely to have better games, while others end up with Iowa ffs.

We don't need 'AQs' was my point. They aren't required and insisting they are is pure nonsense. Again, everyone understands why they made it this way. That doesn't mean we aren't entitled to not agree with it. Just because they formed it, doesn't mean it was right. Afterall, we are now heading into the 3rd iteration of postseason play with heavy criticisms of the first 2. It's not perfect just because this is what they have settled on this time.

My 'insistence' in using the AP has nothing to do with whatever you want to attribute it to. I'm saying it just makes is easier. There is a body in place already that gives enough ranking to make a seeding that is good enough. So what if the writers fuck up on 15, 16, 17, or 18th place? Remove the bloat. We are talking about mostly teams with 3 losses by that point anyway.

You can claim what you want about your opinion on big bloated playoffs and you are entitled to it. Others are free to see things differently so why bother with arguing over it? I don't care if everyone else likes something. It doesn't move a needle for me.

And you can think all you want that the conferences are somehow now locked in for a decade or more, but I see no chance that holds true. It's not a sustainable model and is far from over. We are likely headed toward a massive single semi-pro NFL minor league subdivision of the FBS leaving the G5's and poorer teams behind. The idea that the networks wouldn't drop existing contracts in a heartbeat to form a new deal with more lucrative alliances than watching Stanford and Cal fly to the east coast for meaningless football games is just laughable to me. If both sides are onboard with a radical change that benefits both there is zero chance change wouldn't happen.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

You do enjoy reading your own words and repeating yourself don't you.

16 is what you get if you remove byes. Add 4 to 12 and 4 don't sit home, they play in the first round. Doesn't add more weeks, just doesn't let 4 teams sit on their asses gaining one added week of rest/recovery/practice than everyone else in the tournament. It's not needed and not warranted IMO. Isn't compatible with the CCG's? Do away with them then. You are getting 8 first round games that are even better than the matchups of what have become far too often terrible CCG's anyway. With the removal of divisions some have made it more likely to have better games, while others end up with Iowa ffs.

We don't need 'AQs' was my point. They aren't required and insisting they are is pure nonsense. Again, everyone understands why they made it this way. That doesn't mean we aren't entitled to not agree with it. Just because they formed it, doesn't mean it was right. Afterall, we are now heading into the 3rd iteration of postseason play with heavy criticisms of the first 2. It's not perfect just because this is what they have settled on this time.

My 'insistence' in using the AP has nothing to do with whatever you want to attribute it to. I'm saying it just makes is easier. There is a body in place already that gives enough ranking to make a seeding that is good enough. So what if the writers fuck up on 15, 16, 17, or 18th place? Remove the bloat. We are talking about mostly teams with 3 losses by that point anyway.

You can claim what you want about your opinion on big bloated playoffs and you are entitled to it. Others are free to see things differently so why bother with arguing over it? I don't care if everyone else likes something. It doesn't move a needle for me.

And you can think all you want that the conferences are somehow now locked in for a decade or more, but I see no chance that holds true. It's not a sustainable model and is far from over. We are likely headed toward a massive single semi-pro NFL minor league subdivision of the FBS leaving the G5's and poorer teams behind. The idea that the networks wouldn't drop existing contracts in a heartbeat to form a new deal with more lucrative alliances than watching Stanford and Cal fly to the east coast for meaningless football games is just laughable to me. If both sides are onboard with a radical change that benefits both there is zero chance change wouldn't happen.

WTH, man ... I don't understand why you are all fired up. I simply laid out my thoughts. Not even going to read or respond. Damn, dude, just spitballing here and you get your panties in a twist.

 

[Wizardhawk]

lol, I mean you have attacked me without provocation and I've seen a lot of spit and fire from you toward that duck fan and others.

Thinking that is all in a twist on a site that has half a dozen posters that routinely go postal is kind of funny though.

All good either way.

Good luck against FSU. I'll be a dawg fan that day.

 

[ELTEXAN]

. We are likely headed toward a massive single semi-pro NFL minor league subdivision of the FBS leaving the G5's and poorer teams behind. The idea that the networks wouldn't drop existing contracts in a heartbeat to form a new deal with more lucrative alliances than watching Stanford and Cal fly to the east coast for meaningless football games is just laughable to me. If both sides are onboard with a radical change that benefits both there is zero chance change wouldn't happen.

allow myself to quote myself…

“CFBU”

1. Kill the ncaa. Start a new league, “COLLEGE FOOTBALL UNION.” 2. CFBU organizing 64 member schools into four 16-team divisions. 3. Each division plays a nine-game division schedule. 4. The division schedule is set up into a four-team-pods OR three-permanent-rivals scheme. 5. The two teams in...

hooplanation.com

tweak as you wish.

 

[Wizardhawk]

allow myself to quote myself…

“CFBU”

1. Kill the ncaa. Start a new league, “COLLEGE FOOTBALL UNION.” 2. CFBU organizing 64 member schools into four 16-team divisions. 3. Each division plays a nine-game division schedule. 4. The division schedule is set up into a four-team-pods OR three-permanent-rivals scheme. 5. The two teams in...

hooplanation.com

tweak as you wish.

Sure, some of us have been saying for a long time that we are headed in that direction.

My point was there is no chance we have seen the last of realignment until the 2030's as was suggested.

There are contracts that extend that long, but both sides would have interest in blowing them up with a league reconstruction effort.

Football conferences need to be removed from other sports. Period.

Basketball and the non revenue generating sports need to be in more traditional regional conferences. Football needs to reform away from that model.

 

[Deep Creek]

Football conferences need to be removed from other sports. Period.

Basketball and the non revenue generating sports need to be in more traditional regional conferences. Football needs to reform away from that model.

Ole Chipper said something the other day that supports this. Something along the lines of why should a softball rivalry lime UCLA and Arizona be a casualty just because UCLA plays football in a conference in the midwest.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Ole Chipper said something the other day that supports this. Something along the lines of why should a softball rivalry lime UCLA and Arizona be a casualty just because UCLA plays football in a conference in the midwest.

Yeah, but I have heard several prominent sports journalists say that it isn't going to happen. Primarily because the SEC and B1G have zero incentive to give up their positions. Unless someone can show how pulling 64 teams together somehow makes CFB better - the numbers have never been better - there is no reason to do it.

I catch a lot of shit about my SEC homerism - ZFG. What makes college sports great is the regionalism, the conference differences, the culture, and the passion you get that is missing from many pro sports. I don't see a lot of fans being interested in rooting for the Nike Division in the SE, which is what Chip Kelley was suggesting. We like the SEC because of tradition and have no desire to give that up. While B1G fans tend to be less conference fans, I don't think they would want to get rid of the B1G culture.

Even the idea of super-conferences is nonsense in my opinion. Getting bigger doesn't mean getting better. The B1G is about to find out when their women's field hockey teams and the like have to travel all over the country. And the more teams you add, the more losses the mid to lower teams get. They have no interest in that.

If there was going to be any division of sports, it would be where CFB has different rules, and the other sports play more regionally. That was the one thing Chip Kelley discussed that made sense. I've seen this discussed a lot.

 

[Wizardhawk]

Dropping Rutgers and the other smaller revenue generating schools from the model does add benefits to the power schools already doing well. Bigger piece of the pie they are creating. Stop subsidizing schools that aren't contributing.

This is what has the potential to make a split off come to be.

And as said, I'm not advocating for it, just saying you can see the handwriting on the wall if you look closely enough.

There are obstacles, but old rivalry and current money aren't really it. There are issues with public institutions and state laws as well as the bowl games. The latter of which is becoming less of a factor now that the rose finally got snacked down.

They aren't problems that can't be resolved.

Just feels like we are headed that way. Like it or not. The money possibility is just too great to ignore.

 

[Deep Creek]

If there was going to be any division of sports, it would be where CFB has different rules, and the other sports play more regionally. That was the one thing Chip Kelley discussed that made sense. I've seen this discussed a lot.

Think that will happen? Makes sense but I don't think the genie will go back in the bottle.

 

[Deep Creek]

Dropping Rutgers and the other smaller revenue generating schools from the model does add benefits to the power schools already doing well. Bigger piece of the pie they are creating. Stop subsidizing schools that aren't contributing.

This is what has the potential to make a split off come to be.

And as said, I'm not advocating for it, just saying you can see the handwriting on the wall if you look closely enough.

There are obstacles, but old rivalry and current money aren't really it. There are issues with public institutions and state laws as well as the bowl games. The latter of which is becoming less of a factor now that the rose finally got snacked down.

They aren't problems that can't be resolved.

Just feels like we are headed that way. Like it or not. The money possibility is just too great to ignore.

It seems many schools that generate the revenue don't mind subsidizing the others...at least for a while.

Texas and OU got tired of subsidizing the hateful eight...at least in relation to the revenue they will get in the SEC. Now they'll get a lot more money and subsidize fewer.

 

[PeoplesChicken]

LOL@PAC-12

 

[Wizardhawk]

It seems many schools that generate the revenue don't mind subsidizing the others...at least for a while.

Texas and OU got tired of subsidizing the hateful eight...at least in relation to the revenue they will get in the SEC. Now they'll get a lot more money and subsidize fewer.

What matters more than carrying them financially is whether or not they can still schedule them annually.

They will want to hoard all the TV revenue and still soften their schedules with them as well as the true mid majors.

 

[ELTEXAN]

Yeah, but I have heard several prominent sports journalists say that it isn't going to happen. Primarily because the SEC and B1G have zero incentive to give up their positions. Unless someone can show how pulling 64 teams together somehow makes CFB better - the numbers have never been better - there is no reason to do it.

I catch a lot of shit about my SEC homerism - ZFG. What makes college sports great is the regionalism, the conference differences, the culture, and the passion you get that is missing from many pro sports. I don't see a lot of fans being interested in rooting for the Nike Division in the SE, which is what Chip Kelley was suggesting. We like the SEC because of tradition and have no desire to give that up. While B1G fans tend to be less conference fans, I don't think they would want to get rid of the B1G culture.

Even the idea of super-conferences is nonsense in my opinion. Getting bigger doesn't mean getting better. The B1G is about to find out when their women's field hockey teams and the like have to travel all over the country. And the more teams you add, the more losses the mid to lower teams get. They have no interest in that.

If there was going to be any division of sports, it would be where CFB has different rules, and the other sports play more regionally. That was the one thing Chip Kelley discussed that made sense. I've seen this discussed a lot.

Getting bigger and being more autonomous outside the ncaa means being able to lay down your sick and extract max money from media.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Think that will happen? Makes sense but I don't think the genie will go back in the bottle.

It's the thing that makes the most sense. They would have to figure out the $$$. And, as you point out, they should have done it before the PAC collapsed. So, no, in the end, probably not. But 6-7 years from now when the womens bowling teams are tired of traveling, who knows.