- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
Washington Supreme Court denies review of Pac-12
- Thread starter Fog
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2021
- Posts
- 5,839
- Reaction score
- 5,863
- Bookie:
- $ 17,000.00
- Location
- Bothell Washington
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
As I said... First things first and WSU/OSU need to give the remaining 7 departing members the boot from the board. Nothing gets done before July 1, 2024 until that's done.
At that point the two can pay the PAC's liabilities, determine how much is left over, and go from there.
At that point the two can pay the PAC's liabilities, determine how much is left over, and go from there.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2021
- Posts
- 5,839
- Reaction score
- 5,863
- Bookie:
- $ 17,000.00
- Location
- Bothell Washington
I don't doubt it....
The NCAA will align itself with the idea that all teams will have a chance to be ranked #1 at the end of the season....
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,436
- Reaction score
- 6,877
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
It's a little complicated. The P5 and G5 designation actually means something. Primarily, the P5 are considered "autonomous" and are allowed to make certain decisions the G5 schools can't. This was done because the interests between the P5 and G5 were so different, it didn't make sense that the G5 could stop the P5 from doing certain things, primarily spending more money. At some point they didn't have a choice - they get a lot of money from the CFP because the P5 allows it. That won't always be the case, so they did this to survive.
Whether they are still autonomous or not isn't all that relevant. What is important is that through the end of the current CFP contract, the PAC is considered a P5. That is where the 2-year language you posted comes from. But the CFP changed the rules a month ago, and for 2024 and 2025, the PAC champion - one of the two - can't get an auto-qualifier entry. Whether they will still go with 6 AQs or drop it to 5 is open for negotiations. The G5 commishes want 6, obviously, meaning that there would be 2 G5 teams in the 2024 and 2025 CFP. But they also know they can't piss off the P5 when they negotiate the new contract for 2026. The Rose Bowl did that and they are going to get screwed for it. The G5 wants the new contract to be 5 AQs, 7 at-large. If they piss off the P5 they might say we are going to 4+8, or maybe no AQs at all ... just the top 12 teams with the top 4 conference champs getting the byes. Either of those would fuck with the G6 teams. So they will gladly settle for a 5+7 format, and until the PAC gets to a certain number of teams, their champion can't be an AQ. OSU and WSU will be treated as Independents like ND.
Loading…
www.lawinsport.com
CFP Management Committee Requiring Conferences to Have Eight Members for Automatic Bids
The committee is also moving toward changing the 12-team format to five automatic bids following the Pac-12's collapse.
themessenger.com
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,436
- Reaction score
- 6,877
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Kind of. The whole idea of future contingent liabilities isn't some made-up thing to try to keep all the money. They have some serious costs coming down the road. Current assets will belong to the conference. The revenue belongs to the conference. If I were them, I would simply say we are going to give you guys enough to complete the spring sports, and that's it. I'd put the rest in a trust account to pay future liabilities, and to be used to either move the MWC teams to the PAC, or for them to go to the MWC and then shut down the PAC.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,436
- Reaction score
- 6,877
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,436
- Reaction score
- 6,877
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Nope. CFP shut that down already.
CFP Management Committee Requiring Conferences to Have Eight Members for Automatic Bids
The committee is also moving toward changing the 12-team format to five automatic bids following the Pac-12's collapse.
themessenger.com
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
iirc they owe Comcast $50 million.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,436
- Reaction score
- 6,877
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,436
- Reaction score
- 6,877
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
That's one of the contingent liabilities I am talking about. The big one that is on the radar will be the settlement or loss of the House v. NCAA case. They could win multiple billions of dollars against all the teams/conferences.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 7,269
- Reaction score
- 6,039
- Bookie:
- $ 12,463.00
To me, this whole thing seems like it should be resolved fairly easily. All 12 schools should be responsible for paying off the liabilities that the PAC 12 accrued while they were members. The 10 departing schools shouldn't be able to stick OSU and WSU with that bill. After those liabilities are paid off, split the 2023-2024 revenue equally, as it is required contractually. After the 2023-2024 academic year, OSU and WSU control all remaining PAC 12 assets.
I didn't go to law school but that seems like the common sense resolution.
I didn't go to law school but that seems like the common sense resolution.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,436
- Reaction score
- 6,877
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
You are missing some things:
1. Contingent future liabilities that will be the result of the actions of the schools while in the PAC - "A contingent liability is a liability or a potential loss that may occur in the future depending on the outcome of a specific event. Potential lawsuits, product warranties, and pending investigation are some examples of contingent liability." I am in a partnership that is going to amicably dissolve in the next couple of years - we are getting old. We will have contingent liabilities and when my partner departs, he has to account for that ... he can't just bail and leave me to pay all the costs.
2. There will be ongoing costs of either (1) rebuilding the PAC, or (2) closing it down. Both will cost millions of dollars. The schools that caused the damage should pay for it. This is different from your normal 2 schools leave scenario where you have a surviving, viable conference. Here so many left you killed the conference and it has to be revived or buried. Both results incur costs.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,383
- Reaction score
- 11,817
- Bookie:
- $ 799.00
I’m surprised the P2 haven’t pushed harder for the 4+8 model. I remember hearing Sankey saying something to the effect that the 6+6 will not be happening after everything happened with the PAC. I believe he hinted or said 5+7 but I’m surprised there isn’t more of a push for 4+8 at this time. Eventually they’ll want no AQs and will probably get it.It's a little complicated. The P5 and G5 designation actually means something. Primarily, the P5 are considered "autonomous" and are allowed to make certain decisions the G5 schools can't. This was done because the interests between the P5 and G5 were so different, it didn't make sense that the G5 could stop the P5 from doing certain things, primarily spending more money. At some point they didn't have a choice - they get a lot of money from the CFP because the P5 allows it. That won't always be the case, so they did this to survive.
Whether they are still autonomous or not isn't all that relevant. What is important is that through the end of the current CFP contract, the PAC is considered a P5. That is where the 2-year language you posted comes from. But the CFP changed the rules a month ago, and for 2024 and 2025, the PAC champion - one of the two - can't get an auto-qualifier entry. Whether they will still go with 6 AQs or drop it to 5 is open for negotiations. The G5 commishes want 6, obviously, meaning that there would be 2 G5 teams in the 2024 and 2025 CFP. But they also know they can't piss off the P5 when they negotiate the new contract for 2026. The Rose Bowl did that and they are going to get screwed for it. The G5 wants the new contract to be 5 AQs, 7 at-large. If they piss off the P5 they might say we are going to 4+8, or maybe no AQs at all ... just the top 12 teams with the top 4 conference champs getting the byes. Either of those would fuck with the G6 teams. So they will gladly settle for a 5+7 format, and until the PAC gets to a certain number of teams, their champion can't be an AQ. OSU and WSU will be treated as Independents like ND.
Loading…
www.lawinsport.com
CFP Management Committee Requiring Conferences to Have Eight Members for Automatic Bids
The committee is also moving toward changing the 12-team format to five automatic bids following the Pac-12's collapse.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,436
- Reaction score
- 6,877
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
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.
I think they should go to a 2+10 model.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 6,170
- Reaction score
- 10,385
- Bookie:
- $ 3,848.00
If you must expand the playoffs, go to 16 and just take the top 16 in the AP and be done with it.
No first round bye, no propping up teams that aren't worthy. No committee voting.
Keep it simple stupid.
No first round bye, no propping up teams that aren't worthy. No committee voting.
Keep it simple stupid.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,436
- Reaction score
- 6,877
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
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.