Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

4BienemyTDs said:
And OSU and WSU are going to fight to screw us all on the way out the door if possible.
The 10 schools could have done a little coordination and just closed down the conference and made sure that all the money was distributed evenly, and it helped to remove future competition for the playoffs.

The move to the BIG12 should work out, but if there is any chance that our PAC distribution for 23-24 is disrupted or minimized, then RG will be in a pickle.
Click to expand...
They are absolutely going to try to screw us over to the maximum extent possible, but they also must realize that the schools in the 10 will not take getting screwed out of money lying down. They could band together and file one lawsuit in the friendliest possible jurisdiction under multiple theories, including unjust enrichment, or even better file 10 separate lawsuits in 10 separate state courts where the campuses are located against the Pac-2 so that OSU and WSU have to spend out the wazoo on lawyers fees, while the schools can rely on their own in-house lawyers. The Arizona and California suits would probably be consolidated, so it would probably end up being 6 separate lawsuits. They will end up settling, we will get our money, and everyone will be on their merry way. That being said, they will most likely reach a settlement before any litigation.
 
Darth Snow said:
I don't even want them to be. Go scorched earth.
Click to expand...
trying to think what might constitute "scorched earth" beyond keeping all of this year's media revenue....

vacating all conference championships, in every sport, for every other team in Pac12 history would count.
 
Darth Snow said:
I don't even want them to be. Go scorched earth.
Click to expand...
If an organization is operated by a 12 member whatever, and 10 members choose to leave, it is usually in those 10 members interest to close the doors and shut it down.

The 2 that voted against it will get their share of assets and can set up shop elsewhere.

Leaving the organization intact causes serious problems, especially when you announce that you are voting to leave/breakup the entity a year or two in advance.

I know that is too simplistic an example compared to what has happened to the PAC, but USC/UCLA (7/11/22), Colorado (7/29/23) and then the rest after that a few months ago, with the "Turn the lights off date" being July 2024 puts too much variables into what was going to happen.

It seems ruthless to just officially blow it up, but that seems like what should have been done
 
4BienemyTDs said:
If an organization is operated by a 12 member whatever, and 10 members choose to leave, it is usually in those 10 members interest to close the doors and shut it down.

The 2 that voted against it will get their share of assets and can set up shop elsewhere.

Leaving the organization intact causes serious problems, especially when you announce that you are voting to leave/breakup the entity a year or two in advance.

I know that is too simplistic an example compared to what has happened to the PAC, but USC/UCLA (7/11/22), Colorado (7/29/23) and then the rest after that a few months ago, with the "Turn the lights off date" being July 2024 puts too much variables into what was going to happen.

It seems ruthless to just officially blow it up, but that seems like what should have been done
Click to expand...
In hindsight, should have voted to dissolve the conference. However, it timed in groups. First, 2/12 were leaving and no one thought it would be fair to have them continue to be privy to negotiations or have a vote. Then it was 1 to the Big 12. Then it was 3 more to the Big 12 with 2 to the B1G within a day of each other. Then 2 to the ACC.

I don't know that there were enough voting members left at any time during this process to carry a vote to dissolve.
 
Buffnik said:
In hindsight, should have voted to dissolve the conference. However, it timed in groups. First, 2/12 were leaving and no one thought it would be fair to have them continue to be privy to negotiations or have a vote. Then it was 1 to the Big 12. Then it was 3 more to the Big 12 with 2 to the B1G within a day of each other. Then 2 to the ACC.

I don't know that there were enough voting members left at any time during this process to carry a vote to dissolve.
Click to expand...
When each left should have filed for some specific rights to be held till date of leaving since that is how the process was designed. Agreed, it was a snowball and then an avalanche.
 
I didn't realize until just now that we're expecting a ruling today on this (edit: at 2PM PT, per Yahoo!):
After both sides filed hundreds of pages of court documents in recent weeks, the pivotal preliminary injunction hearing Tuesday afternoon could finally provide clarity on whether Oregon State and Washington State will control assets within and governance of the crumbled Pac-12.

Whitman County (Washington) Superior Court Judge Gary Libey will preside over the hearing, the next step in the lawsuit filed by the remaining Pac-2 schools against the Pac-12 and its commissioner, George Kliavkoff.
Click to expand...

also, this is the first time I was aware that OSU and WSU had a text message from Kliavkoff acknowledging his view that the number of board members was equal to that number of schools who haven't announced departure:
An Oct. 25 motion by OSU and WSU included a trove of documents, including two sworn declarations by Kliavkoff stating USC and UCLA were removed from the board after their notice of withdrawal in the summer of 2022 when the Bruins and Trojans announced forthcoming departures to the Big Ten.

That motion also includes a text message from Kliavkoff to a reporter on Aug. 5, the day after realignment whittled the league down to just four remaining schools.

Kliavkoff: “As of today we have 4 board members.”
Click to expand...

link


edit: more from the Yahoo! piece

Most believe that Libey has three ruling options: (1) he could grant OSU and WSU full control of the Pac-12 governance and assets; (2) he could extend the ruling he made in September that prevents the Pac-12 board from meeting and making any decisions unless there is unanimity; or (3) he could deny OSU and WSU’s motion and rule that all 12 schools have voting rights on the board.
....
For now, many legal experts believe that the Pac-12’s future assets can be retained by the two schools if they preserve the league at least in the short term.
Click to expand...
 
manhattanbuff said:
Colorado’s lawyers should have factored that upon departure.
Click to expand...
With no good (enough) TV deal on the table we didnt have a choice but to leave. I doubt there was much planning other than talking about where in house to borrow money from. Probably should put that scoreboard on hold.
 
married2abuff said:
RuhRoh.

Click to expand...

Not good, Not good at all folks
Still feel like we have to get most of our money due to us because we earned it from a technical standpoint, but this is not good
Isn't this why you use the terms "I reserve the right to (blank)" instead of just walking out.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
With no good (enough) TV deal on the table we didnt have a choice but to leave. I doubt there was much planning other than talking about where in house to borrow money from. Probably should put that scoreboard on hold.
Click to expand...
They didn’t make the move overnight. There were several weeks of buildup with determinations about the future.
 
DBT said:
Wouldn’t distributions be written into the bylaws for the conference?
Click to expand...
What would stop a 2-member board from dipping into the 2023-24 athletic year revenue distribution to pay the buyouts for schools they want to join in order to rebuild the membership with another 10-14 schools?
 
Buffnik said:
What would stop a 2-member board from dipping into the 2023-24 athletic year revenue distribution to pay the buyouts for schools they want to join in order to rebuild the membership with another 10-14 schools?
Click to expand...
That was one of the concerns explicitly stated in the filing by the other 10.
 
Buffnik said:
What would stop a 2-member board from dipping into the 2023-24 athletic year revenue distribution to pay the buyouts for schools they want to join in order to rebuild the membership with another 10-14 schools?
Click to expand...
The lawsuits to follow where the departing schools win that the remaining schools have no power to distribute those funds for any other purpose than 23-24 compensation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top