Jump to content

gatormarc

Full Members
  • Posts

    611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gatormarc

  1. 5 hours ago, Huckleberry said:
    6 hours ago, bullet said:

    More stupid Wilner shit.  Kliavcoff said USC and UCLA had relinquished their board position.  That is not an opinion on whether they needed to.  It is factual.  They quit coming.

    Later he said the members need to decide how to interpret the bylaws.  Again, he wasn't taking an opinion.  He was staying neutral.

    Wilner is reading stuff he wants to in it, just like he has been for the last couple years.

    No, he stated that USC and UCLA were no longer along the member institutions represented on the board. He didn't say they relinquished their positions. There is a direct quote in the story you were responding to and everything. 

    And they also made it perfectly clear with Colorado... also a direct quote the article.

    The next day, Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer sent Colorado’s legal officer a letter that included the following:

    “Chancellor DiStefano provided CU’s written notice of withdrawal to Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff on July 27, 2023. Under Section CB 2-3 of the Pac-12’s Constitution and Bylaws, Chancellor DiStefano and CU’s representation on the Pac-12’s Board of Directors automatically ceases effective immediately, and CU no longer has the right to vote on any matter before the Board.”

  2. Getting spicier...

    TL;DR: Under oath this summer in the Comcast case, Klaivkoff stated that USC, UCLA had been removed from the board as they had officially withdrawn. And they also have a letter from him this summer removing Colorado for the same reason; all contrary to what he's saying in court right now supporting that all 12 members should still be on the board since none have "officially" withdrawn.

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/10/12/pac-12-legal-fight-in-sworn-statement-in-comcast-case-kliavkoff-admitted-usc-and-ucla-had-been-removed-from-pac-12-board/

     

    Spoiler

    Pac-12 legal fight: In sworn statement in Comcast case, Kliavkoff admitted USC and UCLA had been removed from Pac-12 board
    The revelation is potentially significant in the lawsuit brought by WSU and OSU

    By JON WILNER | jwilner@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
    PUBLISHED: October 12, 2023 at 6:56 a.m. | UPDATED: October 12, 2023 at 7:37 a.m.

    In a court filing last month in the fight for control of the Pac-12, commissioner George Kliavkoff indicated he had no position on the composition of the conference’s governing board. Whether board seats should be limited to the two remaining schools, Washington State and Oregon State, or available to the 10 outgoing members, as well, was an issue for the universities to settle, Kliavkoff stated in his court declaration.

    But that’s not what he said this summer in a different legal entanglement.

    Weeks before the Pac-12’s collapse, Kliavkoff issued a sworn statement to San Francisco Superior Court in which he stated that UCLA and USC had, in fact, already relinquished their board positions after announcing they would be joining the Big Ten.

    The statement, unearthed Wednesday evening by the Hotline, is one of dozens of filings in a lawsuit brought by two former Pac-12 executives who were terminated for their roles in the Comcast overpayment scandal.

    In the first section of his declaration to the court, which was filed July 12, Kliavkoff states his job title and responsibilities:

    “I am the Commissioner for Defendant Pac-12 Conference and have held this position since July 1, 2021. I report to the Pac-12 Conference Board of Directors, comprised of the Chancellor or President of each member institution.“

    The second sentence is accompanied by the following annotation:

    “The University of California, Los Angeles, and University of Southern California, are no longer among the member institutions represented on the Board of Directors.”

    The declaration is nine pages long and concludes, “I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.”

    It is signed by Kliavkoff.

    A source called the development potentially “significant” in the lawsuit brought by Washington State and Oregon State against the conference over control of the governing board.

    It shows Kliavkoff, under penalty of perjury, acknowledging that announced departures to other conferences trigger removal from the Pac-12’s board — exactly the point Washington State and Oregon State are arguing in their lawsuit.

    The two schools left behind in the realignment game contend the 10 outbound members gave what conference bylaws call “notice of withdrawal” upon announcing their moves to new leagues.

    As a result, the Cougars and Beavers believe they should be the only remaining members of the board. The lawsuit filed Sept. 11 against the Pac-12 attempts to gain judicial clarity on the matter.

    The stakes are high. If Washington State and Oregon State control the board, they control the Pac-12’s assets, including NCAA Tournament revenue worth tens of millions of dollars over time.

    The money could be used to fund their athletic departments or rebuild the conference (with Mountain West teams) after the 10 universities depart next summer.

    A temporary restraining order issued Sept. 11 by Whitman County (Wash.) judge Gary Libey prevents the Pac-12 board from meeting until the makeup of the governing body can be determined. Libey scheduled a hearing on the matter for Nov. 14.

    Additionally, the two sides (the ‘Pac-2’ and the ‘Pac-10’) agreed to enter mediation and began talks earlier this month.

    Kliavkoff’s sworn statement in the Comcast case came in the middle of July, two weeks before Colorado announced its departure for the Big 12 and three weeks before five additional schools agreed to leave.

    At that point, USC president Carol Folt and UCLA chancellor Gene Block had long since been removed from the board of directors. The Pac-12 took that significant step in the summer of 2022, after the L.A. schools accepted Big Ten invitations.

    The conference used the same policy with Colorado on July 27, after chancellor Phil DiStefano informed Kliavkoff via text message that the Buffaloes would be joining the Big 12.

    The next day, Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer sent Colorado’s legal officer a letter that included the following:

    “Chancellor DiStefano provided CU’s written notice of withdrawal to Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff on July 27, 2023. Under Section CB 2-3 of the Pac-12’s Constitution and Bylaws, Chancellor DiStefano and CU’s representation on the Pac-12’s Board of Directors automatically ceases effective immediately, and CU no longer has the right to vote on any matter before the Board.”

    A week later, Oregon and Washington left for the Big Ten; Arizona, Arizona State and Utah bolted for the Big 12; and the conference collapsed. Only Stanford, Cal, Washington State and Oregon State remained.

    In early September, the Bay Area schools accepted invitations from the ACC, leaving just the Beavers and Cougars.

    Kliavkoff then attempted to call a meeting of all the presidents and chancellors, including those representing USC and UCLA — this, despite his sworn statement two months earlier that the L.A. school had been removed from the board.

    Washington State president Kirk Schulz and Oregon State president Jayathi Murthy disputed the notion that the outbound schools continued to hold board seats.

    They argued that public announcements of new conference affiliations by the outbound 10 constituted a “notice of withdrawal” that triggered removal from the board.

    But in a letter to Schulz and Murthy before they filed the Sept. 11 lawsuit, Kliavkoff rejected the conclusion that the 10 schools had relinquished their board positions:

    “Your suggestion that ten of the Conference’s 12 members have ‘withdrawn’ from the Conference within the meaning of the Bylaws is mistaken. Not one member school has signaled any intention — or actually attempted — to leave Conference play at any time prior to the end of the current fiscal year on July 31, 2024, or to take back and exploit their media rights.

    “We simply cannot accept the suggestion that only two members. — Oregon State University (OSU) and Washington State University (WSU) — now have the right to determine by themselves all issues affecting the Conference, and determine the course of all revenue coming into the Conference, to the exclusion of the other ten member schools.”

    Three days later, the Beavers and Cougars responded with legal action.

    In his declaration to the Whitman County Court, Kliavkoff said:

    “Neither the Conference nor I have a position with respect to the proper composition of the Pac-12 Board. This is fundamentally a dispute among members.”

    That statement seemingly stakes out a different position on the board makeup than Kliavkoff offered in July, under penalty of perjury.

    The lawsuit in the Comcast case brought by former Pac-12 CFO Brent Willman and former Pac-12 Networks president Mark Shuken is ongoing.

    The Pac-12 and Kliavkoff declined to comment.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 4
  3. 1 hour ago, John80 said:

    I'm glad the B10 is protecting the sacred Rutgers-Maryland football game that is watched by ten people. 

    Why did they even bother to make that protected unless it was simply because the rest of the B1G wanted to make sure they would play both less frequently?

    • Haha 2
  4. 18 hours ago, closetojumping said:
    18 hours ago, mdmost said:

    Hmm. Either he doesn't know they play every year or he let it slip that pods or 1 dedicated rival are happening instead of 3-6-6.

     

    Expand  

    I just assume Hugh Freeze is too much of an imbecile to be made privy to future scheduling approaches, therefore this is just him flippantly and ignorantly wishcasting. 

    It could just be a shot across the bow at the Auburn admin since they were one of the votes against the 9 game schedule in May or at least they refused to commit .

     

  5. 2 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

    Now this also falls into the question of how the NCAA can dissolve the the Pac12 due to lack of membership.

    I know for other sports, the NCAA can set a minimum number of members in order to get an conference autobid to the postseason tournament but it shouldn't be able to dissolve a conference.

  6. 30 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    Florida State gotta be pissed it didn't go down that way. 

    FSU needs to do their own homework sometime and stop blaming others for them being in the remedial class.

    • Haha 1
  7. 32 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    With 4 team pods, the 3 others in your pod are the 3 in the 3-3-6.  But it would still be a 3-3-6. 
     

    my question is why would that have to be the case, instead of using the 3 protected games to protect the best matchups you can, and then do the best you can with the remainder?

    I think the confusion is that from Texas's viewpoint, the ideal pod and 3 permanent rivals look the same.

    That's not the case for the rest of the conference.

    For pods to work, they would have to add additional protected crossover games since the top rivalries don't all fit in the same 4 team buckets.

    Let's just go ahead and make some pods:

    Texas - Oklahoma - A&M - Arkansas
    Alabama - Auburn - Tennessee - Vanderbilt
    Florida - Georgia - South Carolina - Kentucky
    Missouri - LSU - Ole Miss - Miss St.

    This is a great pod solution for most rivalries but it kills Auburn-Georgia game, so it's pretty much a non starter. Crosspod rivals would have to be locked down as well.

    By having a single 16 team conference with no divisions or pods and with each having their own personal set of 3 rival games, you secure more rivalries and you can secure the quickest rotation. It's like each school has their own personal pod.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. 4 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    Take a deep breath. We’ll play everybody else every other year. 

    Not with Pods. They would need to add permanent crossovers because not everyone's rivals fit nicely into the same pod.

    Example:

    UGA needs to play UF and AU
    Bama needs to play UTn and AU

    One of those matchups cannot happen with pods unless you add permanent crossovers and lengthen the rotation.

    That's why 3-6-6 wins.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 22 minutes ago, troph said:

    yeah ok, maybe a redirect is needed here....

     

    so what the fuck is the latest on pods? what's the SEC gonna look like when we show up to fuck their shit up?

    I'm not sure there is a "latest" on pods.

    As of the spring, the Sankey said it would be one of two models: 1-7 or 3-6. No divisions. No pods. They couldn't get the required votes for either so they made the 2024 bridge schedule.

    This IT piece is the only place I've seen pods brought up again, and they gave no details. Feels more like clickbait.

  10. 18 minutes ago, mdmost said:

    The only issue with pods and I guess I'd have to revisit if there was a resolution is how you keep regionality in pods but protect dedicated rivalries like Auburn/Georgia and Tennessee/Bama every year. Those aren't going away and I doubt they'll pair those schools in the same pod. You can't separate Auburn/Bama into different pods. So is it 3 games in your pod + 1 historic rival + 3 from one pod  + 2 from another to get to 9 conference games?

    I don't get why people still want pods. There's no advantage over a simple 3-6-6 schedule.

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 1
  11. 19 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

    Yeah I've seen no video or photographic evidence that that FG was good. 

     

    I've always wondered why we don't have goalpost cameras like we do pylon cameras. Put an infared laser pointing straight up on that fucker too just for the hell of it. 

    Yeah. it's crap that they haven't done that. Had the same thing happen vs Kentucky in 2018, snapped a streak of 20 straight made field goals.

  12. 5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    I’ve wondered how much control OSU/WSU actually have. Could the other 10 vote to sell off assets, payout all reserves and dissolve the conference?

    I haven't seen the P12 bylaws but it seems that most conferences have language that basically makes those who have already begun the process of leaving the conference as non-voting members for voting situations that involve future membership etc. as they are now "non interested" members.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 1 minute ago, gatormarc said:
    3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    Not sure what you mean by credits, but it means one more at-large spot since a conference champion auto qualifier is eliminated. 

    I don't even fully understand it. It had something to do with NCAA tournament payouts to the conference and who gets it if/when teams leave.

    Not sure what the gap/delay is between tournaments and the payout.

    Found a piece about it by Mr. Wilner.

    https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-finances-estimating-the-ncaa-tournament-cash-available-for-the-remaining-schools/

    Quote

    Each game played by a conference in March Madness equals one unit. Those units translate to dollars and are paid out over a rolling six-year cycle through the NCAA Basketball Fund.

    For now, let’s assume the NCAA distributions to the Pac-12 in the spring of 2024 will be split 12 ways, with the outgoing schools receiving equal shares. (Clarity on financial and administrative issues should come in the next few weeks.)

    But the units earned won’t follow them out the door. All that cash will be left to the four remaining members, if they stick together. (At this point, it’s unclear what would happen to the units if the conference disbands.)

     

×
×
  • Create New...