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
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
I actually just recalled having seen that earlier, my b
The only play available to OSU & WSU at this point is to have some initial rulings go their way, resulting in ESPN and FOX telling the Big 12 to add them in order to avoid litigation & potential damages. Otherwise, OSU/WSU are headed to the MWC and will have forever lost their seats at the table.
1. I just re-read the by-laws and the "plain language" take sure seems to support the OSU and WSU case.
the crux is the bolded. IMO, if the intent was to state they couldn't leave before 8/1/24, vs couldn't announce leaving before that date, the language would read something like "if any member does withdraw prior to August 1, 2024". Stated differently, the prepositional phrase "prior to..." is modifying the predicate "does deliver" and not the object "withdrawal".
2. the precedent set by the Pac not allowing UCLA and USC to vote after their notice but prior to withdrawal seems to support that.
if someone wants to have a good-faith discussion on how you read that prepositional phrase differently, I'm open-minded to your logic -- I'm just currently not seeing it despite really trying to look at it differently.
And, like jay said, we may never know what the relevant legal opinions are as this will likely get settled.
the crux is the bolded. IMO, if the intent was to state they couldn't leave before 8/1/24, vs couldn't announce leaving before that date, the language would read something like "if any member does withdraw prior to August 1, 2024". Stated differently, the prepositional phrase "prior to..." is modifying the predicate "does deliver" and not the object "withdrawal".
2. the precedent set by the Pac not allowing UCLA and USC to vote after their notice but prior to withdrawal seems to support that.
if someone wants to have a good-faith discussion on how you read that prepositional phrase differently, I'm open-minded to your logic -- I'm just currently not seeing it despite really trying to look at it differently.
And, like jay said, we may never know what the relevant legal opinions are as this will likely get settled.
I prefer the chaos where one goes to the Big 12 and the other goes to the Big 10.
The date refers to when the university would leave the conference. It would be asinine to have a membership the other way - such an agreement would, in layman's terms, be saying "no one can tell the others that it won't be renewing membership in the next deal because we demand that it's a surprise and don't want to be able to negotiate in good faith with any partners, vendors, unions, etc until after the current agreement has expired."
In other words, the obvious interpretation of the agreement is the reading which isn't something stupid that none of the 12 members would have wanted or been willing to sign.
The point of such language in the contract is precisely to deter a member or members from leaving in the first place because there is a harsh financial penalty. So that the commissioner can negotiate exactly the kinds of deals youre talking about in good faith.
For USC and UCLA, which were stripped of their rights for leaving (setting a precedent by the way) it was worth it to them despite the penalty because theyre getting a lot more money from the Big Ten.
Such departures left the remaining members materially damaged.
How can the commissioner negotiate a new rights contract with a media company if members are departing? The answer, as we all know, is he cant. The conference was mortally wounded by USC and UCLAs departure. Which is exactly why the conference stripped them of their privileges and exercised the conferences right to keep their revenue as compensation. The next 8 schools to leave also chose to go instead of sticking together and attempting to repair the damage. Leaving WSU and OSU even more materially damaged by all this.
The 10 members now want to use the courts to try to salvage their share on the way out the door. But they didnt take the actual steps described in that document necessary to dissolve the conference. They each individually just gave notice they were quitting the organization. Why? Because they were greedy and didnt like the lesser deal.
The lawyers are gonna have fun with this.
Last edited:
If I have joined a collective bargaining agreement which expires at the end of 2024, I am not damaging the other members of the collective if I choose not to sign a new agreement beginning in 2025. And if I tell them I am not signing a new agreement today, it's a courtesy which is beneficial to their planning and negotiations. And then, if in good faith I recuse myself from the post-2024 planning and negotiations while honoring the remaining term of the existing agreement, it certainly does not mean I have been a bad actor, forwent all my other rights under the agreement, and somehow also owe damages to the members who have decided to stay in the collective post-2024.
In theory yes. But I’d argue the opposite, that divisions have saved a few conferences by allowing one team to sit it out while one in the CCG decimates its opponent (the one without a chance)
Ohio St/ Mich last year.
Alabama / UGA / LSU a couple times.
What do you think happens if Mich beats Ohio St in the regular season, then again in the CCG. They only get one team.
Colorado and the other members could counter sue saying that they would have been materially harmed by staying because there was actual evidence that no reasonable media deal could be reached. The G8 had ample evidence that the lack of interest made the conference unsustainable and by providing early notice they left the others in a better position to find a landing spot.
GUILTY!Precedent?
Sorry mr picky. I thought it was agreed to(?) accepted(?) understood(?) by all/most/some(?) parties to the agreement that when USC and UCLA gave their notice they were summarily stripped of their voting privileges and other benefits as stated in the agreement. Sort of like a precedent (But not really a real precedent).
With CU going third thru the exit door the same was then applied to us.
Some kind of a pattern? Standard? Coincidence? Rule?
Thanks
Last edited:
As far as I know, USC and UCLA voluntarily gave up their votes. I'm unaware of "other privileges" they ceded--they are still getting paid, I believe. Their decision will likely have little impact on how a court reads the agreement.
So a Pacific, comprised of roughly 10-12, and Conference along the Atlantic Coast if you will.
Don't worry, we are in the end game now.
It's only a matter of time before we have a new 64 school league. Those 64 split into 8 school divisions based on geographic proximity and we end up basically where we all were 30 years ago...
Nik ... what is "US" in your west division list?
UA - typo/ fat thumb
Careful. @Big Jim will want you to provide details.
BTW- I agree mostly. I’d prefer a 60-team league with 12 pods of five teams. Scheduling is easier and it makes for better national games of interest. But in any event, I agree that where we are headed is to revert to something closer to what we had before. This new model is unsustainable.
FIFY
They have to uncouple the Olympic Sports, there is no need for a total sports conference, that is not gonna work anymore, and the athletes at Stanford and Cal are gonna pay for it.
Football Conference - National
Mens and Womens Basketball Conference - Regional
Baseball Conference - Regional
Olympic Sports Conference - Geographic with Special Regional and National Events
Oh yeah. This has to be football only. Th e other sports can do their own, non insane thing.
Good thing they aren't making the decisions anymore. This is 100% about what FOX and ESPN want. They want to consolidate.
Here's what it would take:
Media Companies: "Hey, tOSU et al, we're kicking around a model that would require you and other elites to ditch the conference model for football but you'd make at least $20M more per year on media rights."
Schools: "Where do we sign?"
thanks. sounds like you have some information that I haven't seen.
And refocus your other sports in a more cost-effective way
Oh, and likely NIL or Player Pay stuff will be handle collectively
It will happen within 10 years
