Judge’s ruling grants WSU, OSU control of Pac-12
-
Kyle Bonagura, ESPN Staff Writer
A state judge in Washington granted Oregon State and Washington State sole control of the Pac-12 board of directors Tuesday, issuing the ruling at a preliminary injunction hearing in Whitman County Court.
Judge Gary Libey granted a stay of the decision until Monday — at no objection from OSU and WSU — as the 10 schools leaving the Pac-12 following the 2023-24 school year initiate the appeals process.
The decision comes roughly two months after Libey granted a temporary restraining order at the request of OSU and WSU that prevented Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff from calling any Pac-12 board meetings.
“I grew up where conduct spoke louder than words. That’s how my parents treated me and that’s how I treated my children when they were growing up,” Libey said before issuing his decision. “With that in mind, this court finds in favor that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their interpretation of the bylaws.”
In a small Whitman County courthouse, roughly 15 miles from WSU’s campus, Libey heard arguments from three parties: OSU/WSU, the Pac-12 and the University of Washington, which entered the case as an intervenor, working on behalf of the nine other departing schools (Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC and Utah).
Over the course of about two and a half hours, all three parties argued for different outcomes.
OSU and WSU argued — as they have done for weeks in written briefs — that conference bylaws were clear that when schools announced they were joining other conferences, they immediately surrendered their seat on the conference board. That, they argued, was how it worked when UCLA and USC announced they were joining the Big Ten and, again, when Colorado announced it was leaving for the Big 12.
It was not only until the other seven announced they were also leaving, OSU and WSU argued, that those schools’ interpretation of the bylaws changed and claimed that all 12 deserved a seat on the board.
“There isn’t a single document that’s been produced which shows that the University of Washington thought that this was the correct position until it provided its notice of withdrawal and now the shoe was on the other foot,” argued lawyer Eric MacMichael, for OSU and WSU. “But parties are not allowed to just blatantly flip flop on the meaning of contractual provisions just so they can have their cake and eat it too.”
The conference attempted to maintain an appearance of neutrality, lobbying for the terms of the TRO — which required a unanimous vote on any major decision — to remain in place. The conference’s attorney, Mark Lambert, was less assertive when addressing the court, acting more in a capacity of obligation.
Asked by Libey if the Pac-12 wants to continue in its business in the future, Lambert said, “Frankly, that is up to Oregon State and Washington State at this point and the conference and the commissioner are sensitive to those issues and also sensitive to the notion that without a board that makes things difficult.”
The departing schools asked Libey to rule against OSU and WSU outright, which would have essentially given them the right to govern the conference with a 10-2 supermajority.
At the heart of the dispute is forthcoming revenue. The departing schools, as they did in writing earlier this month, expressed concern that OSU and WSU could withhold revenue set to be distributed during this academic year. They also made the case that OSU/WSU’s fear that the departing schools could vote to dissolve the conference — then evenly distribute the remaining assets — was irrelevant because of their belief that process could be conducted without any board action.
“It’s simply the fact that the members could decide to dissolve that they wanted,” argued Dan Levin, for Washington. “Of course, in all this time during these proceedings and before, no member has called for such a vote.”
It’s unclear if the departing schools would attempt to act on that mechanism if they don’t win on appeals.
“We are disappointed with the decision and are immediately seeking review in the Washington Supreme Court and requesting to put on hold implementation of this decision,” the remaining 10 members said in a statement. “As members of the Pac-12, participating in ongoing and scheduled competitions, we are members of the board under the Pac-12 bylaws. We have the right to the revenue earned by our schools during the 2023-2024 academic year, which is necessary in order to operate our athletics programs and to provide mental and physical health services, academic support, and other support programs for our student-athletes.
“We remain committed to the best interests of our student-athletes, athletic departments, and university communities and will persist in our efforts to secure a fair resolution.”
Meanwhile, WSU president Kirk Schulz and athletic director Pat Chun lauded the court’s “common-sense decision.”
“It has always been our view that the future of the Pac-12 should be determined by the remaining members, not by those schools that are leaving the conference,” they said in a statement. “This position is consistent with the action the Pac-12 Board of Directors took when the first two schools announced their departure from the conference more than a year ago.
“We have always been committed to protecting the best interests of the conference, our student-athletes, coaches and fans. Today’s news allows Washington State University and Oregon State University to start that process as the controlling members of the Pac-12 Conference Board.”
Oregon State university president Jayathi Murthy and athletic director Scott Barnes offered a similar sentiment.
“We are pleased with the Court’s decision today that Oregon State and Washington State constitute the only remaining members of the Pac-12 Conference Board,” they said in a statement. “We look forward to charting a path forward for the Pac-12 that is in the best interest of the Conference and student-athletes. Our intentions are to make reasonable business decisions going forward while continuing to seek collaboration and consultation with the departing universities.”
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Vanderbilt coach Clark Lea has promoted Steve Gregory to defensive coordinator and Nick Lezynski to co-defensive coordinator, the school announced Monday.
Lea served as his own defensive coordinator last season after he demoted the previous coordinator, Nick Howell, following the 2023 season.
Gregory was associate defensive coordinator and secondary coach. He joined Vanderbilt following five seasons as an NFL assistant.
Lezynski is entering his fourth season at Vanderbilt. He was hired as linebackers coach and was promoted to defensive run game coordinator in 2023.
Under Lea’s direction, Gregory and Lezynski helped the Vanderbilt defense show marked improvement. The scoring defense rose from 126th in 2023 to 50th in 2024 and rushing defense from 104th to 52nd. Vanderbilt held consecutive opponents under 100 rushing yards (Virginia Tech and Alcorn State) for the first time since 2017, and a 17-7 win over Auburn marked the lowest point total by an SEC opponent since 2015.
The Commodores were 7-6, their first winning record since 2013.
-
Adam Rittenberg
Texas is targeting former West Virginia and Troy coach Neal Brown for a role on its 2025 coaching staff, a source confirmed to ESPN.
The role is still to be determined, and a deal is not finalized but could be soon, the source said. Brown spent the past six seasons coaching West Virginia and went 37-35 before being fired in December. He went 35-16 at Troy with a Sun Belt championship in 2017.
247 Sports first reported Texas targeting Brown.
The 44-year-old Brown spent time in the state as offensive coordinator at Texas Tech from 2010 to 2012. He also held coordinator roles at Troy and Kentucky.
After back-to-back College Football Playoff appearances, Texas is set to open spring practice March 17.
Florida State and Clemson will vote Tuesday on an agreement that would ultimately result in the settlement of four ongoing lawsuits between the schools and the ACC and a new revenue-distribution strategy that would solidify the conference’s membership for the near future, sources told ESPN on Monday.
The ACC board of directors is scheduled to hold a call Tuesday to go over the settlement terms. In addition, Florida State and Clemson have both called board meetings to present the terms at noon ET Tuesday. All three boards must agree to the settlement for it to move forward, but sources throughout the league expect a deal to be reached.
According to sources, the settlement includes two key objectives: establishing a new revenue-distribution model based on viewership and a change in the financial penalties for exiting the league’s grant of rights before its conclusion in June 2036.
This new revenue-distribution model — or “brand initiative” — is based on a five-year rolling average of TV ratings, though some logistics of this formula remain tricky, including how to properly average games on the unrated ACC Network or other subscription channels. The brand initiative will be funded through a split in the league’s TV revenue, with 40% distributed evenly among the 14 longstanding members and 60% going toward the brand initiative and distributed based on TV ratings.
Top earners are expected to net an additional $15 million or more, according to sources, while some schools will see a net reduction in annual payout of up to about $7 million annually, an acceptable loss, according to several administrators at schools likely to be impacted, in exchange for some near-term stability.
The brand initiative is expected to begin for the coming fiscal year.
The brand fund, combined with the separate “success initiatives” fund approved in 2023 and enacted last year that rewards schools for postseason appearances, would allow teams that hit necessary benchmarks in each to close the revenue gap with the SEC and Big Ten, possibly adding in the neighborhood of $30 million or more annually should a school make a deep run in the College Football Playoff or NCAA basketball tournament and lead the way in TV ratings.
The success initiatives are funded largely through money generated by the new expanded College Football Playoff and additional revenue generated by the additions of Stanford, Cal and SMU, each of which is taking a reduced portion of TV money over the next six to eight years, while the new brand initiative will involve some schools in the conference receiving less TV revenue than before.
As a result of their inclusion in the College Football Playoff this past season, SMU athletic director Rick Hart said, the Mustangs and Tigers each earned $4 million through the success initiatives.
Sources have suggested Clemson and Florida State would be among the biggest winners of this brand-based distribution, though North Carolina and Miami are others expected to come out with a higher payout. Georgia Tech was actually the ACC’s highest-rated program in 2024, based in part on a Week 0 game against Florida State and a seven-overtime thriller against Georgia on the final Friday of the regular season.
Basketball ratings will be included in the brand initiative, too, but at a smaller rate than football, which is responsible for about 75% of the league’s TV revenue.
If ACC commissioner Jim Phillips is able to get this to the finish line Tuesday, it would be a big win for him and for the conference during a time of unprecedented change in collegiate athletics — particularly for a league that many speculated would break apart when litigation between the ACC and Florida State and Clemson began in 2023.
Both schools would consider it a win as well after they decided to file lawsuits in their home states in hopes of extricating themselves from a grant of rights agreement that, according to Florida State’s attorneys, could have meant paying as much as $700 million to leave the conference. The ACC countersued both schools to preserve the grant of rights agreement through 2036.
Although the settlement will not make substantive changes to the grant of rights, it is expected that there will be declining financial penalties for schools that exit before 2036, with the steepest decreases coming after 2030 — something that would apply to any ACC school, not just Clemson and Florida State.
The specific financial figures for schools to get released from the grant of rights were not readily available. But the total cost to exit the league after the 2029-30 season is expected to drop below $100 million, sources said.
The current language would require any school exiting before June 2036 to pay three times the operating budget — a figure that would be about $120 million — plus control of that team’s media rights through the conclusion of the grant of rights.
This was seen as a critical piece to the settlement, allowing flexibility for ACC schools amid a shifting college football landscape, particularly beyond the 2030 season, when TV deals for the Big Ten (2029-30), Big 12 (2030) and the next iteration of the College Football Playoff (2031) come up for renewal — a figure Florida State’s attorneys valued at more than $500 million over 10 years.
Sources told ESPN that there’d just be one number to exit the league, not the combination estimated by FSU of a traditional exit fee and the loss of media from the grant of rights.
In addition to securing the success and brand initiatives, viewed within the league as progressive ideas to help incentivize winning, Phillips also guided the recently announced ESPN option pickup to continue broadcasting the ACC through 2036.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports11 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway