Doug Scott

If we are just making minor tweaks and not major, here’s one idea: replace “top 5 conference champs” “A minimum of 5 conferences must have at least 1 team in the playoffs” This simple change would dump JMU and add ND

@Bill_CFB_Guy @ORSTFB1 @TheElJefe49 @ag_Beavs @ImmaculateView You are correct

@ORSTFB1 @TheElJefe49 @ag_Beavs @ImmaculateView The governance is the new legislative body within Division 1. Check it out. @ImmaculateView am I wrong?

I get that folks are upset about the possibility of the Navy-Army game being moved. It is a tradition that, hopefully, very few of us want to see touched. None the less changes are coming folks, big changes. Personally I have listed Army and Navy as potential candidates for the expansion of the ACC after it's inevitable losses. They fit the bill perfectly. They will draw numbers and attention while at the same time, they have something in common with the Elite Privates that will be taking over the ACC. They dislike how prominent the Transfer Portal has become. The Portal absolutely does not benefit the Elite Privates and the Academies do not partake in it at all. It's a good fit, both sides can help each other in this. Navy/Army may not be willing to move the game for the American but if its part of what would be required to join the ACC in the future then all of a sudden that prospect isnt so bad. With that in mind you would want to get out ahead of it to control the rhetoric and get the best weekend for the match up in that new future. That is what I see when I see the Army coach suggesting Thanksgiving weekend.

@ORSTFB1 @TheElJefe49 @Bill_CFB_Guy @ag_Beavs @ImmaculateView You are confusing FBS status with autonomy status. These are 2 distinct things The Pac lost the first when they fell below the 8 school threshold. They will regain it this summer The PAC lost the latter by Division 1 board vote and there is no defined path to regain

@TheElJefe49 @Bill_CFB_Guy @ag_Beavs @ImmaculateView That’s not how NCAA autonomy works. Autonomy isn’t “granted to group with G5”. G5 conferences are non-autonomous. The Pac-12 Conference lost autonomous authority due to membership thresholds. Losing autonomy ≠ gaining a new autonomous category.

@ORSTFB1 @Bill_CFB_Guy @TheElJefe49 @ag_Beavs @ImmaculateView 2) the CFP access and governance has removed direct ties to NCAA status and now contains its own designations of who gets what. No changes within the NCAA status or designations will automatically trigger any changes within CFP governance, format, or finances.

@ORSTFB1 @Bill_CFB_Guy @TheElJefe49 @ag_Beavs @ImmaculateView 1) autonomy status has been vote-based, not criteria based- Criteria isn’t even defined. The only way Pac could get autonomy back is via a vote of the D1 board, which is weighted to give the current autonomy conferences 65% of the vote OR if that same board establishes criteria

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/nc…

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 Closest I’ve found is this article but I know I remember seeing more detailed charts at the time espn.com/college-sports…

🤔 It will be interesting how this subdivision vs autonomous plays out. Cannot see the @pac12 not being an autonomous conference moving forward because of the House Settlement. Teams in the other G5 conferences may want to start reading the tea leaves. #PAC12

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 One other thing to note is that the Pac-12 settlement also resulted in the departing 10 schools paying $65m, most of that to offset House settlement costs. So they’ve been preemptively compensated already as well

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 I had the 60/40 backwards on the $2.8b 40% from ncaa reserves 60% from ALL D1 schools via NCAAT holdbacks (about 20%) this is an internal NCAA formula that applies 40% of the 60% to Autonomy schools

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 OSU and WSU do not have to pay 22% of revenue. No one does. There is no minimum, only a cap

The defendants of the case were The NCAA, The SEC, The Big Ten, The ACC, The Big 12 and The Pac 12. The NCAA is paying back their portion directly from NCAAT credits. They designated a share to come out every year. That is why there was so much complaining coming from the non-major conference members because thats money being taken from them when they were not allowed to be directly part of the settlement talks. As for the P5, I dont think it was ever said that their payments to the plaintiff athletes was coming solely from NCAAT credits. They were to pay significantly more. So the reduced distributions from the NCAA also effect the P5. In fact when you look at the results of the NCAA basketball tournament, most of that hit is actually on the P5 as well. Then on top of that they also have to collectively pay 24% of the total between them. So if the total was 2.8 billion then 24% is what, 672 million? That is on top of what the NCAA would already be taking from the tournament credits that would be paid out in the future. So they arent just paying their 24%. They are also essentially "paying" the portion of each credit that is going to the settlement instead of to the member school that would receive it. So what were there, like 68 to 69 P5's when you include Notre Dame? So, basically that's like 10 million dollars due by each P5 within that 10 year period. That may seem like nothing but its not just a million dollars lost. Its the million plus the amount being shaved from every single tournament credit plus all the revenue sharing that they are bound to take part in with current and future athletes. OSU and WSU do not get the luxury of choosing what percentage to pay to current athletes. They have to pay 22% of revenue in revenue sharing. So they have to pay the 1 million a year, then whatever pay the PAC would get from tournament credits, that is also diminished. Then on top of that they are held to paying 22% of yearly revenue to current athletes where as the rest of their PAC conference members are not held to that same standard. They can pay a lower percentage because revenue sharing is optional for anyone that was not a member of the P5 when the House Case was filed. So I am sorry but I dont know how much more I can explain. Perhaps I am wrong about some of this but I just dont see how it would be all that difficult for OSU/WSU lawyers to argue a hardship when the numbers used to figure this out were much higher than the numbers that OSU and WSU now have to operate on.

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 What’s more that formula for the 40% is not codified in the house settlement itself, but rather is an internal NCAA decision that can be modified as the NCAA sees fit with no impact on the settlement itself. So the NCAA could simply move OSU/WSU from the A4 formula to the G6 one

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 Not quitr. NCAA is paying 60% of the $2.8B in back pay from its reserves. The other 40% are being paid by the schools through the mechanism of annual NCAAT holdbacks which apply to all 32 conferences according to an internal NCAA formula. No school or conference pays directly

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 What payments are they making ?

When this settlement was first filed, the statistics that would have been used for revenue would have had OSU and WSU making similar to all the other A5(A4). What they make now has been massively decreased. I am not sure why you seem so stuck on the idea that its no big deal for them to continue to make the same payments to past student athletes whom were party to the House Settlement. The numbers used to calculate that would have been significantly higher than what OSU and WSU make now. Thus, a hardship position really shouldnt be that hard to argue to the court. IF they are successful in that then it might cause the whole settlement to be voided and recalculated. So are you just not going to recognize that OSU and WSU are making significantly less in revenue now than what they would have been making when the House case first convened and data was presented?

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 The settlement doesn’t set a minimum revshare requirement In regards to the “back pay”, it’s being taken from NCAAT credits on a percentage basis, so it’s A) $0 out of pocket and B) already pro-rated by credits. I’d also note that all 32 D1 conferences schools pay this too

Well first and foremost, how much of a difference in revenue is being generated for them now vs when the PAC 12 was together? I would dare say its a very significant decrease so they may already have a case for why they should not be held to the same standard of revenue sharing. Add on top of that whatever comes from being officially divided from the other previous 10 members of the PAC 12 via an added subdivision and I think there is enough of a threat of the possibility for this to go nuclear that the involved parties would have to seriously contemplate what all could go wrong if an involved Court thought so too. The whole point of the settlement is that they are paying for the agreed upon losses of past student athletes that did not get to monetize their natural NIL rights. So yes I get your argument that they would be held to the same standard but Courts do take into account a parties capability when it comes to repaying debts. Two parties could have the exact same amount of debt yet the court could give them two different payment plans for repaying that debt based upon their different financial capabilities. With that in mind, OSU and WSU have had a very significant drop in revenue due to being left behind so likely they could already argue a hardship position. If we then add an official dividing of them from the rest of the Universities held to the full terms of the settlement, it just seems very plausible that a Court could find in their favor if the situation is allowed to go that far.

@BeavsOfSoCal @ImmaculateView You can’t refute the facts I gave so you resort to childish non productive behavior. Stop wasting your own time, let alone mine. Let me know when you are ready to accept reality

@DouglasTS @ImmaculateView Yeah, puddle chickens never understand legal issues let alone most issues with sports Stay in your own lane

So, PAC folks, I know a lot of you hang on to the possibility of getting Autonomous Status back. I have no idea if there is still a chance of that but I found some of the language in this to be quite interesting in regards to that hope of yours.

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 Why not? The settlement doesn’t require any specific amount of minimum spending What standards in the settlement do you think that they would have trouble continuing to meet?

@DouglasTS @NitPsu @pac12 At some point, a Court just isnt going to hold them to the same standard as the others. When that happens, they dont just edit the settlement. They void it and start over.

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 I’m hard-pressed to think of what obligations of the settlement that Oregon State in Washington state would not be able to continue meeting even should another subdivision form If you could come up with a specific example, I would love to discuss it

I agree with you when it comes to specifically needing autonomy status. What I see though is that they were all part of this when they were all relatively on equal footing. That has already been stretched to the point of breaking. To be officially divided into two different subdivisions though, that could put enough strain on the settlement that a void status might come about and that would be disaster. There is no surgical removal of a part of the settlement. It was agreed upon and then codified. If the agreement can no longer stand due to some change then it would likely have to get voided and start over. Does that make sense? I am not trying to say that House requires autonomous status. I am saying that if all the others pull away that far from OSU and WSU then it could possibly break that settlement. Would love to see some legal opinions on that from some of the local X expert attorneys.

@ImmaculateView @NitPsu @pac12 What’s the case? If they can still fulfill their House responsibilities and still receive House benefits (further lawsuit protection), then they have lost nothing and have suffered no legal damages

OSU and WSU are absolutely still part of it. They have to maintain full revenue share just like every member of the A4 conferences. They maintained the PAC so that they could insure that they would not be part of a conference that wouldnt allow for them to have spending levels that meet their requirements via the settlement. So if the A4, whom OSU and WSU have equal status with in the Settlement, are about to separate from them then I do think that gives those two schools some kind of case and they have very much shown a willingness to take their grievances to court.