Washington State and Oregon State on Tuesday grabbed control of the Pac-12’s governing board and power of the purse that comes with it, at least for now.
After a two-and-a-half-hour hearing, Whitman County (Wash.) Superior Court Judge Gary Libey granted the schools’ request for a preliminary injunction that confirms they are the only remaining voting members of the shattered conference.
The Pac-12 “will be governed by the two universities that have not submitted their notices of intent to withdraw,” Libey said.
However, Libey stayed his ruling until the end of the week as the defendant, Washington (acting on behalf of all 10 departing members), seeks an appeal from the Washington Supreme Court in Olympia.
But the ruling Tuesday evening begins to clear the way for WSU and OSU to control more than $400 million in revenue for the current fiscal year and whatever long-term assets the conference maintains following the departure of 10 schools next summer.
“We are pleased with the court’s common-sense decision today,” WSU president Kirk Schulz and athletic director Pat Chun said in a statement. “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.
“This position is consistent with the action the Pac-12 Board of Directors took when the first two schools (USC and UCLA) announced their departure from the conference more than a year ago.”
While ruling in favor of the Cougars and Beavers, Libey attempted to make sure the contentious situation is dealt with equitably, perhaps signaling that some of the 2023-24 revenue should be distributed to the outbound schools.
“This is not a shutout” in favor of WSU and OSU, Libey added. “The (preliminary injunction) is going to be modified to make sure the other 10 are still treated in a fair manner … Nobody’s going to take advantage of somebody else.”
Libey included a stipulation that the 10 outbound schools must be notified of board meetings and allowed to participate — but they are forbidden from voting.
The 10 departing schools released the following statement:
“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. 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.”
Exactly how the Cougars and Beavers plan to distribute the revenue and manage the assets, which could include more than $100 million in revenue from the NCAA Tournament and Rose Bowl, remains unclear. After all, the two schools left behind in the realignment game were not able to plan for their future while waiting for the ruling on their motion for the injunction.
One option is to compete as a two-team conference in 2024-25. The cash could be used to piece together schedules and dangle in front of expansion candidates from the Mountain West Conference.
“Our intentions are to make reasonable business decisions going forward while continuing to seek collaboration and consultation with the departing universities,” OSU president Jayathi Murthy and athletic director Scott Barnes said in a statement.
Libey’s ruling was hardly a surprise, for the preponderance of real-world evidence favored the plaintiffs.
Attorneys for WSU and OSU argued that the 10 outbound schools relinquished their board positions when they agreed to join other conferences and cited the “notice of withdrawal” section in the Pac-12 bylaws.
As evidence, they pointed to the Pac-12’s treatment of USC and UCLA starting last summer, after the schools announced their pending departures to the Big Ten: USC’s president and UCLA’s chancellor were promptly removed from the Pac-12’s governing board — and commissioner George Kliavkoff said as much in multiple subsequent court declarations.
Washington’s attorneys argued the departing schools had not given notice of withdrawal and should remain on the board. Their case was based on an interpretation of language in the bylaws about the “delivery of notice” provision.
Libey didn’t buy it.
“I grew up where conduct spoke louder than words,” he said, alluding to the L.A. schools losing their board seats.
Libey included in his ruling that the conference shall be able to operate in the normal course of business until the stay is lifted.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline
*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.
