Court order allows ‘business as usual’ in Pac-12 conference for now
The Washington Supreme Court issued a stay Tuesday in a lawsuit the two remaining Pac-12 schools filed against the conference, allowing the league to continue “business as usual” pending further review of the case.
The decision leaves in place a Sept. 11 temporary restraining order that enjoins the Pac-12 board of directors from taking any action without the unanimous consent of all board members, effectively maintaining the status quo within the board as currently constituted.
“To put it more simply, the TRO provides a mechanism for the board, representing all 12 schools, to continue business as usual, with a proviso to act with unanimity,” Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston wrote.
The court also put the case on an accelerated schedule for answers and replies to motions, with everything due by Dec. 12.
Tuesday’s order is the latest turn in the lawsuit that the court noted is largely about money while acknowledging the “historical and sentimental” aspects of the controversy and the effect it has on students and staff “loom large.”
“The instant dispute arises from the Pac-12 breaking apart, much to the dismay or delight of collegiate sports fans (particularly football), depending on which side of the field they sit,” Johnston wrote.
The two remaining members, Washington State and Oregon State, sued the Pac-12 and commissioner George Kliavkoff over control of the conference in September, setting up a court battle over more than $400 million in revenue generated in 2023-24 school year. At issue is whether the 10 schools leaving the Pac-12 for other conferences should have a say in how the conference operates — or what happens to its assets.
“Tens of millions of dollars are at stake due to the media and sponsorship rights affected by this dispute. School reputations and individual collegiate programs could be affected positively or negatively depending on the institution. Staffing levels will likely be affected one way or another. It cannot be doubted that athletic recruiting and student athletes attending or deciding which schools to attend are affected greatly by these events,” Johnston wrote.
In a ruling earlier this month, Whitman County (Washington) Superior Court Judge Gary Libey prohibited the conference and its board of directors from recognizing any schools other than Washington State and Oregon State. His preliminary injunction also banned the withdrawing schools from attending, participating or voting in any board meeting.
In issuing his ruling, Libey said he found that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their interpretation of the bylaws.
“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.
Tuesday’s Supreme Court order sets that decision aside.
Related
The University of Washington on behalf of the 10 departing schools appealed to the Washington Supreme Court lower court’s ruling and filed an emergency motion for a stay.
“Though the question is close, the equities arguably favor UW in light of the harshness of the preliminary injunction,” Johnston wrote.
The court earlier granted a request from Washington State and Oregon State to “expedite the review of a case that will determine control of the conference,” per Sports Business Journal. The two schools are facing a “fast-approaching deadline” for resolution of their lawsuit against the conference and the 10 departing schools: the opening of the transfer portal on Dec. 4. With their “futures in doubt and their players coveted by other schools,” Washington State and Oregon State asked the Supreme Court to “move quickly in setting the briefing schedule” to review its stay of the lower court ruling.
Related
The case turns on the interpretation of Pac-12 bylaws regarding withdrawal from the conference.
“In my view, the provision is poorly written and possibly ambiguous. It gives no guidance as to what constitutes a formal notice of withdrawal and it seemingly makes it impossible to give notice of withdrawal before its Aug. 1, 2024, expiration date without invoking its penalties; that is, the penalties are triggered even if a school announces that it plans to withdraw but intends the withdrawal to be effective only after that date,” Johnston wrote.
On the other hand, he wrote, maybe the provision was designed to penalize “harshly” any school trying to leave the conference. “In short, this is a debatable issue,” Johnston wrote.
Washington State and Oregon State have argued from the beginning that as soon as the departing schools announced they were joining other conferences — UCLA, USC, Oregon and Washington to the Big Ten; Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah to the Big 12; and Cal and Stanford to the ACC — they no longer had the right to make decisions about the future of the conference.
ESPN reported that during discovery for the lawsuit, it was revealed that after UCLA and USC announced they were leaving for the Big Ten, the Pac-12 wrote to them to say, in part, that it “would have been a direct conflict and contrary to the best interests of the Pac-12 membership as a whole, to allow (USC and UCLA) to participate in” board discussions, according to the court filing.
The two remaining schools argued, “The fact that eight additional schools have withdrawn since USC and UCLA does not erase this conflict or somehow change the meaning of the Bylaws. Indeed, that ‘direct conflict’ now infects all 10 departing schools, who are committed to competitors and have no incentive to invest in the Pac-12’s future.”
In an October motion seeking to intervene in the lawsuit, Washington argued that it should still have a say in conference decisions.
“True, UW is leaving the conference after the 2023-24 academic year. But, in the meantime, UW remains a member of the conference, and board participation and voting power affects the experience of UW’s athletics teams and student-athletes for the 2023-24 academic year as well as UW’s bargained-for contractual rights and financial interest,” according to the motion.
Related
