After eight months of incremental moves, June has produced a great leap forward for the rebuilt Pac-12 on multiple fronts.
On the first day of the month, San Diego State, Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State and Utah State issued formal departure notices to the Mountain West (for next summer).
On Monday, the eight committed of the new Pac-12 formalized the grant-of-rights agreement required before they can sign the long-awaited media deal.
And in between, a U.S. District Court judge approved the settlement of an antitrust lawsuit that establishes revenue sharing with athletes and will transform major college sports from Tallahassee to Corvallis. The House lawsuit has implications for every team at every school in every conference.
“Broadly, it’s nice to have some clarity knowing the model,” Pac-12 commissioner Teresa Gould said Monday. “We’ve been in this weird, in-between place.”
She was referring to college sports writ large, but the description fits her conference as well.
The Pac-12 has a lengthy to-do list. It must resolve lawsuits with the Mountain West, finalize a long-term media rights deal, add at least one more football-playing member, craft a football schedule for the fall of 2026 and determine which sports it plans to sponsor.
And July 1, 2026, when the rebuilt conference goes live, is fast approaching.
“I’ve been saying all along that as we got close on the media rights, we would pivot and get out there and start identifying new ,” Gould said. “We’re at the point that we know enough to move forward and start engaging prospective .”
The House lawsuit settlement , which include a commitment to share up to $20.5 million with athletes starting this summer, have been a constant topic of conversation for Gould and campus executives. It looms over most, if not all, strategic decisions.
As a named defendant in the case along with the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and NCAA, the Pac-12 was involved in building the post-settlement landscape that includes changes to roster sizes and a mechanism for determining the legitimacy of NIL deals.
Whatever NIL opportunities exist can supplement the revenue-sharing agreement between schools and their athletes.
“Being part of the defendant group meant we were intimately involved,” Gould said. “That was a benefit to us.
“The fact that we’re starting with a blank slate in the middle of this allows us to build something for the marketplace as it exists now.”
In that regard, Gould drew a contrast to her colleagues, the commissioners of the other defendant conferences.
On a Zoom call with reporters Monday morning, they were asked whether revenue-sharing decisions — how much of the $20.5 million to allocate to men’s basketball, for example — would be made at the conference level or by individual campuses. Jim Phillips (ACC), Greg Sankey (SEC), Tony Petitti (Big Ten) and Brett Yormark (Big 12) all gave the same answer: Revenue allocations would be determined by the schools.
“That was not my answer,” Gould said. “We are having conversations around strategy. That doesn’t mean there won’t be some institutional autonomy. But if it’s entirely about local authority, then you’re missing the opportunity to prioritize the sports that are important to you.
“We have a tremendous opportunity. We’re doing a lot of brainstorming. Where are we aligned? What do we do with the Pac-12 Enterprises around NIL content? How do we feel about the revenue sharing?”
Ah, yes. Revenue sharing.
Schools in the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and SEC are expected to allocate approximately $15 million to their football rosters, with $3 million to men’s basketball and the remainder of the $20.5 million to Olympic sports. (The cap will increase over time.)
The Pac-12 won’t match that $15 million figure; it might not come close. Gould said it was “premature to land on a number” for the conference, which is considering minimum investment standards. And the valuation of the pending media rights deal — it’s expected to generate between $7 million and $10 million per school per year — will undoubtedly play a role in revenue-sharing decisions.
(The strategic discussions unfold with the ACC and Big 12 in mind, Gould added, to a much greater extent than the Mountain West or American conferences.)
Another topic of conversation that flows from the House case: roster sizes.
Previously, football programs could offer a maximum of 85 scholarships and have an unlimited number of walk-ons. The settlement caps rosters at 105 but allows schools to place every player on scholarship. Most are expected to keep at least 10 or 15 walk-ons.
“We’re discussing how we build depth,” Gould said. “Our schools get raided. How do the scholarships and the NIL piece work to help us? We’re realistic about where we sit and looking at how we can best retain our players.”
Asked if every member of the rebuilt Pac-12 would opt into the revenue-sharing agreement, Gould hesitated.
“The deadline is June 15,” she said, “and I don’t want to speak for the schools. But put it this way: Every institution will participate in the House benefits.”
Plenty of issues remain unresolved for the Pac-12, but clarity emerged late last week for one of the most significant. Revenue sharing is the way of the world in college sports, and it will help shape the competitive landscape for years to come.
