SDSU-Mountain West dispute may stem from June meeting in Hawaii

A week before President Adela de la Torre sent a June 13 letter to her counterparts in the Mountain West “to formally notice that San Diego State University intends to resign” from the conference, she was at the University of Hawaii for a summer board meeting with presidents and athletic directors.

On the second day, during a closed session with only Commissioner Gloria Nevarez and the 11 other presidents (and not ADs), de la Torre discussed SDSU’s plans to leave the Mountain West for the Pac-12 or another power conference.

“Basically,” related one conference source with knowledge of the meeting, “she said her goodbyes.”

The discussion was cited in both de la Torre’s June 13 letter to Nevarez and the other presidents, as well as Nevarez’s reply a day later. It adds context to the contentious stalemate between the two sides, and it might help explain why the conference is so adamant that SDSU withdrew effective July 1, 2024.

De la Torre’s letter begins: “As shared with Commissioner Nevarez at our June 2023 Board of Directors meeting, this letter is to formally notice …”

Nevarez’s reply begins: “On behalf of the Board of Directors, I would like to thank you for your consideration and professionalism in discussing the resignation of San Diego State University at the Board meeting last week. SDSU has been an important member to the Mountain West, and it is with a heavy heart that we receive this news.”

At least four, less-cordial letters have been exchanged since, most notably June 30 from de la Torre saying “I am pleased to advise you that SDSU has decided to remain in the Mountain West” and July 1 from Nevarez saying the conference is withholding a $6.6 million distribution share due SDSU as the initial payment of its exit fee.

The July 1 letter concludes: “We will discuss the status of SDSU’s membership in the conference at our July meeting of the Board of Directors.”

That is scheduled for July 17 via Zoom.

So what exactly was said in the June 6 meeting on the Hawaii campus? Did de la Torre indicate SDSU merely hoped to leave the Mountain West? Or was she confident enough in a Pac-12 invitation that she thanked them for their time together and said her goodbyes?

In a statement provided to the Union-Tribune, SDSU indicated that de la Torre’s June 13 letter was a byproduct of her face-to-face meeting with the board a week earlier. The point of the letter, SDSU has maintained, was not to officially leave the conference but to inquire in writing about flexibility in the exit terms — specifically asking for a one-month extension on a June 30 deadline to provide one-year’s notice or face a doubled exit fee.

“This letter was drafted at the request of other conference presidents following transparent conversations about SDSU’s opportunities as part of its due diligence with the Mountain West Board of Directors,” the university’s statement said.

“Further, because of SDSU’s commitment to transparency and its history of positive collaboration with all the member universities, university leadership felt it important to engage in this dialogue, instead of opting to make a decision entirely independent of the conference and presidents, as is common during conference realignment announcements nationally.”

Mountain West bylaws set an exit fee of three times the average annual distribution per school — or an estimated $17 million total — with one-year notice of “resignation” by June 30. It must be in form of “written notice” to the commissioner and all other presidents.

Nevarez and the board, a conference source said, took the combination of what de la Torre told them in Hawaii and the choice of words in her letter a week later — “formally notice” — to clearly mean SDSU was leaving effective July 1, 2024. Another factor: The letter was sent not just to Nevarez but all 11 other presidents, as the bylaws dictate.

The conference responded by initiating separation procedures outlined in the bylaws, removing de la Torre from the board and withholding this year’s $6.6 million distribution to SDSU to defray the exit fee. Nevarez does not have the sole power to reverse that; the full board does, and most presidents are on vacation this time of year.

Until then, you have a school that insists it never left and a conference that insists it must be reinstated first.

“I don’t understand how this entire SDSU thing could have turned into such a huge mess,” tweeted Bob Thompson, the retired president of Fox Sports who negotiated dozens of TV rights deals with college conferences. “One would think they had their consultants and lawyers involved. Somebody messed up somewhere.”

He added in a subsequent tweet: “I just think this could’ve all been handled behind closed doors.”

If the Mountain West reinstates SDSU on July 17, the Aztecs would remain in the conference for at least one year and probably two, unable to join the Pac-12 until 2025-26 or face a doubled $34 million exit fee that Athletic Director John David Wicker has repeatedly said the university “can’t pay.”

The whole situation, of course, could be turned on its head if the Pac-12 somehow finalizes a media rights deal, gets approval from its membership, fast-tracks an expansion vote and invites SDSU before the Mountain West board meets. In that case, the two sides likely would flip positions.

The Aztecs could say: ‘OK, we accept the Mountain West contention that we left the conference before June 30 and owe only a $17 million exit fee.’ And the Mountain West could say: ‘OK, we accept your letters that you never left and now owe us $34 million.’

But with each passing hour and day, the chances of that happening diminish. The Pac-12 has been working on a new media rights deal for nearly a year, and several sources with knowledge of the process don’t expect resolution by July 17.

Another potential wrench: The Mountain West, if it caught wind of an imminent Pac-12 deal and expansion invitation to SDSU, could quickly convene an emergency board session and preemptively reinstate the Aztecs to compel the higher exit fee.

In the meantime, the stalemate persists.

“While there has been speculation of concern in media coverage and other channels, we are not worried and do not have any concerns,” SDSU’s statement said. “The university is confident in its athletic and conference positioning, and all the many positive conversations the university has engaged in for months. … We remain excited about current accomplishments and future opportunities.”