• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Big picture... (or something)

3

307bball

Well-known member
Stepping back for a minute from the minute to minute changes in conference makeup.

What does it mean to build inequality into the makeup of an athletic group? Doesn't it ultimately diminish the entire endeavor? Every level of athletics try's to level the playing field as much as possible except for college athletics.

What if a school get's into a good conference...but they have sort of the reverse of the current Boise St MW deal? Is that good? Won't that just ensure they are bottom dwellers forever?
 
The funny thing is this is likely to change again in the next 5 to 10 years. Your not wrong but a sense of panic always seems to set in. In the case of the mwc, the alternative to unequal revenue sharing is worse.

If I'm unlv, I look at like what can build their brand enough to try to make it to p4 in the next cycle. They won't but I'm sure that's how they're looking at it. I'm the mwc, they have the best shot of continuing their football success. With the right ooc scheduling it'll be an easier path to the playoff spot. Bball is going to be awful but they or unm would likely get the bid every year.

I'd like the mwc, if it survives, to put a good chunk of the buyout towards building a better post-season option for our champ.

To your point though, I find it funny how universities follow an economic model that they (their faculty and administrators) often say they don't like. Rich get richer at the expense of the little guy. Hypocrisy in academia andsociety is nauseating. Actually, I'm getting closer to being done with college athletics. If we're down this road, the nfl model is better.
 
The inflection point or whatever you want to call it is happening. It's kind of like each year when the selection committee creates the NCAA tournament field...There are a bunch of schools that are no-brainer in but their is some argument about seeding...and then there are the 3 or 4 schools that are thisclose to making it but are left out. Both situations create conversation but the angst for those left out is huge in comparison...the sentiment is that if they had just done a little more they would have gotten it.

Now I don't know how "close" Wyoming is to whatever that line is, but this is a rough time for sure.
 
So, if I told you we could trade CSU, the Gaggies, SDSU, Boize, and Fresneck for $180 million, what would you have said? I don't know that those teams create $180 million in value for the PAC over an economically relevant period of time. I don't know that they don't either. In any event, we could be in a position to use the PAC money (if we win the lawsuits) to rebuild, heal up and grow - with the end game likely being them in the same Group of Whatever conference long-term as us. We just use their money to stay afloat. I know there are a billion moving parts, but $180 million invested wisely (and that, right there is the key) could be fun to deploy.

You'd have to think that the PAC shopped potential league configurations to the TV networks and this all pencils at some point (maybe soon) for them. But any hiccup could be very costly to them if the networks balk or they can't get the configurations their underwriting was built on.
 
LawPoke said:
So, if I told you we could trade CSU, the Gaggies, SDSU, Boize, and Fresneck for $180 million, what would you have said? I don't know that those teams create $180 million in value for the PAC over an economically relevant period of time. I don't know that they don't either. In any event, we could be in a position to use the PAC money (if we win the lawsuits) to rebuild, heal up and grow - with the end game likely being them in the same Group of Whatever conference long-term as us. We just use their money to stay afloat. I know there are a billion moving parts, but $180 million invested wisely (and that, right there is the key) could be fun to deploy.

You'd have to think that the PAC shopped potential league configurations to the TV networks and this all pencils at some point (maybe soon) for them. But any hiccup could be very costly to them if the networks balk or they can't get the configurations their underwriting was built on.
Click to expand...
As a lawyer, what are your thoughts on the suit. Does the court hear it, does it get thrown out? Any thoughts?
 
Itsux2beaewe said:
Interesting article.

www.usatoday.com

Pac-12 adding Mountain West schools sets new standard of pointlessness in college sports

The Pac-12 raiding the Mountain West of four schools to stay afloat is another low for college athletics and it sets new standard for pointlessness.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...
Great find. Pointless is absolutely correct. Yet...

Hey Burman, guess what "doing more with less" and accepting mediocrity got us - a ticket to nowhere. You failed Wyoming. You should resign. Now.
 
Itsux2beaewe said:
As a lawyer, what are your thoughts on the suit. Does the court hear it, does it get thrown out? Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Honestly I haven’t read it. Just thinking about it, though, I don’t find the basis compelling. They were not under duress to sign. They needed games, but they didn’t have to have a relationship with The MWC to fill schedules. The MW had compelling and colorable reasons to demand a no poaching clause, which is a fairly standard liquidated damages provision in simple terms - the legality of which is clear. The PAC is full of big boys who are free to contract and did. I’m sorry they don’t like having to pay (not really) but they inked the deal knowing what they were doing.
 
Last edited:
LawPoke said:
Honestly I haven’t read it. Just thinking about it, though, I don’t find the basis compelling. They were not under duress to sign. They needed games, but they didn’t have to have a relationship with The MWC to fill schedules. The MW had compelling and colorable reasons to demand a no poaching clause, which is a fairly standard liquidated damages provision in simple terms - the legality of which is clear. The PAC is full of big boys who are free to contract and did. I’m sorry they don’t like having to pay (not really) but they inked the deal knowing what they were doing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the legal analysis. It does seem they wouldn’t have a case. A contract should be binding, I would think.
 
While this story - linked below - hurts (as it implies Wyoming is one of the bottom feeders that the PAC and MW Benedict Arnolds are shedding), it is also spot on.

BINGO!
 
I saw the comment below regarding the poaching penalty verbiage in the contract (Sherman act). For the legal minds…..Is there a chance this could be a viable argument in the court.

“It feels to me, just reading these documents for the first time over the last 20 minutes or so, that the PAC 12 signed the scheduling agreement knowing the Withdrawal Fee portion of the agreement was unenforceable. In other words, our lawyers are smarter than theirs.”
 
Last edited:
Itsux2beaewe said:
I saw the comment below regarding the poaching penalty verbiage in the contract (Sherman act). For the legal minds…..Is there a chance this could be a viable argument in the court.

“It feels to me, just reading these documents for the first time over the last 20 minutes or so, that the PAC 12 signed the scheduling agreement knowing the Withdrawal Fee portion of the agreement was unenforceable. In other words, our lawyers are smarter than theirs.”
Click to expand...
Maybe - I dunno. At the end of the day, the court will hear that the same smart lawyers counseled the PAC members to sign...with the Fee provision in the deal. I am not an antitrust lawyer - but the principles of contract construction, interpretation, and enforcement and balancing of equities and fairness all cut against the conniving SOBs. If they did sign knowing they had inserted a poison pill, they could have bigger problems - problems that rhyme with fraud. Problems that could come with other, non-contractual punitive damages that make the contractual payment look like chicken feed, which could be asserted as counterclaims in the response from the MWC. This will escalate quickly. My guess is that is the PAC's strategy, up the ante and try to force settlement at a payment less than the contractual amount. Knowing our weak kneed leadership, it might work.
 
Last edited:
LawPoke said:
Y toorMaybe - I dunno. At the end of the day, the court will hear that the same smart lawyers counseled the PAC members to sign...with the Fee provision in the deal. I am not an antitrust lawyer - but the principles of contract keep construction, interpretation, and enforcement and balancing of equities and fairness all cut against the conniving SOBs. If they did sign knowing they had inserted a poison pill, they could have bigger problems - problems that rhyme with fraud. Problems that could come with other, non-contractual punitive damages that make the contractual payment look like chicken feed, which could be asserted as counterclaims in the response from the MWC. This will escalate quickly. My guess is that is the PAC's strategy, up the ante and try to force settlement at a payment less than the contractual amount. Knowing our weak kneed leadership, it might work.
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken, the settlement strategies used in the previous round of conference shuffles was something like 65%. The Pee12 will try to keep everything they can to make up for the marginal media deal they get.

They have to destroy the MWC to get the best deal because it is the only remaining competitor in the west independent of the B12/B10/ACC footprint.

If the MWC keeps at least 6 teams they can destroy the CUSA by adding 3.
 
PorkerPoke said:
If the MWC keeps at least 6 teams they can destroy the CUSA by adding 3.
Click to expand...
I kind of disagree here. I think the g6 needs to knock this crap off and the MWC leads the way. Once we lock up our membership, we work with aac, cusa, sun belt, and mac to start charting a sustainable future with ground rules. To hell with the pac.

Maybe we add 1 of nmsu/utep then an fcs to get to 8 or 9 and cusa still has 9.

The original g5 need to figure out some working relationship. We have the destabilizing forces on an island and need to leave them there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top