It might be that CSU’s are not allowed to sue each other. Secondly, if the two California schools are allowed to join the lawsuit, SJS may be able to go to the Board of Trustees and have access to all communications within schools that are parties in the lawsuit?
Why do entities sign contracts and agreements if they don't want to live up to the terms of the agreements? They jumped to the PaC-12, so pay up with those exit fees.
They haven't left no ink to paper and if the pac doesn't have an additional potential member they won't exist to go too. So a perfectly legitimate reason not to put pen to paper.
Because there are multiple contracts? It's kinda simple. The poaching fees and the exit fees are both compensation for damages done to the mw. The mw is entitled to collect damages... but not from both parties unless they can prove the damages are that high.
You agree to the terms of a contract and sign on the dotted line? You abide by those terms. If you didn't like those terms to begin with, then you don't sign the contract. I don't see why some people can't understand this. This already looks to me like the MWC is going to emerge as the winners in the courtroom.
Hence why they never submitted it in writing, none of them are sure there will be a conference to go too. Why the mountain west breached the he'll out of the contract I don't know. Words are words until it is in writing.
@@JimmieFae They have to prove that they never submitted it in writing. We can't just go by what they're verbally claiming. If the MWC can prove that they did submit something official in writing, the outgoing members will have no case.
My question is when the leaving schools meet to decide to leave for the pac-12 did they include the schools who were not leaving or the conference, if so, isn't that a breach of contract, since it probably wasn't a legal meeting under the MWC rules?
This will go to court. All of the people I've been hearing from the Pac-12 have been saying that the only reason they're still in the MWC is because they don't have an 8th member and they need a fallback position just in case. So let's see if they live up to their word. They will get an 8th member and will formerly be a conference. If they don't give their notice then, that is an extremely bad look. Because the judge is going to want to know why and is thinking that perhaps you're trying to possibly dissolve the conference to avoid paying any fees. The same crap that departing 10 tried to do to Oregon State and Washington State. There is a legal precedent for that now. The only question is how soon will this go to court.
It'd interesting that the suing schools have one foot in pac-12 and in the MWC. One foot is the best interest of the leaving schools and the other is against the interest of the conference they are leaving, it seems unfair they get to be both, able to sink the MWC and get the benefits of the PAC -12. Nope that won't stand.
If the Pac-12 had just added San Jose State, it would've put the conference in a better situation because they would already be at the 8 team minimumminimum
these pac schools make me laugh. the hutzpah is off the charts. i'm guessing the much ballyhooed new pac media deal isnt as lucrative as they thought, since they keep hitting up their old conference for cash. very amusing. they are like the ex wife who leaves you for a pizza delivery guy and then sues you for "emotional battery"
These are frivolous lawsuits. I saw like People's Court and other tv courts, and it is usually go against people like CSU and USU that they have to agree to the agreements. Utah State never had that money to leave the MWC.
So what I heard is you have 5 schools have said words but are obviously still full members because they announced that they intend to join a conference that would only exist if they happen have commitments from additional schools. Therefore they would have every reason to not formally resign until such a time that said conference can confirm that they are likely to retain conference status. So in other words you have five schools saying in good faith we are thinking about leaving but don't know if we are.
Continuing your train of thought... i agree that the pac entrance penalty and the MW exit fees are both "exit fees" to compensate the conferences for a team leaving. The poaching penalty is also an "exit fee" in which the PAC compensates the MW for the exit of a mw team. I want the mw to get compensated fairly. Trying to collect compensation for damages done by teams exiting from both the PAC and the exiting members is not fair imo. Edit: Based on your ending comments I think you've already come to this conclusion.
I don’t see why Fresno or SDSU joining or not joining matters. If CSU/Boise/USU win and it is determined the MW fees are illegal it seems like it would be illegal for all parties involved, not just the ones who sued.
Are the former AAC teams that paid exit fees going to sue to get that money back? Are Memphis and Tulane going to sue to get their exit fees invalidated so they can leave for the PAC? A ruling of this type could create a precedent and start a domino effect that the rest of CFB does not want
@ I don’t know if the rest of CFB doesn’t want this. Having a higher degree of freedom to move to a better situation when it presents itself is very team-friendly.
yeah team-friendly, but fan-friendly, well not so much. but screw fans anyway. they arent important, its all about the teams and players. it's the nba model. oh wait that isnt working so well is it
The Mountain West wanted to merge but the PAC doesn’t want all their schools. The PAC plan was to invite a few from the Mountain West and a few from the AAC. Of course Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, & South Florida was their target.
@@JimmieFae because either the mw office would have been laid off or the pac office would have been laid off? Most people don't put themselves out of a job willingly...
that ship sailed when the pac blew up the mw in the middle of a scheduling agreement in the dead of night thinking everyone would come along....haha oops
For the same reasons the teams in the Power 4 are shifting. The money making teams don't want to carry the burden for the programs unwilling to invest in their programs.
As a WSU alum, I of course find all of what is happening in college football lately very damaging to the vast majority of schools. All of my friends and family who are fellow Cougs want the PAC 12 to survive but also don't like the fact that it is at the cost of the MWC. We were happy the MWC helped by bringing us into the 2024 schedule, but it did have a "predatory loan" element to it by having a poaching fee that was twice the amount of the fee needed to raise an FCS team to FBS level. Not saying the MWC was wrong in seeking that and it will be up to the courts to decide on things. (And yes, I know the PAC signed the agreement so no need to reply with that). The question I am leading up to is about "real damage done". I live on the East coast and the reality is this...the PAC 12 - CW deal brought more visibility of the MWC than ever before. I am no MWC expert by any means, but did expanded coverage profit the MWC? Am I right in thinking more MWC games were broadcast nationally this year than in the past? It is a good thing that next year the PAC is not playing any MWC except 3 schools scheduled to come to the PAC (and the WSU - CSU game is not really anything new as there are some long-term connections between those schools). I seriously do not think the leaders at WSU and OSU have a problem with helping the MWC pay to elevate Montana, Montana State, etc. into the MWC. They simply want to make sure the PAC keeps enough money to ride out the storm the 2 schools were placed into by no choice of their own. A strong MWC is actually very beneficial to a strong PAC 12. When the dust settles, both conferences can benefit by playing each other more under 2 different broadcast deals that expose more people east of the Mississippi to the programs out West. Let's hope we get through all this in a place where Western football is healthy and not a complete after-thought to the conferences on the right side of the map.
![Nick Saban goes OFF on NIL issues 🗣️ 'EACH YEAR IT'S WORSE!' [FULL INTERVIEW] | The Pat McAfee Show](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hVW0XDLXMCQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Nick Saban goes OFF on NIL issues 🗣️ 'EACH YEAR IT'S WORSE!' [FULL INTERVIEW] | The Pat McAfee Show](/img/tr.png)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m really enjoying your MW coverage. Thank you so much!
Thanks. Appreciate it.
It might be that CSU’s are not allowed to sue each other. Secondly, if the two California schools are allowed to join the lawsuit, SJS may be able to go to the Board of Trustees and have access to all communications within schools that are parties in the lawsuit?
A solid point.
Thx for the comment.
Why do entities sign contracts and agreements if they don't want to live up to the terms of the agreements? They jumped to the PaC-12, so pay up with those exit fees.
Same is true of GCU and the WCC I assume?
They haven't left no ink to paper and if the pac doesn't have an additional potential member they won't exist to go too. So a perfectly legitimate reason not to put pen to paper.
Because there are multiple contracts? It's kinda simple. The poaching fees and the exit fees are both compensation for damages done to the mw. The mw is entitled to collect damages... but not from both parties unless they can prove the damages are that high.
@@rumblingcds thanks for your thoughts. I think it all settles.
@@DocSkirv agreed. I think a judge might need to tell the existing mw and exiting mw to play nice till the divorce is final tho...
You agree to the terms of a contract and sign on the dotted line? You abide by those terms.
If you didn't like those terms to begin with, then you don't sign the contract. I don't see why some people can't understand this.
This already looks to me like the MWC is going to emerge as the winners in the courtroom.
Hence why they never submitted it in writing, none of them are sure there will be a conference to go too. Why the mountain west breached the he'll out of the contract I don't know. Words are words until it is in writing.
@@JimmieFae They have to prove that they never submitted it in writing. We can't just go by what they're verbally claiming. If the MWC can prove that they did submit something official in writing, the outgoing members will have no case.
My question is when the leaving schools meet to decide to leave for the pac-12 did they include the schools who were not leaving or the conference, if so, isn't that a breach of contract, since it probably wasn't a legal meeting under the MWC rules?
No way they included everyone.
This will go to court. All of the people I've been hearing from the Pac-12 have been saying that the only reason they're still in the MWC is because they don't have an 8th member and they need a fallback position just in case.
So let's see if they live up to their word. They will get an 8th member and will formerly be a conference. If they don't give their notice then, that is an extremely bad look. Because the judge is going to want to know why and is thinking that perhaps you're trying to possibly dissolve the conference to avoid paying any fees. The same crap that departing 10 tried to do to Oregon State and Washington State. There is a legal precedent for that now.
The only question is how soon will this go to court.
It'd interesting that the suing schools have one foot in pac-12 and in the MWC. One foot is the best interest of the leaving schools and the other is against the interest of the conference they are leaving, it seems unfair they get to be both, able to sink the MWC and get the benefits of the PAC -12. Nope that won't stand.
@@CodaJaylaright? Crazy how that works
If the Pac-12 had just added San Jose State, it would've put the conference in a better situation because they would already be at the 8 team minimumminimum
Were the bylaws in place at the time of the resignation, or are these the new bylaws passed after the resignation?
The bylaws shown on this episode were in place at the time the members publicly announced they were going to the PAC.
Before. They actually weren’t and they adjusted it after sdsu tried to leave before this happened
these pac schools make me laugh. the hutzpah is off the charts. i'm guessing the much ballyhooed new pac media deal isnt as lucrative as they thought, since they keep hitting up their old conference for cash. very amusing. they are like the ex wife who leaves you for a pizza delivery guy and then sues you for "emotional battery"
These are frivolous lawsuits. I saw like People's Court and other tv courts, and it is usually go against people like CSU and USU that they have to agree to the agreements. Utah State never had that money to leave the MWC.
What a cluster. Neither conference benefits with all this turmoil.
Just subscribed
Thank you!
So what I heard is you have 5 schools have said words but are obviously still full members because they announced that they intend to join a conference that would only exist if they happen have commitments from additional schools. Therefore they would have every reason to not formally resign until such a time that said conference can confirm that they are likely to retain conference status. So in other words you have five schools saying in good faith we are thinking about leaving but don't know if we are.
That’s not what the entrance agree meant says.
They had to act on their commitment to the PAC.
I’m not a big fan of tribalism… but I gotta say I hope the 5 defectors win
Continuing your train of thought... i agree that the pac entrance penalty and the MW exit fees are both "exit fees" to compensate the conferences for a team leaving. The poaching penalty is also an "exit fee" in which the PAC compensates the MW for the exit of a mw team.
I want the mw to get compensated fairly. Trying to collect compensation for damages done by teams exiting from both the PAC and the exiting members is not fair imo.
Edit: Based on your ending comments I think you've already come to this conclusion.
I don’t see why Fresno or SDSU joining or not joining matters. If CSU/Boise/USU win and it is determined the MW fees are illegal it seems like it would be illegal for all parties involved, not just the ones who sued.
Are the former AAC teams that paid exit fees going to sue to get that money back? Are Memphis and Tulane going to sue to get their exit fees invalidated so they can leave for the PAC? A ruling of this type could create a precedent and start a domino effect that the rest of CFB does not want
@ I don’t know if the rest of CFB doesn’t want this. Having a higher degree of freedom to move to a better situation when it presents itself is very team-friendly.
yeah team-friendly, but fan-friendly, well not so much. but screw fans anyway. they arent important, its all about the teams and players. it's the nba model. oh wait that isnt working so well is it
@@Habitual_mufnthe rest of cfb most definitely doesn’t want this or it wouldn’t of been a thing to begin with
Why the conferences don't merge into the PAC-West conference is beyond me.
The Mountain West wanted to merge but the PAC doesn’t want all their schools. The PAC plan was to invite a few from the Mountain West and a few from the AAC. Of course Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, & South Florida was their target.
@@JimmieFae because either the mw office would have been laid off or the pac office would have been laid off? Most people don't put themselves out of a job willingly...
that ship sailed when the pac blew up the mw in the middle of a scheduling agreement in the dead of night thinking everyone would come along....haha oops
Cause the pac didn’t want to merge. It would make them the mw 2.0…. Which they still are anyway
For the same reasons the teams in the Power 4 are shifting. The money making teams don't want to carry the burden for the programs unwilling to invest in their programs.
As a WSU alum, I of course find all of what is happening in college football lately very damaging to the vast majority of schools. All of my friends and family who are fellow Cougs want the PAC 12 to survive but also don't like the fact that it is at the cost of the MWC. We were happy the MWC helped by bringing us into the 2024 schedule, but it did have a "predatory loan" element to it by having a poaching fee that was twice the amount of the fee needed to raise an FCS team to FBS level. Not saying the MWC was wrong in seeking that and it will be up to the courts to decide on things. (And yes, I know the PAC signed the agreement so no need to reply with that). The question I am leading up to is about "real damage done". I live on the East coast and the reality is this...the PAC 12 - CW deal brought more visibility of the MWC than ever before. I am no MWC expert by any means, but did expanded coverage profit the MWC? Am I right in thinking more MWC games were broadcast nationally this year than in the past? It is a good thing that next year the PAC is not playing any MWC except 3 schools scheduled to come to the PAC (and the WSU - CSU game is not really anything new as there are some long-term connections between those schools). I seriously do not think the leaders at WSU and OSU have a problem with helping the MWC pay to elevate Montana, Montana State, etc. into the MWC. They simply want to make sure the PAC keeps enough money to ride out the storm the 2 schools were placed into by no choice of their own. A strong MWC is actually very beneficial to a strong PAC 12. When the dust settles, both conferences can benefit by playing each other more under 2 different broadcast deals that expose more people east of the Mississippi to the programs out West. Let's hope we get through all this in a place where Western football is healthy and not a complete after-thought to the conferences on the right side of the map.
Well said.
Go get ‘em USU, CSU, BSU, FSU, & SDSU!!!!
The MWC is far too arrogant!
i love how unlv told the collective defectors thinking we would just come along to sit and spin
College football realignment is ugly business.
Indeed
Yes, but we have one more year inside that conference, this is B.S
You do know they're gonna make money. A whole. 8 million dollars from us being a first sead you should shut up.
The money is split. Thanks