(02-15-2022 11:01 AM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 10:41 AM)Dusky Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 08:40 AM)rileylives Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 08:38 AM)Dusky Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 08:30 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote: [ -> ]I get that except for I don't understand CUSA position to not engage in any negotiation with the SB3.
CUSA doesn't give up any of its rights by negotiating, and given the seemingly ambiguous nature of the bylaws of the conference and the uncertainty of the interpretation from one person to the other, it doesn't make sense.
They lose nothing by negotiating, but they potentially weaken their position by ignoring.
They said they weren’t going to do it publicly, no one on this board has internal connections with CUSA. For all we know the 3 made an offer, CUSA said it’s not even close and it’s been a stalemate since.
What I gather, once the departing schools made it known to comfort USA that they were leaving in December, and then in subsequent notes to communicate, they were brushed aside. There was not a single response back from the Conference USA side at any moment, which actually hurts the remaining schools more than anything.
You say from what you gather. Gather from where, this board? The Herd board? Many people are posting things as facts when they are just opinions and speculation. If someone could show me factually what CUSDA has done or not done that would be much different but I don't believe anyone that truly knows anything is posting anything on a message board.
https://southernmiss.com/news/2022/2/11/...nment.aspx
The University first advised Conference USA in early December 2021 of the University's plans to terminate its membership in June 2022. Since then, the University has clearly and consistently repeated its intentions to the conference. The University has from the outset expressed its desire to work with Conference USA to achieve an amicable separation, including offering to cooperate to ensure that all remaining conference members had complete competitive schedules for those sports in which the University competes. Conference USA has so far refused to discuss any such arrangement with the University.
The Conference's unwillingness to discuss the concept of separation this year creates confusion and doubt for all concerned. The remaining members of Conference USA deserve certainty about their schedules as they plan for competition next year. For their sake, the University makes public its intent.
If it's not documented, it never happened.
It's documented.
You're still missing the point, I am talking about something from CUSA. We obviously know the 3 let CUSA know they were leaving.
(02-15-2022 11:14 AM)Dusky Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 11:01 AM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 10:41 AM)Dusky Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 08:40 AM)rileylives Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 08:38 AM)Dusky Wrote: [ -> ]They said they weren’t going to do it publicly, no one on this board has internal connections with CUSA. For all we know the 3 made an offer, CUSA said it’s not even close and it’s been a stalemate since.
What I gather, once the departing schools made it known to comfort USA that they were leaving in December, and then in subsequent notes to communicate, they were brushed aside. There was not a single response back from the Conference USA side at any moment, which actually hurts the remaining schools more than anything.
You say from what you gather. Gather from where, this board? The Herd board? Many people are posting things as facts when they are just opinions and speculation. If someone could show me factually what CUSDA has done or not done that would be much different but I don't believe anyone that truly knows anything is posting anything on a message board.
https://southernmiss.com/news/2022/2/11/...nment.aspx
The University first advised Conference USA in early December 2021 of the University's plans to terminate its membership in June 2022. Since then, the University has clearly and consistently repeated its intentions to the conference. The University has from the outset expressed its desire to work with Conference USA to achieve an amicable separation, including offering to cooperate to ensure that all remaining conference members had complete competitive schedules for those sports in which the University competes. Conference USA has so far refused to discuss any such arrangement with the University.
The Conference's unwillingness to discuss the concept of separation this year creates confusion and doubt for all concerned. The remaining members of Conference USA deserve certainty about their schedules as they plan for competition next year. For their sake, the University makes public its intent.
If it's not documented, it never happened.
It's documented.
You're still missing the point, I am talking about something from CUSA. We obviously know the 3 let CUSA know they were leaving.
Read the quote. I believe the answer you're looking for is in there.
I believe the words "The Conference's Unwillingness to discuss the concept" is what you're asking about.
CUSA never said anything. Then on Jan. 20th, 6 days prior to a meeting between the SBC and the new additions CUSA issued something to the press, not the universities about staying together through June 2023. That's been it.
I liken it to you going to your boss and saying, from now on out, all my evaluations should be emailed out to everyone instead of staying between us. Kinda broad since the Conference should be working with us and not thinking we work for them.
(02-14-2022 08:21 PM)rileylives Wrote: [ -> ]ROLL CALL
I want every single AAC incoming member who posted on this thread upset at Marshall, ODU, Southern Miss to answer one question.
What would you want your school to do if the same applied to you?
Keep in mind, the Sun Belt WAIVED our entry fees to join in 2022. Apparently the AAC entry fee is 10 million. So the AAC is willing to waive that for you to enter in 2022.
What would you want your school to do? I will keep posting this until I hear HONEST answers.
I am not sure anyone is mad at you...frustrated with you. To answer your question, we would leave. But we would be under no illusion that does not create damages and we would expect to have to pay C-USA an exit fee beyond what is defined. We also would realize that C-USA is under no obligation to negotiate, and it might cost a bundle or not. But the risk is it will cost you, but undefined. Lawyers live for this.
There seems to be delusion by some that they will be out with no repercussions.
And to add to this.. If CUSA was confident they could hold at 14, they'd released the schedules yesterday showing all 14.
I think there's more behind the scenes than what we see.
My opinion is yesterday revised schedules sent out with 11 teams and they're waiting on sign off to go out later this week.
If anything the stunt or maneuver, however you'd want to view it, possibly opened up lines of communication.
I think CUSA was bluffing and was called. Who knows. At this point it's possibly escalated beyond ADs, Presidents, Chancellors, and CUSA Admins.
(02-15-2022 08:30 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 12:00 AM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2022 08:55 PM)rileylives Wrote: [ -> ]ROLL CALL
I want every single AAC incoming member who posted on this thread upset at Marshall, ODU, Southern Miss to answer one question.
What would you want your school to do if the same applied to you?
Keep in mind, the Sun Belt WAIVED our entry fees to join in 2022. Apparently the AAC entry fee is 10 million. So the AAC is willing to waive that for you to enter in 2022.
What would you want your school to do? I will keep posting this until I hear HONEST answers.
You gonna do this the other way now?
If the SB didn't have an opening, but the AAC did, and y'all were looking at those teams bailing early you reckon it'd be a lot of pats on the head and best wishes? Or would you take the conference bylaw view of "the rules are the rules, we'll see you in court" or "not negotiating is a type of negotiating" or whatever it is you're mad about here?
I won't keep posting it over and over because that's pretty obnoxious, but the answers you got just show what's been clear all along. Sometimes our fandom goals don't align and when they don't it's not hard to guess what our feelings as fans are going to be. It's why I don't understand UTEP fans saying "I hope it works out because of all the distractions." The distraction of this, such as it is, isn't a real thing. It doesn't affect anything I care about. SB3 teams want out because they think that's best for them. The other 11 teams don't see it that way.
So we'll all argue mostly from those positions and the courts will decide what really happens (most likely by settling on a number, a number that will hopefully be higher then it otherwise might have been).
I get that except for I don't understand CUSA position to not engage in any negotiation with the SB3.
CUSA doesn't give up any of its rights by negotiating, and given the seemingly ambiguous nature of the bylaws of the conference and the uncertainty of the interpretation from one person to the other, it doesn't make sense.
They lose nothing by negotiating, but they potentially weaken their position by ignoring.
And that is the problem. The bylaws are crystal clear. It is the SB3 that either do not understand, or do not wish to understand, the importance of the section dealing with early departure.
(02-15-2022 11:23 AM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]And to add to this.. If CUSA was confident they could hold at 14, they'd released the schedules yesterday showing all 14.
I think there's more behind the scenes than what we see.
My opinion is yesterday revised schedules sent out with 11 teams and they're waiting on sign off to go out later this week.
If anything the stunt or maneuver, however you'd want to view it, possibly opened up lines of communication.
I think CUSA was bluffing and was called. Who knows. At this point it's possibly escalated beyond ADs, Presidents, Chancellors, and CUSA Admins.
The definition of rationalization.
(02-15-2022 11:35 AM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 11:23 AM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]And to add to this.. If CUSA was confident they could hold at 14, they'd released the schedules yesterday showing all 14.
I think there's more behind the scenes than what we see.
My opinion is yesterday revised schedules sent out with 11 teams and they're waiting on sign off to go out later this week.
If anything the stunt or maneuver, however you'd want to view it, possibly opened up lines of communication.
I think CUSA was bluffing and was called. Who knows. At this point it's possibly escalated beyond ADs, Presidents, Chancellors, and CUSA Admins.
The definition of rationalization.
I'm not gonna lie, I'm not going to take CUSA's side in this. If this was FAU, I'd expect you to be doing the same.
I'm not gonna take either side because I have no clue what's really going on behind the scenes and truth be told, few if any here know anything either. Tweets and second hand info mean nothing.
Regardless, the SB3 are leaving early. They realize they will pay something for the chance to move to the SBC early. All that is left is to determine how much that will be.
I wish the SBC3 well. The AAC6 have one more year and hopefully all will be relatively civil in their departure. Not holding my breath tho.
I'm ready for CUSA9 to be a thing so we can show everyone this will be a viable solid conference moving forward.
I still think it's hilarious the people here that said the SBC3 will pay 20 million+ for leaving early to CUSA! People were basing CUSA exit fees off of what the Big East schools exit fees were back when college football was radically different than what it is today. The SBC3 isn't Alabama, Texas A&M and Georgia leaving the SEC for another higher conference.
I agree with everyone's analysis. The hardest part for CUSA is proving damages done. An exit fee is certain.
There was a Tech fan, not sure if it's here or another thread and his comment made the most sense.
Basically we'd owe one year of the distribution because it wasn't gonna be there for year 2 and the 5 remaining schools have to approve it or 75% of them have to approve it. I think that was the gist.
(02-15-2022 12:16 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not gonna take either side because I have no clue what's really going on behind the scenes and truth be told, few if any here know anything either. Tweets and second hand info mean nothing.
Regardless, the SB3 are leaving early. They realize they will pay something for the chance to move to the SBC early. All that is left is to determine how much that will be.
I wish the SBC3 well. The AAC6 have one more year and hopefully all will be relatively civil in their departure. Not holding my breath tho.
I'm ready for CUSA9 to be a thing so we can show everyone this will be a viable solid conference moving forward.
WKU is headed to the MAC, they just haven't decided with who yet. Last I heard it was Delaware.
(02-15-2022 12:22 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]There was a Tech fan, not sure if it's here or another thread and his comment made the most sense.
Basically we'd owe one year of the distribution because it wasn't gonna be there for year 2 and the 5 remaining schools have to approve it or 75% of them have to approve it. I think that was the gist.
Kinda. The 75% is the vote needed to be let out early and avoid an injunction or arbitration per the bylaws. I will assume the "Conference ignored our plans to leave early" from the schools mean this was not obtained.
The full amount of the exit fee (amount of two years distribution) is due prior to exit, or an injunction will be filed. So if the schools leave 30 June they will owe ~1.6MM in remaining exit fees (assuming they returned all 21-22 distributions back to the conference). On top of that some damages will be assessed, precedent establishes 50-70% of the exit fee penalty for leaving early. Those numbers equal up to slightly over 3MM per school due on 30 June.
(02-15-2022 12:24 PM)GreenBison Wrote: [ -> ]WKU is headed to the MAC, they just haven't decided with who yet. Last I heard it was Delaware.
(02-15-2022 12:33 PM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 12:22 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]There was a Tech fan, not sure if it's here or another thread and his comment made the most sense.
Basically we'd owe one year of the distribution because it wasn't gonna be there for year 2 and the 5 remaining schools have to approve it or 75% of them have to approve it. I think that was the gist.
Kinda. The 75% is the vote needed to be let out early and avoid an injunction or arbitration per the bylaws. I will assume the "Conference ignored our plans to leave early" from the schools mean this was not obtained.
The full amount of the exit fee (amount of two years distribution) is due prior to exit, or an injunction will be filed. So if the schools leave 30 June they will owe ~1.6MM in remaining exit fees (assuming they returned all 21-22 distributions back to the conference). On top of that some damages will be assessed, precedent establishes 50-70% of the exit fee penalty for leaving early. Those numbers equal up to slightly over 3MM per school due on 30 June.
I think I saw where distributions are given in the spring so the 21-22 distributions haven't been passed out so it'd be a year.
I don't know if the vote wasn't obtained or if a vote's been held or if the Conference has to call a meeting to do such. That could be the tickle. It was requested in December and nothing happened. Speculation is what I'm offering.
(02-15-2022 12:16 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not gonna take either side because I have no clue what's really going on behind the scenes and truth be told, few if any here know anything either. Tweets and second hand info mean nothing.
Regardless, the SB3 are leaving early. They realize they will pay something for the chance to move to the SBC early. All that is left is to determine how much that will be.
I wish the SBC3 well. The AAC6 have one more year and hopefully all will be relatively civil in their departure. Not holding my breath tho.
I'm ready for CUSA9 to be a thing so we can show everyone this will be a viable solid conference moving forward.
OT but it took your post for me to realize we were dealing in intervals of 3 (SBC3, AAC6, CUSA9) and I think it's pretty neat it worked out that way.
damn you fine...
What! YEAH!
(02-15-2022 09:15 AM)JCMiner Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 08:42 AM)rileylives Wrote: [ -> ]I will always respect the schools we competed with in the conference, I think most of the Southern Miss and ODU fans probably feel the same. Our beef is not with you.
So that's what's so disarming about this thread, it's seemingly pages of distain towards those who are leaving, as if none of your programs would do the same if in our shoes.
I understand it's just business but I personally will never congratulate any of the members leaving. I wouldn't expect to be congratulated from the schools that were left to die either. Excuse us if there's any disdain from the remaining five schools on our board.
I would have congratulated you guys at any point over the past decade if you found your way into the MWC. You were a more natural fit there. The unfortunate thing is this endless realignment really just kills rivalries.
(02-15-2022 12:37 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]I think I saw where distributions are given in the spring so the 21-22 distributions haven't been passed out so it'd be a year.
I don't know if the vote wasn't obtained or if a vote's been held or if the Conference has to call a meeting to do such. That could be the tickle. It was requested in December and nothing happened. Speculation is what I'm offering.
I think we are all speculating beyond the only known facts. The responses from the conference and schools could have been a show of hands vote, no vote, or a formal vote. Neither side has given that. All we know is what the bylaws say, what precedent says, and that both sides are posturing to appear to be in a position of strength.
If roles were reversed I would be 100% behind my school as you and others are. Even taking my blue lenses off though I do not see how USM, Marshall, or ODU have any position of strength here. We'll see what the upcoming distribution looks like for 21-22 looks like, but I don't see anyway the three escape without a significant (USM and Techs version of significant may not be the same as some schools) check being cut to the conference.
I do wonder as well if the holdup isn't the final numbers for the 21-22 distribution as that would seemingly be much in the favor of the remaining schools vs the 20-21 distribution, as the distribution drives the exit fees and in turn the early departure penalty from precedent.
(02-15-2022 12:51 PM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 12:37 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 12:33 PM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2022 12:22 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]There was a Tech fan, not sure if it's here or another thread and his comment made the most sense.
Basically we'd owe one year of the distribution because it wasn't gonna be there for year 2 and the 5 remaining schools have to approve it or 75% of them have to approve it. I think that was the gist.
Kinda. The 75% is the vote needed to be let out early and avoid an injunction or arbitration per the bylaws. I will assume the "Conference ignored our plans to leave early" from the schools mean this was not obtained.
The full amount of the exit fee (amount of two years distribution) is due prior to exit, or an injunction will be filed. So if the schools leave 30 June they will owe ~1.6MM in remaining exit fees (assuming they returned all 21-22 distributions back to the conference). On top of that some damages will be assessed, precedent establishes 50-70% of the exit fee penalty for leaving early. Those numbers equal up to slightly over 3MM per school due on 30 June.
I think I saw where distributions are given in the spring so the 21-22 distributions haven't been passed out so it'd be a year.
I don't know if the vote wasn't obtained or if a vote's been held or if the Conference has to call a meeting to do such. That could be the tickle. It was requested in December and nothing happened. Speculation is what I'm offering.
I think we are all speculating beyond the only known facts. The responses from the conference in schools could have been a show of hands vote, no vote, or a formal vote. Neither side has given that. All we know is what the bylaws say, what precedent says, and that both sides are posturing to appear to be in a position of strength.
If roles were reversed I would be 100% behind my school as you and others are. Even taking my blue lenses off though I do not see how USM, Marshall, or ODU have any position of strength here. We'll see what the upcoming distribution looks like for 21-22 looks like, but I don't see anyway the three escape without a significant (USM and Techs version of significant may not be the same as some schools) check being cut to the conference.
I do wonder as well if the holdup isn't the final numbers for the 21-22 distribution as that would seemingly be much in the favor of the remaining schools vs the 20-21 distribution, as the distribution drives the exit fees and in turn the early departure penalty from precedent.
Now that could be. I would suspect that someone would know that number by now.
But then again who knows.
I think WK realizes MT saved them from making a huge mistake with the MAC. At least for now