(02-14-2022 01:13 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:11 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:53 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  I dont believe the best case is for the SB3 to stay. The best case is to reach an agreement which allows them to move on. The bitterness will only grow if forced to stay and neither CUSA nor the SB3 will look good in the end.

I don't see that as a problem.

It'd be better if they could make them stay (but I don't think they can).

From what others have said, I think the conference can file an injunction to prevent the move until '23.

But what will that do? It's either you lose 3 this year and 6 next year or you lose 9 at one time. I know it sucks for Tech losing a close rival.

It's either in our best interest to have 14 or it's in our best interest to have 11. If 14 is better, it's the desired outcome. The hassle/money/legal position are obviously going to factor into what is "best" but "golly, some message board posters won't be happy" should not.

This will not be about the SB3 staying. This will be about money. It’s simple. Teams in the past have left early but it cost them. Nobody really believes any of these three will be here next year. Unless their own school just doesn’t find it worth the money and decides to just stay another year.

Sorry....but we don't give a **** what anyone in Texas thinks or has to say.

(02-14-2022 01:33 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  This will not be about the SB3 staying. This will be about money. It’s simple. Teams in the past have left early but it cost them. Nobody really believes any of these three will be here next year. Unless their own school just doesn’t find it worth the money and decides to just stay another year.

Exactly. The SB3 are gone as of June 30th. The only question that remains is how much they pay. My guess is it won't be over a million dollars each. I base that on nothing other than it's a round number.

(02-13-2022 10:35 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 10:31 PM)Sosodude00 Wrote:  How were things handled back in 2012 when MTSU and FAU left the Sunbelt to join CUSA a year early? They negotiated and made it happen. The Sun Belt was left with 8 teams that year, but it still happened.

SSssshhhhhhh that doesn't fit the narrative

(02-13-2022 10:56 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 10:39 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 08:02 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 07:11 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 01:00 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  This is just a post to remind you guys that in the last round of realignment, the teams moving from the SBC to CUSA all left without waiting a year despite announcing the initial plan to do so, which left the SBC in a lurch and forced us to add New Mexico State and Idaho football only to be able to have enough members to sponsor football.

Both leagues went behind after that happened and attempted to set up penalties for leaving early. But as we've seen in other cases in realignment. There's no real way to force a team to stay outside of financial penalties

Given that CUSA Still has 11 teams, you guys will manage just fine for a year.

That depends on how Judy wants to handle this. Am Injunction will definitely stop it. More than likely it will be a money exit.

I doubt it will stop it even if they tried an injunction. What would happen if there was a request for an injunction is USM/Marshall/ODU would counter sue in their own states and we'd get that fun part of contract law when you have states with wildly different laws. The courts would likely force this to arbitration, where a buyout gets agreed to.

That's sort of what the next week comes to. Either CUSA goes to the table and the two sides come to an agreement, or they go to court and both sides go scorched earth and a lot of mud gets slung.

In the end, the result is the same...the 3 schools play in the Sun Belt next year and everyone nationally has forgotten about it.

I believe C-USA is incorporated in Texas, so that's probably where this would play out. Marshall, USM, & ODU chose or agreed to be part of headquartering the conference in Texas. That's probably not favorable for those three out-of-state universities.

So tejas judges moonlight as cusa football and basketball officials?

(02-14-2022 06:07 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 10:51 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 10:45 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 10:31 PM)Sosodude00 Wrote:  How were things handled back in 2012 when MTSU and FAU left the Sunbelt to join CUSA a year early? They negotiated and made it happen. The Sun Belt was left with 8 teams that year, but it still happened.

That was a choice. That doesn't mean cusa has to do it. Sun belt could have held it up if they wanted to

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Ive had my geography messed up for years. Never knew fau was a texas school.
One set of rules for me, another for thee
THE CUSA WAY

Not really. Just because one conference chooses to let teams go early doesn't mean another has to do so.

And you guys saying you are leaving in December has zero relevance. You are still violating bylaws very clearly

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

So no bylaws were broken by FAU and MTSU back in 2012, or was itworked out by the teams and the rest of the conference? I'm not being facetious, I really don't know the circumstances. If it was "worked out" ( read : money paid) then it sounds like CUSA is just being petty about it now versus when they accepted you guys.

Heck, none of the left over CUSA members nor the new ones coming in even WANT Southern Miss in the conference, but by George, lets get a freaking INJUNCTION to keep them from leaving LOL. None of this would be happening if CUSA was in a good position to stay afloat long term.

(02-14-2022 01:33 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  This will not be about the SB3 staying. This will be about money. It’s simple. Teams in the past have left early but it cost them. Nobody really believes any of these three will be here next year. Unless their own school just doesn’t find it worth the money and decides to just stay another year.

(02-14-2022 01:42 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:33 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  This will not be about the SB3 staying. This will be about money. It’s simple. Teams in the past have left early but it cost them. Nobody really believes any of these three will be here next year. Unless their own school just doesn’t find it worth the money and decides to just stay another year.

Exactly. The SB3 are gone as of June 30th. The only question that remains is how much they pay. My guess is it won't be over a million dollars each. I base that on nothing other than it's a round number.

Exactly. It's going to come down to money. USM has the money to cover the distribution fee(s). But honestly CUSA is keeping this years, it'd be next years I think, I don't know how it all works.

But I think someone was saying $10 million, you can't get $30 million (10 per team) for the conference, that much damage isn't being made.

If you look at the statement USM put out it appears offers had been made but CUSA wouldn't communicate so whatever is going on there is baffling.

(02-12-2022 06:55 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  Judy may not have been as dumb as everybody thinks. She said just enough. To say hey we made a statement. “We expect all members to fulfill their contracts” it’s really all she had to say. In the end the courts will say you can leave but at a cost.

If the bedrock of your reasoning is "Judy may not be as dumb as everybody thinks" then I don't know what to tell you.

(02-14-2022 01:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:03 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 11:29 PM)benny_t Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 10:17 PM)Twon Wrote:  The SB3 announced their early departure 3 days before the release of the football schedules. That is unprecedented as far as I can remember

Did you not see in the 3 letters the schools sent out that we notified CUSA offices in December that we planned to leave early. Cusa officials ghosted the 3 schools and then sent out schedules anyway.

Big difference - WVU filed suit 10 months before so they were in contact with the Big East before then.

The SB3 issued a statement 3 days before the schedule release, if they knew that CUSA was committed to following the agreed upon bylaws they should have acted in December.

Anyway this is viewed it favors CUSA. I’m actually surprised how well CUSA handled this situation.

CUSA played the long game in this situation
The SB3 will not be able show any cause to move early, They have been allowed to compete in all sports, All the conference tournaments are still intact (Southern Miss).

And The abrupt move 3 days before the schedule release will show duress to the other 11 conference members.

I think the SB3 have really miscalculated this one and will paid dearly even more so than WVU

December to February 11th is 3 days?

Holy cow!

Frisco was notified in December and did nothing.

Shouldn't you be on Twitter making up random things like how NDSU didn't turn down CUSA?

You are misinformed. CUSA has no action to take, CUSA is following the agree upon contractual bylaws.

All the action remains with the breaching party (SB3).

CUSA intentions were made clear weeks ago. SB3 should have took action and filed suit in December if that was the case

WVU took action and filed suit 10 months before their exit
SB3 took action on Friday, 3 days before the schedule release.

(02-14-2022 02:18 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:03 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 11:29 PM)benny_t Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 10:17 PM)Twon Wrote:  The SB3 announced their early departure 3 days before the release of the football schedules. That is unprecedented as far as I can remember

Did you not see in the 3 letters the schools sent out that we notified CUSA offices in December that we planned to leave early. Cusa officials ghosted the 3 schools and then sent out schedules anyway.

Big difference - WVU filed suit 10 months before so they were in contact with the Big East before then.

The SB3 issued a statement 3 days before the schedule release, if they knew that CUSA was committed to following the agreed upon bylaws they should have acted in December.

Anyway this is viewed it favors CUSA. I’m actually surprised how well CUSA handled this situation.

CUSA played the long game in this situation
The SB3 will not be able show any cause to move early, They have been allowed to compete in all sports, All the conference tournaments are still intact (Southern Miss).

And The abrupt move 3 days before the schedule release will show duress to the other 11 conference members.

I think the SB3 have really miscalculated this one and will paid dearly even more so than WVU

December to February 11th is 3 days?

Holy cow!

Frisco was notified in December and did nothing.

Shouldn't you be on Twitter making up random things like how NDSU didn't turn down CUSA?

You are misinformed. CUSA has no action to take, CUSA is following the agree upon contractual bylaws.

All the action remains with the breaching party (SB3).

CUSA intentions were made clear weeks ago. SB3 should have took action and filed suit in December if that was the case

WVU took action and filed suit 10 months before their exit
SB3 took action on Friday, 3 days before the schedule release.

I guess I'll put it in all caps since you don't understand:

THE SBC 3 NOTIFIED CUSA IN DECEMBER AND MADE OFFERS. FRISCO DID NOT COMMUNICATE BACK UNTIL FRIDAY WHEN THEY ISSUED A SCHEDULE.

HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU FILE A SUIT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH SOMEONE WHO'S NOT TALKING?

I think I know how.. It's like you posting without reading, thinking, or you're just trolling.

(02-14-2022 02:25 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:18 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:03 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 11:29 PM)benny_t Wrote:  Did you not see in the 3 letters the schools sent out that we notified CUSA offices in December that we planned to leave early. Cusa officials ghosted the 3 schools and then sent out schedules anyway.

Big difference - WVU filed suit 10 months before so they were in contact with the Big East before then.

The SB3 issued a statement 3 days before the schedule release, if they knew that CUSA was committed to following the agreed upon bylaws they should have acted in December.

Anyway this is viewed it favors CUSA. I’m actually surprised how well CUSA handled this situation.

CUSA played the long game in this situation
The SB3 will not be able show any cause to move early, They have been allowed to compete in all sports, All the conference tournaments are still intact (Southern Miss).

And The abrupt move 3 days before the schedule release will show duress to the other 11 conference members.

I think the SB3 have really miscalculated this one and will paid dearly even more so than WVU

December to February 11th is 3 days?

Holy cow!

Frisco was notified in December and did nothing.

Shouldn't you be on Twitter making up random things like how NDSU didn't turn down CUSA?

You are misinformed. CUSA has no action to take, CUSA is following the agree upon contractual bylaws.

All the action remains with the breaching party (SB3).

CUSA intentions were made clear weeks ago. SB3 should have took action and filed suit in December if that was the case

WVU took action and filed suit 10 months before their exit
SB3 took action on Friday, 3 days before the schedule release.

I guess I'll put it in all caps since you don't understand:

THE SBC 3 NOTIFIED CUSA IN DECEMBER AND MADE OFFERS. FRISCO DID NOT COMMUNICATE BACK UNTIL FRIDAY WHEN THEY ISSUED A SCHEDULE.

HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU FILE A SUIT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH SOMEONE WHO'S NOT TALKING?

I think I know how.. It's like you posting without reading, thinking, or you're just trolling.

They don't have to negotiate. Its a bylaw your school is violating. They can say tough you are staying the year if they want. Doesn't matter who let teams out early in the past either. If cusa wants to hold you hostage they can

I doubt they do that, just saying they can. It very clearly says you have to give 14 months notice. Doesn't say anything about them having to negotiate your early release if they don't choose to do so. And you guys telling them youre out does nothing

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(02-14-2022 02:34 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:25 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:18 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:03 PM)Twon Wrote:  Big difference - WVU filed suit 10 months before so they were in contact with the Big East before then.

The SB3 issued a statement 3 days before the schedule release, if they knew that CUSA was committed to following the agreed upon bylaws they should have acted in December.

Anyway this is viewed it favors CUSA. I’m actually surprised how well CUSA handled this situation.

CUSA played the long game in this situation
The SB3 will not be able show any cause to move early, They have been allowed to compete in all sports, All the conference tournaments are still intact (Southern Miss).

And The abrupt move 3 days before the schedule release will show duress to the other 11 conference members.

I think the SB3 have really miscalculated this one and will paid dearly even more so than WVU

December to February 11th is 3 days?

Holy cow!

Frisco was notified in December and did nothing.

Shouldn't you be on Twitter making up random things like how NDSU didn't turn down CUSA?

You are misinformed. CUSA has no action to take, CUSA is following the agree upon contractual bylaws.

All the action remains with the breaching party (SB3).

CUSA intentions were made clear weeks ago. SB3 should have took action and filed suit in December if that was the case

WVU took action and filed suit 10 months before their exit
SB3 took action on Friday, 3 days before the schedule release.

I guess I'll put it in all caps since you don't understand:

THE SBC 3 NOTIFIED CUSA IN DECEMBER AND MADE OFFERS. FRISCO DID NOT COMMUNICATE BACK UNTIL FRIDAY WHEN THEY ISSUED A SCHEDULE.

HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU FILE A SUIT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH SOMEONE WHO'S NOT TALKING?

I think I know how.. It's like you posting without reading, thinking, or you're just trolling.

They don't have to negotiate. Its a bylaw your school is violating. They can say tough you are staying the year if they want. Doesn't matter who let teams out early in the past either. If cusa wants to hold you hostage they can

I doubt they do that, just saying they can. It very clearly says you have to give 14 months notice. Doesn't say anything about them having to negotiate your early release if they don't choose to do so. And you guys telling them youre out does nothing

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Yea cause the bylaws clearly state what happens if we leave prior to the notice..

I'm pretty sure our lawyers are smarter than most the posters, including me. I don't think the statements would've been released unless they knew the outcome.

Your reasoning and logic is severely flawed.

Let me explain this where you might understand this contractual bylaw situation.

If I wanted to exit my mortgage early. All of the initial breaching action either legal or intentional remains with me. The Bank will not act before.

I either could sell the house to another party there by another bank paying off the existing mortgage or I could stop paying on the mortgage and then and only then would the bank take action and begin repossession.

It is the responsibility of the breaching party (SB3) to take action not the contractual bylaw
following party (CUSA).

I am not sure why the SB3 felt this this was a hill worth dying on. Staying in CUSA a few more months would have allowed them to focus their staff and money on things that will matter more long term, rather than getting into a fight about one season for a few sports.

I am sure that the CUSA by-laws define the jurisdiction for legal battles, because contracts do that. We all believe that is Texas, right? Those posters that believe the courts in their states will rise up and attack the Alamo on their behalf have an outsized opinion of their place in their state. None of us in CUSA own our states or the hearts and minds in them. Sorry about that. I also don't believe that courts in Texas are going to lean towards CUSA because they are local. Nobody cares that much about this conference. If state's judiciaries played these games interstate business would collapse. This will all be handled relatively fairly, and nobody will be happy.

It has been mentioned in this thread that damages for breaching the contract are not defined in the by-laws, but that in no way means there are none. Bingo. How can anyone think otherwise? The contract is pretty straightforward on the subject of leaving, and the SB3 is clearly breaching it. Several SB3 fans have correctly pointed this out. I feel certain that this will be settled for cash, but nothing about CUSA is huge money, so it will not get in the way of an early departure. But it will sting.

CUSA not responding to the SB3's request for a $number is not unusual. They know where they stand, and what the SB3 wants, so why would they not take the opportunity to squeeze a little bit? I also think Judy and team are pissed, and this is one of the only opportunities in life where they have an upper hand. Still, it will all work out.

It has been interesting that most of the AAC6 don't seem to care much about CUSA and posting here, even though we are staying around longer. Instead of checking in several times per day, now I probably visit once or twice a week. The SB3 dominates the discussions here, yet they can't wait to be gone. I can only assume they will never leave this board, as their fellow SB posters very clearly live here part time and always have. I just don't understand that. At some point I hope we can give this board over to the teams staying in CUSA and the new teams joining. They need to build a community and we are no doubt in their way.

I will keep watching this train wreck that is the SB3 exit because I can't look away. Good luck to all.

(02-14-2022 01:10 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:50 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 10:38 AM)Murray007 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 08:34 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  First off, to Murray, no, the best case scenario for CUSA leadership (which is a lock per Twon) is the 3 schools end up staying through ‘22-‘23. Why the same people who all agree they’ll be better off without us want so badly to keep us around another year, who knows, but it is what it is because reasons.

From the 3 schools’ perspective re: risk, that’s the only truly bad outcome. They’re clearly already willing to pay to leave, and I don’t care if you hold the proceedings inside the conference room at CUSA HQ, they’re not gonna be told to fork over eleventy billion dollars in damages to a league that only pays out around $1.5 million/year.

Honestly, all the 3 schools really need to get out of any court action is the opportunity to argue about it for a couple months while they ease on down the road.

I suppose you're correct, but it could be a PR nightmare for CUSA if they forced the SBC3 to stay. Imagine having such horrific leadership that almost no effort was made to make the league better, but that same leadership will fight tooth and nail to retain departing members once they have asked to leave.

I sincerely hope the remaining/incoming CUSA schools do some serious evaluation of the current conference leadership.

That same leadership negotiated the worst media contracts in FBS, just had 11 out of 14 schools walk out with 2 more coming close, and responded by adding a school with a 12,000-seat stadium and asking Tarleton State if they were ready to move up. They’re lonnnnnnnnng past being worried about their image.

9/14 with two more close (for what that's worth).

Thanks. I erroneously overlapped the two.

(02-14-2022 01:33 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  This will not be about the SB3 staying. This will be about money. It’s simple. Teams in the past have left early but it cost them. Nobody really believes any of these three will be here next year. Unless their own school just doesn’t find it worth the money and decides to just stay another year.

…which brings us back around to “Why not just do this out of court 2 months ago instead of making a public spectacle about it?”

(02-14-2022 02:34 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:25 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:18 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:03 PM)Twon Wrote:  Big difference - WVU filed suit 10 months before so they were in contact with the Big East before then.

The SB3 issued a statement 3 days before the schedule release, if they knew that CUSA was committed to following the agreed upon bylaws they should have acted in December.

Anyway this is viewed it favors CUSA. I’m actually surprised how well CUSA handled this situation.

CUSA played the long game in this situation
The SB3 will not be able show any cause to move early, They have been allowed to compete in all sports, All the conference tournaments are still intact (Southern Miss).

And The abrupt move 3 days before the schedule release will show duress to the other 11 conference members.

I think the SB3 have really miscalculated this one and will paid dearly even more so than WVU

December to February 11th is 3 days?

Holy cow!

Frisco was notified in December and did nothing.

Shouldn't you be on Twitter making up random things like how NDSU didn't turn down CUSA?

You are misinformed. CUSA has no action to take, CUSA is following the agree upon contractual bylaws.

All the action remains with the breaching party (SB3).

CUSA intentions were made clear weeks ago. SB3 should have took action and filed suit in December if that was the case

WVU took action and filed suit 10 months before their exit
SB3 took action on Friday, 3 days before the schedule release.

I guess I'll put it in all caps since you don't understand:

THE SBC 3 NOTIFIED CUSA IN DECEMBER AND MADE OFFERS. FRISCO DID NOT COMMUNICATE BACK UNTIL FRIDAY WHEN THEY ISSUED A SCHEDULE.

HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU FILE A SUIT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH SOMEONE WHO'S NOT TALKING?

I think I know how.. It's like you posting without reading, thinking, or you're just trolling.

They don't have to negotiate. Its a bylaw your school is violating. They can say tough you are staying the year if they want. Doesn't matter who let teams out early in the past either. If cusa wants to hold you hostage they can

I doubt they do that, just saying they can. It very clearly says you have to give 14 months notice. Doesn't say anything about them having to negotiate your early release if they don't choose to do so. And you guys telling them youre out does nothing

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

That’s fine but we’re not going to be held liable for the mess CUSA makes by pretending that we won’t be playing in the Sun Belt come fall. Do you think CBSSports will be amused when CUSA hands them their schedule with all 3 still on it?

We gave our notice in December. Any damages created by us leaving 6 months early we’re on the hook for. Anything CUSA does after that playing stupid games is they’re own fault.

(02-14-2022 02:41 PM)Twon Wrote:  Your reasoning and logic is severely flawed.

Let me explain this where you might understand this contractual bylaw situation.

If I wanted to exit my mortgage early. All of the initial breaching action either legal or intentional remains with me. The Bank will not act before.

I either could sell the house to another party there by another bank paying off the existing mortgage or I could stop paying on the mortgage and then and only then would the bank take action and begin repossession.

It is the responsibility of the breaching party (SB3) to take action not the contractual bylaw
following party (CUSA).

Your logic is flawed, goes on to give a logic that is flawed even worse.

The fact is this. There's a contract. States must give a 14 month notice of departure right? Guess what you don't have that in a mortgage. You're not done until you pay it off, so back off the mortgage talk.

This is more like an ongoing services contract. You can end it any time you want but you must give notice unless you terminate early then you negotiate the terms at that point.

The issue at hand and you keep glossing over this because, well I don't know. Bylaws state that there will be a financial/monetary penalty if you leave early. Problem is there is not a penalty described. Because there was mention of the penalty lawyers have looked at this and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the best way to do this is to make an offer. Offer made. The office never communicated back. Until they issued a press release. Not back to the schools, a vague press release.

This will end up being determined by either a judge or arbitration panel. It's not like we're not trying follow the contract, we are, but when the other party is not communicating you do what you have to do. CUSA felt that issuing the schedules would end the conversation, but in fact it started a bigger conversation.

We're not paying a mortgage, we're rendering a service. CUSA is not going to "repo" the schools, they're going to look for financial damages which they have refused to give. When this goes before someone for judgement, CUSA will have to prove damages in the amount they think they're owed and will have to prove why that is. The SBC will show that in December and other letters sent to CUSA they offered to end the contract by offering up x number of dollars and no communication came back from CUSA.

(02-14-2022 02:34 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:25 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:18 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:03 PM)Twon Wrote:  Big difference - WVU filed suit 10 months before so they were in contact with the Big East before then.

The SB3 issued a statement 3 days before the schedule release, if they knew that CUSA was committed to following the agreed upon bylaws they should have acted in December.

Anyway this is viewed it favors CUSA. I’m actually surprised how well CUSA handled this situation.

CUSA played the long game in this situation
The SB3 will not be able show any cause to move early, They have been allowed to compete in all sports, All the conference tournaments are still intact (Southern Miss).

And The abrupt move 3 days before the schedule release will show duress to the other 11 conference members.

I think the SB3 have really miscalculated this one and will paid dearly even more so than WVU

December to February 11th is 3 days?

Holy cow!

Frisco was notified in December and did nothing.

Shouldn't you be on Twitter making up random things like how NDSU didn't turn down CUSA?

You are misinformed. CUSA has no action to take, CUSA is following the agree upon contractual bylaws.

All the action remains with the breaching party (SB3).

CUSA intentions were made clear weeks ago. SB3 should have took action and filed suit in December if that was the case

WVU took action and filed suit 10 months before their exit
SB3 took action on Friday, 3 days before the schedule release.

I guess I'll put it in all caps since you don't understand:

THE SBC 3 NOTIFIED CUSA IN DECEMBER AND MADE OFFERS. FRISCO DID NOT COMMUNICATE BACK UNTIL FRIDAY WHEN THEY ISSUED A SCHEDULE.

HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU FILE A SUIT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH SOMEONE WHO'S NOT TALKING?

I think I know how.. It's like you posting without reading, thinking, or you're just trolling.

They don't have to negotiate. Its a bylaw your school is violating. They can say tough you are staying the year if they want. Doesn't matter who let teams out early in the past either. If cusa wants to hold you hostage they can

I doubt they do that, just saying they can. It very clearly says you have to give 14 months notice. Doesn't say anything about them having to negotiate your early release if they don't choose to do so. And you guys telling them youre out does nothing

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

To piggyback on Ragu's comments, the bylaws say 14 months before the end of the league season at minimum, and to leave early a 75% vote in favor. If the SBC3 didn't get the votes, then they didn't get the votes. Saying "but we really wanna" doesn't nullify the contract that was signed.

Also, I keep seeing a positive outlook regarding arbitration by the SBC3 wanting to put the burden of proof on the league, but in this case if CUSA followed the letter and said sorry guys, then the burden of proof to be let out of the contract without a significant payment falls on the SBC3. CUSA if they can prove they handled the requests by the signed contract, then I don't know that this will be at all a good stance by the SBC3. Bylaws also state you owe two years of conference revenue and that all debts are due prior to departure, so that's ~1.6MM per, not just giving up the revenue if they leave in 2022. As there is no stated fine for leaving early as the conference I would treat cancelled games and series as such, add it all together and give a bulk discount and restitution in the 1.5-2MM range per is not out of the realm of possibility on top of the ~1.6MM due contractually. I also saw someone saying the SBC contract and dealings showing how much money they could make is proof of hardship. Go ahead and show that your school and new conference acted outside of your current contract and try and portray the actions since last Oct/Nov as being in "Good faith".

(02-14-2022 02:38 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:34 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:25 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:18 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

December to February 11th is 3 days?

Holy cow!

Frisco was notified in December and did nothing.

Shouldn't you be on Twitter making up random things like how NDSU didn't turn down CUSA?

You are misinformed. CUSA has no action to take, CUSA is following the agree upon contractual bylaws.

All the action remains with the breaching party (SB3).

CUSA intentions were made clear weeks ago. SB3 should have took action and filed suit in December if that was the case

WVU took action and filed suit 10 months before their exit
SB3 took action on Friday, 3 days before the schedule release.

I guess I'll put it in all caps since you don't understand:

THE SBC 3 NOTIFIED CUSA IN DECEMBER AND MADE OFFERS. FRISCO DID NOT COMMUNICATE BACK UNTIL FRIDAY WHEN THEY ISSUED A SCHEDULE.

HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU FILE A SUIT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH SOMEONE WHO'S NOT TALKING?

I think I know how.. It's like you posting without reading, thinking, or you're just trolling.

They don't have to negotiate. Its a bylaw your school is violating. They can say tough you are staying the year if they want. Doesn't matter who let teams out early in the past either. If cusa wants to hold you hostage they can

I doubt they do that, just saying they can. It very clearly says you have to give 14 months notice. Doesn't say anything about them having to negotiate your early release if they don't choose to do so. And you guys telling them youre out does nothing

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Yea cause the bylaws clearly state what happens if we leave prior to the notice..

I'm pretty sure our lawyers are smarter than most the posters, including me. I don't think the statements would've been released unless they knew the outcome.

It says 14 months notice. Doesn't have a money amount meaning if they negotiate nothing is set. But they don't need a money amount. They can say tough, honor the bylaws

There are dumb lawyers out there too. But I do agree it's probably ending ina negotiation. But no I don't think cusa has to negotiate with you guys. And your school declaring they are gone is just posturing. Really means nothing

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(02-13-2022 07:21 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 12:15 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  A couple of observations:

1) if Judy and Co aren't coming to the table to negotiate an early exit it's because the U presidents of the 5 remaining CUSA schools told her to hold out and see if they can get the SBC 3 to breech their contracts. They want the money.

2) If there's any money from this breech it needs to be split 11 ways, not 5. All 11 2022-23 season CUSA members are being inconvenienced.

What is that inconvenience? I’ve yet to see examples of damages.

Revenue to those members would be the same. Travel costs are likely to be immaterial. Scheduling isn’t difficult, lots of 11 team conferences out there. If they had caused the conference to dip below 8 different story.

There will likely be some C-USA games that get upgraded on the TV package since they aren't getting App State at Marshall or Wake Forest at ODU. Seems like the TV partners could complain about less inventory next season, but the schools still in C-USA are better off.