Straight from the WAC website...

WAC Demands Payment; Fresno State and Nevada Required to Stay in WAC Through 2011-12 Season

DENVER - Western Athletic Conference commissioner Karl Benson announced today that Fresno State and the University of Nevada must pay $5 million each for failing to abide to a corporate resolution they both agreed to earlier this month that called for both to remain members of the WAC through June 30, 2016. Fresno State and Nevada announced on August 18 that they would join the Mountain West Conference. Both schools were notified on August 27 with a "demand for payment" letter and have 60 days from that date to make payment. The two schools are also required to compete in the WAC during the 2010-11 season and the 2011-12 season as neither school announced their decision to withdraw from the WAC prior to the June 30 deadline as required by WAC Bylaws. Both schools were also notified of this on August 27.

"The WAC fully expects to receive the $5 million from both Fresno State and Nevada and will take legal recourse if necessary to obtain the money," said Benson. "As for the termination date, WAC Bylaws make it very clear that Fresno State and Nevada must remain in the WAC through the 2011-12 season unless the WAC authorizes an 'early out.' Fresno State and Nevada leaving the WAC following the 2010-11 season would cause irreparable financial harm to the remaining WAC members in terms of football scheduling and potential loss of revenue from television and bowl games. The damages that Hawai'i, Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, San Jose State and Utah State would incur could exceed as much as $2 million per school."

http://www.wacsports.com//ViewArticle.db...=204985102

(08-30-2010 05:52 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  Straight from the WAC website...

WAC Demands Payment; Fresno State and Nevada Required to Stay in WAC Through 2011-12 Season

DENVER - Western Athletic Conference commissioner Karl Benson announced today that Fresno State and the University of Nevada must pay $5 million each for failing to abide to a corporate resolution they both agreed to earlier this month that called for both to remain members of the WAC through June 30, 2016. Fresno State and Nevada announced on August 18 that they would join the Mountain West Conference. Both schools were notified on August 27 with a "demand for payment" letter and have 60 days from that date to make payment. The two schools are also required to compete in the WAC during the 2010-11 season and the 2011-12 season as neither school announced their decision to withdraw from the WAC prior to the June 30 deadline as required by WAC Bylaws. Both schools were also notified of this on August 27.

"The WAC fully expects to receive the $5 million from both Fresno State and Nevada and will take legal recourse if necessary to obtain the money," said Benson. "As for the termination date, WAC Bylaws make it very clear that Fresno State and Nevada must remain in the WAC through the 2011-12 season unless the WAC authorizes an 'early out.' Fresno State and Nevada leaving the WAC following the 2010-11 season would cause irreparable financial harm to the remaining WAC members in terms of football scheduling and potential loss of revenue from television and bowl games. The damages that Hawai'i, Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, San Jose State and Utah State would incur could exceed as much as $2 million per school."

http://www.wacsports.com//ViewArticle.db...=204985102

-----------------------------------------------------------

I guess he is talking about financial losses the teams would suffer if fresno and nevada didnt stay until the end of the 2011-12 season and I would think the wac could collect something on that. However, it is premature to demand the $5mil penalty from fres and nev because the agreement HAS NOT YET been concluded. The agreement, yes its legal whether signed or agreed to orally, calls for the $5mil HOWEVER the agreement is contingent upon BYU going independent in football AND placing their other teams in the WAC. That is clear and undebatable. BYU however has not announced what they will do. IF they stay in the MWC or should go indy and place their other teams in the big west for example then everyone is off the hook because the contingency did not materialize thus nobody owes $5mil.

Well you could proceed along the theory that but for Nevada and Fresno breaking the agreement, that BYU would have joined the WAC. Cal it tortious interference.

I guess my problem is that we have a group of people who were dealing with unclean hands that are now trying to injure one another because they made moves that acted to mess up their own collusive activities. As for whether or not the agreement is binding, it will turn on whether or not (1) BYU joins and (2) whether or not the WAC bylaws require all agreements to be in writing to be binding.

(08-30-2010 08:15 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I guess my problem is that we have a group of people who were dealing with unclean hands that are now trying to injure one another because they made moves that acted to mess up their own collusive activities. As for whether or not the agreement is binding, it will turn on whether or not (1) BYU joins and (2) whether or not the WAC bylaws require all agreements to be in writing to be binding.

Boy, "Unclean Hands" of all concerned here is an understatement. Commissioner Benson was trying to hatch a scheme to destroy the MWC and it backfired, and now he's screaming foul. Nevada and Fresno State break their committment to the WAC within 72 hours. The MWC strikes back to take Nevada and Fresno so they can do in the WAC. USU's President is right in there on the scheme with Commissioner Benson. BYU is playing both sides against the middle. It just goes on and on. Everybody's dirty in this game.

Honestly, I don't believe that any jury will believe any of these people in a lawsuit or would award anything to anybody. They would probably just want to go take a long hot shower.

(08-30-2010 09:01 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(08-30-2010 08:15 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I guess my problem is that we have a group of people who were dealing with unclean hands that are now trying to injure one another because they made moves that acted to mess up their own collusive activities. As for whether or not the agreement is binding, it will turn on whether or not (1) BYU joins and (2) whether or not the WAC bylaws require all agreements to be in writing to be binding.

Boy, "Unclean Hands" of all concerned here is an understatement. Commissioner Benson was trying to hatch a scheme to destroy the MWC and it backfired, and now he's screaming foul. Nevada and Fresno State break their committment to the WAC within 72 hours. The MWC strikes back to take Nevada and Fresno so they can do in the WAC. USU's President is right in there on the scheme with Commissioner Benson. BYU is playing both sides against the middle. It just goes on and on. Everybody's dirty in this game.

Honestly, I don't believe that any jury will believe any of these people in a lawsuit or would award anything to anybody. They would probably just want to go take a long hot shower.

You nailed it; all parties involved -- WAC and Benson were conspirators, BYU and USU were co-conspirators, and the MWC retaliated with an intent to critically harm the WAC for its aggression. All parties are 'dirty' and each of them deliberately and intentionally intended to harm the other. What a goat rope !!!

I saw the UNR President made a very brief reply here.

(08-30-2010 11:06 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  I saw the UNR President made a very brief reply here.

If BYU doesn't sign up with the WAC in the next 24 hours, the WAC won't see a dime from either Nevada or Fresno. The WAC will be what amounts to very burnt toast. If BYU signs, then the litigation that is sure to follow gets really interesting. College athletics will have its own "All My Children" to follow for months.

(08-30-2010 06:45 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Well you could proceed along the theory that but for Nevada and Fresno breaking the agreement, that BYU would have joined the WAC. Cal it tortious interference.

Agreed but how much did the Big East manage to get from Miami; which arguably was a much bigger blow to that conference. A.) Zilch! No, once BYU declines the WAC, the deal is void and trying to claw money back is going to be too expensive for a dead conference.

If we believe BYU is not joining the WAC, it must collapse (you can't have a six team conference spread 3,000 miles apart). Then Hawai'i would go indy, USU will have no choice but to go FCS with Idaho. San Jose drops football, NMSU is invited back to the Sun Belt (until they can work things out) and La Tech.....they play indy football and join the Southland for all other sports hoping for a C-USA invite.

(08-31-2010 08:44 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(08-30-2010 06:45 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Well you could proceed along the theory that but for Nevada and Fresno breaking the agreement, that BYU would have joined the WAC. Cal it tortious interference.

Agreed but how much did the Big East manage to get from Miami; which arguably was a much bigger blow to that conference. A.) Zilch! No, once BYU declines the WAC, the deal is void and trying to claw money back is going to be too expensive for a dead conference.

If we believe BYU is not joining the WAC, it must collapse (you can't have a six team conference spread 3,000 miles apart). Then Hawai'i would go indy, USU will have no choice but to go FCS with Idaho. San Jose drops football, NMSU is invited back to the Sun Belt (until they can work things out) and La Tech.....they play indy football and join the Southland for all other sports hoping for a C-USA invite.

I just cant see that working. I know they want it if no other option is there but wow.

I dont think any of the 'Belt schools will schedule them with thier history and then especially if they decide they would rather be independant then join the 'Belt (If it was offered)

No guranteed bowl spots.

They would have to schedule FCS and Body Bag games to get a schedule which would result in a terrible record that would pretty much gurantee no at large bid.

Will BYU make an announcement today or do they have till tommorrow?

(08-31-2010 09:21 AM)OwlFamily Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 08:44 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(08-30-2010 06:45 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Well you could proceed along the theory that but for Nevada and Fresno breaking the agreement, that BYU would have joined the WAC. Cal it tortious interference.

Agreed but how much did the Big East manage to get from Miami; which arguably was a much bigger blow to that conference. A.) Zilch! No, once BYU declines the WAC, the deal is void and trying to claw money back is going to be too expensive for a dead conference.

If we believe BYU is not joining the WAC, it must collapse (you can't have a six team conference spread 3,000 miles apart). Then Hawai'i would go indy, USU will have no choice but to go FCS with Idaho. San Jose drops football, NMSU is invited back to the Sun Belt (until they can work things out) and La Tech.....they play indy football and join the Southland for all other sports hoping for a C-USA invite.

I just cant see that working. I know they want it if no other option is there but wow.

I dont think any of the 'Belt schools will schedule them with thier history and then especially if they decide they would rather be independant then join the 'Belt (If it was offered)

No guranteed bowl spots.

They would have to schedule FCS and Body Bag games to get a schedule which would result in a terrible record that would pretty much gurantee no at large bid.

Will BYU make an announcement today or do they have till tommorrow?

BYU has until Wednesday to make their decision.

(08-31-2010 09:21 AM)OwlFamily Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 08:44 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(08-30-2010 06:45 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Well you could proceed along the theory that but for Nevada and Fresno breaking the agreement, that BYU would have joined the WAC. Cal it tortious interference.

Agreed but how much did the Big East manage to get from Miami; which arguably was a much bigger blow to that conference. A.) Zilch! No, once BYU declines the WAC, the deal is void and trying to claw money back is going to be too expensive for a dead conference.

If we believe BYU is not joining the WAC, it must collapse (you can't have a six team conference spread 3,000 miles apart). Then Hawai'i would go indy, USU will have no choice but to go FCS with Idaho. San Jose drops football, NMSU is invited back to the Sun Belt (until they can work things out) and La Tech.....they play indy football and join the Southland for all other sports hoping for a C-USA invite.

I just cant see that working. I know they want it if no other option is there but wow.

I dont think any of the 'Belt schools will schedule them with thier history and then especially if they decide they would rather be independant then join the 'Belt (If it was offered)

No guranteed bowl spots.

They would have to schedule FCS and Body Bag games to get a schedule which would result in a terrible record that would pretty much gurantee no at large bid.

Will BYU make an announcement today or do they have till tommorrow?

BYU has until Wednesday (Sept 1) to make their decision; guess it could be midnight Tuesday though ???

(08-31-2010 09:21 AM)OwlFamily Wrote:  I just cant see that working. I know they want it if no other option is there but wow.
I dont think any of the 'Belt schools will schedule them with thier history and then especially if they decide they would rather be independant then join the 'Belt (If it was offered). No guranteed bowl spots. They would have to schedule FCS and Body Bag games to get a schedule which would result in a terrible record that would pretty much gurantee no at large bid. Will BYU make an announcement today or do they have till tommorrow?

You're right, it doesn't work but they are too prideful to admit they are wrong. And to read some of the boards out there (esp. USU); whew, are they delusional. I mean they are latching on to anything, like rumors about joining C-USA as their savior. I kind'a feel sorry for them.

Will BYU make an announcement today or do they have till tommorrow?
[/quote]

BYU has until Wednesday (Sept 1) to make their decision; guess it could be midnight Tuesday though ???
[/quote]

Actually I have read somewhere that supposedly the MWC Bylaws state "on or before September 1". If that is indeed the case, then BYU has through tomorrow, September 1st, to pull the trigger and still meet the deadline.

(08-31-2010 11:08 AM)PTJR Wrote:  Actually I have read somewhere that supposedly the MWC Bylaws state "on or before September 1". If that is indeed the case, then BYU has through tomorrow, September 1st, to pull the trigger and still meet the deadline.

What if BYU says nothing and lets the deadline expire? Since they haven't officially signed anything, all that means is that they have yet to make their decision and their status quo (i.e. MWC membership) remains intact.

Then what? Three schools expect to leave at the end of this fiscal year which will put the WAC at 6 members. The remaining WAC members have two options: 1.) fight like heck with the latest two defectors for money and their continued participation or 2.) begin looking at a six member WAC that stretches across half a continent and the Pacific ocean.

The WAC commissioner is banging the war-drums in an attempt to hold these far-flung members together. But does he really have enough time to rebuild this humpty-dumpty? Will spit and bubble gum hold these members together? Probably not; therefore the scenario addressed above will begin to start playing out (i.e. Hawai'i to indy, etc.).

If BYU says nothing today/tomorrow, it is their tacit acknowledgement that their plan has failed and that they will remain in the MWC until they can figure this indy situation out.

(08-30-2010 05:52 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  Straight from the WAC website...

http://www.wacsports.com//ViewArticle.db...=204985102

Three words.

Postponing. The. Inevitable.

I think its a 55%-60% chance BYU goes indy in football and 65%-70% chance that they go to the WCC rather than the WAC.

If that happens, WAC can pretty much forget the $5 million. I think the WAC strategy at this point is use the threat (and potential legal costs) to insure Nevada and Fresno honor the bylaws requirement that they stick for the 2011-12 academic year in order to buy the WAC time to get some new members.

(08-31-2010 02:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think its a 55%-60% chance BYU goes indy in football and 65%-70% chance that they go to the WCC rather than the WAC.

If that happens, WAC can pretty much forget the $5 million. I think the WAC strategy at this point is use the threat (and potential legal costs) to insure Nevada and Fresno honor the bylaws requirement that they stick for the 2011-12 academic year in order to buy the WAC time to get some new members.

The only real snag that I have seen with BYU going with the WCC for other sports is that the WCC apparently doesn't sponsor all the non-revenue sports that BYU has. Clearly the WCC is a better basketball league than the weakened WAC. I don't see non-revenue sports holding the thing up if BYU's choice is to go independent in football. This whole thing is about money in the first place.

And you are correct. If BYU doesn't sign up with the WAC in the next 24+ hours, any $5 million penalty goes poof in the wind.