(02-15-2022 09:10 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  I think this goes to show the level of leadership Conference USA has. Somewhat embarrassing to be honest. Not "forward thinking" at all which is why they are in the shape they are in now. Wanting to live in the past. Especially considering the SB3 have already made their intentions known. What is there to gain by trying to force Marshall/Southern Miss or ODU stay? Even if we stayed the entire length, our time would be up in January. Would you really want us walking out in the middle of basketball season?

Even if we we stayed the entire length, we are gone regardless. We are not going back to that sh!t-show that is CUSA.

First, the time would be up on June 1, 2023. The timetable is 14 months, and the June 1 following the minimum 14 months.

What is to be gained by threatening full compliance is an increase in the 'extra' payout.

Obviously, CUSA saw the offers to payoff coming in as garbage amounts. They had zero obligation to pre-negotiate with putative breachers.

Instead of throwing back counter offers, they shitcanned them.

Now, the very real threat of not just breaching the bylaws and facing specific performance down the SB3s throats, there is the added issue now of secondary breaches with every CUSA school that has been announced on the schedule that they put out.

My suggestion to the three schools that want to leave is increase the offers where the CUSA actually responds.

(02-15-2022 08:42 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:26 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:16 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  Enforcing the conference bylaws is like enforcing a trademark. If you don't defend it then you will lose all rights to do so in the future. Of course the C-USA Board of Directors and legal team made the correct decision. This poll is just for silly internet debate.

They could have also just negotiated, it didn't have to get to this point. SBC3 agree to $XXX and C-USA agrees to have a 75%+ vote to let them out on those terms and this matter could have been settled behind closed doors like adults. But C-USA wanted to act like a spoiled child and will get the negative PR hit for it.

I was about to post the exact thing. We will gladly pay whatever need to be reconciled since we are leaving early.

CUSA won't even come to the table, so this has nothing to do with broken bylaws.

+3

I've not seen any report about the SB3 offering payment that equals the 2nd year of conference distribution. The only thing the 3 have published is that they would help with scheduling in sports that may need it. I think the CUSA board of directors wants that money and probably wants to make it public if they get it. It's like another poster said, the bylaws are supposed to mean something going forward. Jmho.

(02-15-2022 09:06 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:42 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:26 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:16 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  Enforcing the conference bylaws is like enforcing a trademark. If you don't defend it then you will lose all rights to do so in the future. Of course the C-USA Board of Directors and legal team made the correct decision. This poll is just for silly internet debate.

They could have also just negotiated, it didn't have to get to this point. SBC3 agree to $XXX and C-USA agrees to have a 75%+ vote to let them out on those terms and this matter could have been settled behind closed doors like adults. But C-USA wanted to act like a spoiled child and will get the negative PR hit for it.

I was about to post the exact thing. We will gladly pay whatever need to be reconciled since we are leaving early.

CUSA won't even come to the table, so this has nothing to do with broken bylaws.

+3

I've been busy the last 3 or 4 weeks, fishing, and building houses for others, so I havent kept up with hardly anything about sports, or CUSA. So I'm sure this has been posted at some point on this board...

you have a link that shows what you are saying? I still dont have the time (or want to) go looking for it. But would like to read up on it

Our side says CUSA won’t engage in talks.

Your side says we expect members to follow the bylaws and play next year.

(02-15-2022 08:00 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...well, I voted a shaky 'yes' in terms of CUSA's options at this juncture...

...bottom line is, if they let the SBC3 go WITHOUT significant resistance, then they run the risk of getting the same declarations of 'early withdrawal' from at least a few of the 'AAC6' programs immediately thereafter, thus compounding their losses...

...add to the fact that it is rumored that WKU and perhaps MTSU (maybe?) are still looking for a new conference (perhaps the Belt is amenable to make it a sweet 16 (yeah, I know there were messy issues with these parties before, but I guess they could figure it out))... if THAT happens, it will be tough to keep CUSA afloat, even with some decent FCS call-ups coming in...

...SO, after stepping back and reviewing this saga, this move may have been the ONLY move CUSA could make that made sense for them to keep some semblance of holding it together for another few seasons until another few call-ups could be brought in to get to 10 or so and 'properly transition'... ...now, it will probably come at the expense of losing future SBC matchups, but hopefully not...

They cannot leave early because AAC will not admit them early

(02-15-2022 09:06 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:42 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:26 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:16 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  Enforcing the conference bylaws is like enforcing a trademark. If you don't defend it then you will lose all rights to do so in the future. Of course the C-USA Board of Directors and legal team made the correct decision. This poll is just for silly internet debate.

They could have also just negotiated, it didn't have to get to this point. SBC3 agree to $XXX and C-USA agrees to have a 75%+ vote to let them out on those terms and this matter could have been settled behind closed doors like adults. But C-USA wanted to act like a spoiled child and will get the negative PR hit for it.

I was about to post the exact thing. We will gladly pay whatever need to be reconciled since we are leaving early.

CUSA won't even come to the table, so this has nothing to do with broken bylaws.

+3

I've been busy the last 3 or 4 weeks, fishing, and building houses for others, so I havent kept up with hardly anything about sports, or CUSA. So I'm sure this has been posted at some point on this board...

you have a link that shows what you are saying? I still dont have the time (or want to) go looking for it. But would like to read up on it

We came out with a tweet on Friday from Marshall Athletics that said we have been trying to contact CUSA since October on multiple occasions, and they never replied. I would like to think we would not be contacting them so much if we we're not ready to pay the bill.

Here is the thread.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-942060.html

(02-15-2022 09:23 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 09:06 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:42 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:26 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:16 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  Enforcing the conference bylaws is like enforcing a trademark. If you don't defend it then you will lose all rights to do so in the future. Of course the C-USA Board of Directors and legal team made the correct decision. This poll is just for silly internet debate.

They could have also just negotiated, it didn't have to get to this point. SBC3 agree to $XXX and C-USA agrees to have a 75%+ vote to let them out on those terms and this matter could have been settled behind closed doors like adults. But C-USA wanted to act like a spoiled child and will get the negative PR hit for it.

I was about to post the exact thing. We will gladly pay whatever need to be reconciled since we are leaving early.

CUSA won't even come to the table, so this has nothing to do with broken bylaws.

+3

I've been busy the last 3 or 4 weeks, fishing, and building houses for others, so I havent kept up with hardly anything about sports, or CUSA. So I'm sure this has been posted at some point on this board...

you have a link that shows what you are saying? I still dont have the time (or want to) go looking for it. But would like to read up on it

Our side says CUSA won’t engage in talks.

Your side says we expect members to follow the bylaws and play next year.

Im positive that if you offered a large enough buyout, there would be glee to talk about it. Carrot.

If garbage amounts are put on the table, the result is specific enforcement and you dont leave until the notice period is up. Stick.

The choice that the people on the board seem to follow is 'how dare the CUSA dont engage with our offers'. They have zero obligation to do so. And have a decent backup in the absence of what they consider decent offers.

The obvious choice is to make what CUSA considers a decent offer.

(02-15-2022 06:17 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 05:55 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  Let your voices be heard!

How hypocritical it is for an FAU fan to start this thread, when the Sun Belt allowed you to leave within 3 months without penalty of your entry into Conference USA.

I was thinking the same thing. I have a lot of respect for the FAU program and I'm disappoint in a fan from a school that is moving to the AAC is taking this stand.

(02-15-2022 09:23 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 09:06 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:42 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:26 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:16 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  Enforcing the conference bylaws is like enforcing a trademark. If you don't defend it then you will lose all rights to do so in the future. Of course the C-USA Board of Directors and legal team made the correct decision. This poll is just for silly internet debate.

They could have also just negotiated, it didn't have to get to this point. SBC3 agree to $XXX and C-USA agrees to have a 75%+ vote to let them out on those terms and this matter could have been settled behind closed doors like adults. But C-USA wanted to act like a spoiled child and will get the negative PR hit for it.

I was about to post the exact thing. We will gladly pay whatever need to be reconciled since we are leaving early.

CUSA won't even come to the table, so this has nothing to do with broken bylaws.

+3

I've been busy the last 3 or 4 weeks, fishing, and building houses for others, so I havent kept up with hardly anything about sports, or CUSA. So I'm sure this has been posted at some point on this board...

you have a link that shows what you are saying? I still dont have the time (or want to) go looking for it. But would like to read up on it

Our side says CUSA won’t engage in talks.

Your side says we expect members to follow the bylaws and play next year.

I still havn't seen "your side" say anything...

I read what you and the Marshall fan said but thats it. I did not ask for someone' opinion on what was said and till I see a link from one of the schools or CUSA, its only your opinion.

I asked for a link showing me where the 3 schools leaving and CUSA said " We will gladly pay whatever need to be reconciled since we are leaving early. CUSA won't even come to the table

Dont be a dick about it and just post A link that shows what you believe has took place. To me personally it doesnt matter if Western ever plays USM or ODU again...

Hell at this point playing either is like scheduling a bad FCS team as far as competition goes

Those 3 are gone to the Belch this summer. Judy is in the wrong.

I think C-USA is playing defense. If the precedence is set that schools can leave the conference at the drop of ahat then their very future could be in doubt. The ball will be in the SBC’s side of the court very soon. Will they go to the mat for the their new recruits?

(02-15-2022 09:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 09:23 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 09:06 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:42 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:26 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  They could have also just negotiated, it didn't have to get to this point. SBC3 agree to $XXX and C-USA agrees to have a 75%+ vote to let them out on those terms and this matter could have been settled behind closed doors like adults. But C-USA wanted to act like a spoiled child and will get the negative PR hit for it.

I was about to post the exact thing. We will gladly pay whatever need to be reconciled since we are leaving early.

CUSA won't even come to the table, so this has nothing to do with broken bylaws.

+3

I've been busy the last 3 or 4 weeks, fishing, and building houses for others, so I havent kept up with hardly anything about sports, or CUSA. So I'm sure this has been posted at some point on this board...

you have a link that shows what you are saying? I still dont have the time (or want to) go looking for it. But would like to read up on it

Our side says CUSA won’t engage in talks.

Your side says we expect members to follow the bylaws and play next year.

I still havn't seen "your side" say anything...

I read what you and the Marshall fan said but thats it. I did not ask for someone' opinion on what was said and till I see a link from one of the schools or CUSA, its only your opinion.

I asked for a link showing me where the 3 schools leaving and CUSA said " We will gladly pay whatever need to be reconciled since we are leaving early. CUSA won't even come to the table

Dont be a dick about it and just post A link that shows what you believe has took place. To me personally it doesnt matter if Western ever plays USM or ODU again...

Hell at this point playing either is like scheduling a bad FCS team as far as competition goes

Did you not go to the top of the thread that rileylives shared? The statements from all three schools were included in the first couple of post.

(02-15-2022 10:10 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  I think C-USA is playing defense. If the precedence is set that schools can leave the conference at the drop of ahat then their very future could be in doubt. The ball will be in the SBC’s side of the court very soon. Will they go to the mat for the their new recruits?

If CUSA didn't want schools to leave early they should have set a financially prohibitive penalty for leaving early like the Big 12 did with its grant of rights.

When you dont set out the cost to leave early you damage yourself

clt says tanqtonic is the real winner here.

(02-15-2022 10:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:10 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  I think C-USA is playing defense. If the precedence is set that schools can leave the conference at the drop of ahat then their very future could be in doubt. The ball will be in the SBC’s side of the court very soon. Will they go to the mat for the their new recruits?

If CUSA didn't want schools to leave early they should have set a financially prohibitive penalty for leaving early like the Big 12 did with its grant of rights.

When you dont set out the cost to leave early you damage yourself

If you’re talking about media rights, the CUSA rights are very low these days so I don’t think that would be enough to deter a school from leaving early. I also don’t think exit fees are allowed to be so high that they are punitive.

(02-15-2022 09:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 09:23 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 09:06 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:42 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:26 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  They could have also just negotiated, it didn't have to get to this point. SBC3 agree to $XXX and C-USA agrees to have a 75%+ vote to let them out on those terms and this matter could have been settled behind closed doors like adults. But C-USA wanted to act like a spoiled child and will get the negative PR hit for it.

I was about to post the exact thing. We will gladly pay whatever need to be reconciled since we are leaving early.

CUSA won't even come to the table, so this has nothing to do with broken bylaws.

+3

I've been busy the last 3 or 4 weeks, fishing, and building houses for others, so I havent kept up with hardly anything about sports, or CUSA. So I'm sure this has been posted at some point on this board...

you have a link that shows what you are saying? I still dont have the time (or want to) go looking for it. But would like to read up on it

Our side says CUSA won’t engage in talks.

Your side says we expect members to follow the bylaws and play next year.

I still havn't seen "your side" say anything...

I read what you and the Marshall fan said but thats it. I did not ask for someone' opinion on what was said and till I see a link from one of the schools or CUSA, its only your opinion.

I asked for a link showing me where the 3 schools leaving and CUSA said " We will gladly pay whatever need to be reconciled since we are leaving early. CUSA won't even come to the table

Dont be a dick about it and just post A link that shows what you believe has took place. To me personally it doesnt matter if Western ever plays USM or ODU again...

Hell at this point playing either is like scheduling a bad FCS team as far as competition goes

I’m not ******* Google Jimmy Carter

(02-15-2022 10:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:10 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  I think C-USA is playing defense. If the precedence is set that schools can leave the conference at the drop of ahat then their very future could be in doubt. The ball will be in the SBC’s side of the court very soon. Will they go to the mat for the their new recruits?

If CUSA didn't want schools to leave early they should have set a financially prohibitive penalty for leaving early like the Big 12 did with its grant of rights.

When you dont set out the cost to leave early you damage yourself

Thats due to those bylaws being drafted by schools who were looking to leave the day they joined. The current groups mistake was not correcting it.

She couldn't have handled it worse really. It's illogical, petty, and not a successful legal strategy. Bad PR with no payoff

(02-15-2022 10:34 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:10 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  I think C-USA is playing defense. If the precedence is set that schools can leave the conference at the drop of ahat then their very future could be in doubt. The ball will be in the SBC’s side of the court very soon. Will they go to the mat for the their new recruits?

If CUSA didn't want schools to leave early they should have set a financially prohibitive penalty for leaving early like the Big 12 did with its grant of rights.

When you dont set out the cost to leave early you damage yourself

Thats due to those bylaws being drafted by schools who were looking to leave the day they joined. The current groups mistake was not correcting it.

Exactly

(02-15-2022 10:22 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says tanqtonic is the real winner here.

You are impressed easily aren't you? Yes he does a great job showing his knowledge of contractual law, but the fact is..... unless he has privy to all the emails, letters, minutes of meetings, documents of prior/current actions, and conversations between the parties he is just speculating. No different than the rest on here.

(02-15-2022 09:17 PM)JSUCleburneslim Wrote:  Why hang around here now. The sbc has a board you can bloviate on.

What is a "Jax State"??