Mostly because prestige of MWC vs CUSA. Then there's an increased revenue share, more payouts for NCAA tournament shares, the schools we'd bring in aren't in a position to reject a deal and also not in a position to demand more...
Lost attendance revenue? Dude, we have had like 4k a night for a decade...
Because they have 4 years to cease to be a conference... we have till 2026 with current members and then 2 year period to get up to 8 minimum. So in that 4 years, those remaining members can spend all the cash they want then dissolve the conference... I know all of this stuff is a little crazy, but we literally just had our conference of 12 blown up by a conference of 2 in the exact same situation...
Yes that seems correct, they can stay a conference if they want to…Because they have 4 years to cease to be a conference... we have till 2026 with current members and then 2 year period to get up to 8 minimum. So in that 4 years, those remaining members can spend all the cash they want then dissolve the conference... I know all of this stuff is a little crazy, but we literally just had our conference of 12 blown up by a conference of 2 in the exact same situation...
Mostly because prestige of MWC vs CUSA. Then there's an increased revenue share, more payouts for NCAA tournament shares, the schools we'd bring in aren't in a position to reject a deal and also not in a position to demand more...I mean right now MWC commish is saying stay the line. You get a bigger cut and you will be compensated the same on next media deal regardless of who we add.
Ok fine but to do that she is going to have to reduce the cut for other schools.
1- How can you promise that when you can't even guarantee anybody will join.
2- Let's say you're negotiating with NMSU, UTEP. They both get around 750k for current media deal. Is it even worth it to them to leave if MWC can only offer 1 or 1.5 million because they have to compensate UNLV and AFA who are getting 5? We all sit here and bitch about Boise getting a bigger share now why should any other school be cool with it?
3- Some of that money we get is going to be needed to cover the lost attendance revenue bound to happen if we reload with CUSA in basketball and football.
I understand people saying take the money this new PAC thing is a disaster. I get it, it has its own question marks for sure. A lot of 'ifs'. But there are a lot of 'ifs' involved in taking the money and assuming the BIG12 is coming. There's no guarantee there either.
Start of conference year 2025. Can't drag out to long because there are decisions and tv contracts that need to be put together and invites made to new conference members.. otherwise the conference could be in a position where they win and ask for the 1 year departure fee since the lawsuit held up their ability to negotiate a new media rights deal.Realistic timeline to resolve all this?
This is what I’m saying.
Except with the added portion that as long as AF and UNLV stick together they won’t be able to add anyone that makes the conference “viable” so long as AF and UNLV don’t want them to.
It’s a stalemate between the MW and the power 2 (UNLV and AF).
Hope that’s right. We could use another pass rusher and disrupter.For some reason, I think he’s playing and it’s been decided. Probably prior to their last game.
This is what I’m saying.Ok so let me ask this.
Why is the conference not already dissolved?
We are at 7 technically 6 with Hawaii as football only.
I get that the conference is intact for another year.
However in 2026 we no longer even qualify for a conference. Couldn't an argument be made that with media rights, scheduling etc UNLV and the rest of the remaining schools should be allowed to leave based on the uncertainty?
Say UNLV and AF toe the line.
There is absolutely no guarantee that the MWC and it's commissioner are going to even be able to fill the remaining empty spots for the MWC to even qualify as a conference.
In that scenario UNLV would be screwed right? A free agent who's only opportunity would be to go independent.
I know there are basically two camps to this. Get the Hell out of MWC now and stay put and collect the money.
I recognize the risks involved in both and the potential benefits in both.
I don't think this would happen but let's say MWC is unable to attract any new members? What then?
Pretty sure I’m right about letting new people in, but yeah I think that would be correct that they’d technically have extra time to reestablish the conference.Is that right? Do all schools have to approve new incoming schools? Even still, the MWC would have 2 years after the other schools leave in 2026, so it would be 2028 I believe
It says 3/4ths or more.The contract should say something like "75% or more".
It specifically says 3/4ths so I don’t see how you round up here. That would be saying if you have an 8 to 4 vote so you round up.Unless the bylaws specify, you round up since you need at least 75% of the membership vote
The contract should say something like "75% or more".lol. I thought of that as soon as I posted so I had made an edit. Yeah, I don't know how they do that.
Unless the bylaws specify, you round up since you need at least 75% of the membership votelol. I thought of that as soon as I posted so I had made an edit. Yeah, I don't know how they do that.
lol. I thought of that as soon as I posted so I had made an edit. Yeah, I don't know how they do that.If the votes were based on 7 schools, I wonder if they round up or down. 75% would be 5.25, which is more than 5. So would it require 6 votes?
If the votes were based on 7 schools, I wonder if they round up or down. 75% would be 5.25, which is more than 5. So would it require 6 votes?I thought the majority vote has control. Prior to the 5 leaving it took 75% to approve or disapprove something which was 9 out of 12. With 7 teams remaining doesn't the 75% still apply. That means 5 teams can approve or disapprove. If UNLV and AF are the only 2 votes disapproving of new conference member and the remaining 5 approve our 2 votes lost. What am I missing here?