Assuming Hawaii gets done..Then what?
- Thread starter Bullmastiff 1
- Start date
Like I said that is a very risky play. THey have dealt with Gloria, they know how she is built.
The reward of possibly "crippling" the MW vs the risk of 50-60 million in extra fees and at the very least of high legal fees to a person who is stubborn as hell and would do anything to not "lose" to the PAC. They should have at least foreseen a merger with the CUSA, keeping the MW name in some fashion to legally hold up any fees that could be coming to them. If the PAC can rebuild with 2, the MW can reuible with 6.
"Tell me why you would sign this awful deal with the MWC when CUSA would absolutely have done a deal with you."
That's my point exactly! There is NO reason to sign with the MW if they had legitimate other options.
Either way what WE think is meaningless. At the very least it looks as if the PAC is winning. The word is the MW teams are not expecting anywhere near what they thought they might get. UNLV just hired 2 coaches with zero funding coming from future media revenue bonuses. The PAC will combine mediation from both lawsuits which is a win for the PAC. At the very least it looks like some of the PAC's claims has some legal merit.
Last edited:
So say the PAC had malicious intent all along. Which I admit is possible. It really doesn't change much, unless the MW can prove that another conference was willing to deal with them for a better deal.
The bottom line the MW contract is so punitive it opens it up some sort of legal action. Whether that was the PAC's intent or not from the beginning. If they would have reduced the fees, then it the MW would probably be taking home much more money in the long run.
Again, just the scheduling agreement alone forced the PAC 2 to pay 3-5x the normal rate for these OOC games. Which again makes me question why would they agree to it if there were other options, but that isn't the point.
The bottom line the MW contract is so punitive it opens it up some sort of legal action. Whether that was the PAC's intent or not from the beginning. If they would have reduced the fees, then it the MW would probably be taking home much more money in the long run.
Again, just the scheduling agreement alone forced the PAC 2 to pay 3-5x the normal rate for these OOC games. Which again makes me question why would they agree to it if there were other options, but that isn't the point.
If you are looking for a new car do you go to one dealership or a couple?
You can't complain about getting a bad deal if you didn't explore other options.
CUSA SBC were potential options. If the only conference the PAC spoke to was the MWC that's on them and therefore there is no duress.
If they had exhausted all other possible options then yes there would be duress. They would have been forced to schedule with the MWC or lose the season entirely.
The minute they felt like the costs were exorbitant, they should have been on the phone with CUSA or SBC. In fact they should have been in contact with all three from the start.
If they weren't doing that from the start ask yourself why?
If they didn't reach out to either of those conferences or other schools the minute they felt they were getting fleeced ask yourself why?
Well, It does open the door for discovery of when those initial conversations began about who to target, and then when those conversations started with the Boise St or SDSU ADs... Its interesting that Boise and SDSU aren't part of the lawsuit against the MWC because my guess is they initiated the move with the PAC 12...
Can't say I agree with much of the above. Not sure why you think the Pac is "winning", or what legal merit you are seeing for the Pac. As for as both lawsuits go, even if combined for mediation purposes, the exit fee lawsuit really has nothing to do with the Pac itself.
IMHO, the Pac, with legal counsel of its own, signed the agreement. No gun was put to their head. The Pac violated the spirit of the agreement by having zero discussions on the merger as spelled out in the agreement. The Pac knew damn good and well that they would owe the agreed-upon poaching fees, did it anyway then called foul and duress. No one can argue that the MW wasn't significantly injured by this. The exit fees? Same thing. The Traitors agreed to this in the bylaws(?), Then bolt and cry foul.
That's what I've been saying. The PAC can't claim duress if they did not explore other options that were available. If they contacted CUSA/Sun Belt and were told no and the MWC was the only option left. 100% there was duress.
But.
If they never engaged in talks with those conferences initially or after they felt the negotiations with the MWC were becoming too expensive that's on them.
Forgot about the merger part.
I've said all along they entered the contract in bad faith.
Colorado State University, Utah State University, and Boise State University are suing the Mountain West Conference (MWC) over exit fees related to their departure to the Pac-12 in 2026.
The reason I don't think SDSU and Fresno are is because of some California law that schools can't enter litigation that may harm a fellow California institution (SJSU).
Although I don't think you are far off otherwise.
Were Boise/SDSU already in talks with PAC about leaving all while the scheduling agreement was being formulated..
If so then it becomes extremely problematic
There's an interview with CSU AD (Maybe FSU AD.) . I'll find the link later. Anyway CSU was not part of initial discussions. He was contacted by a person from Navigate whobsaid he was working on a 'project' and wanted to know their athletic department budgeting...
PAC was already working on who to poach. And SDSU and Boise were almost certainly the catalysts along with OSU/WSU.
Last edited:
We don't know if they reached out to others or not. I assumed that they did.
OR
They had sincere thoughts that they would merge at some point.
Back to your analogy, do you go to car dealership and accept a 3x above sticker mark up with heavy fees if you take the car to any other dealership for repairs?
IF they are claiming duress, I would guess that not having any other options was a part of that. Because logically IT MAKES NO SENSE if they signed this agreement IF they had other options. It would make things SO much easier if they didn't and they would save millions, on just the scheduling part alone, let alone the extra fees.
Well the word on the street is that UNLV should not expect anywhere near the money that was promised to them from staying. They have not used any of this bonus money to help fund either of their brand new HC contracts. This means that the MW is not expecting the same money back with all of these fees, which in turn, mean the PAC is winning in this case.
Obviously you still need an 8th. Things have not gone as you expected on your side. So in terms of creating a conference, not exactly "winning". But all this will become clear once an 8th is announced with the media payouts being released. That and what happens with all of the arbitration.
Correct.
So if they didn't contact any other viable conferences or reach out to individual schools to schedule games, is there duress?
And their whole case is centered around duress.
If there was none, then none of the rest of their claims hold any water whatsoever.
Lets look at this differently.. What if the scheduling agreement case doesnt go the MWC way... Could the MWC then sue its former members individually for facilitating the falsehood that the agreement would keep schools from being poached while actively attempting to help broker poaching?
Also a distinct possibility.
Although I think the potential lack of duress is the stronger argument since everything else hinges on it.
Another interesting bit is none of the departing schools gas entered their 'offucial' paperwork to leave the MWC.
Question being why?
Reading the tea leaves, I would guess there is not such a huge hole in their argument. Otherwise you would think the MW would be a bit more confident in getting that money.
They don't have to until right before the school year. They keep voting rights in the MW officially. They are just following the letter of the law when it comes to the MW bylaws ( for this part)
Intent would be very difficult to prove unless they had a "smoking gun" in terms of proof like some sort of documentation indicating some tomfoolery. Which they could have, but you would think this would be raised during the arbitration.
Do we know that the MWC isn't confident in their side?
Because MWC extended offer to mediation does not necessarily mean they feel weak about their case.
This could simply be a temperature check on the PAC.
It could be MWC attempting to gain favor with the courts. Hey look we tried to talk they are being unreasonable.
PAC is in same boat as MWC they can't utilize funds that are potentially tied up in litigation.
I can't see how any of the PAC case stands if there is no duress. If they did not 'have' to sign the agreement as they claim.
1st few questions.
Did you explore any other potential scheduling partners.
If yes who?
What were the nature of those talks?
If not, why not?
When MWC offer was presented and as you describe it as exorbitant, did you pursue any other options.
If not why not.
Did they contact the MAC?
Did they contact the AAC?.
Again can't cry regionalism when you attempt to poach AAC schools a few months later.
Let's twist this around. What if the MW would have snubbed their nose at the Pac and didn't even accommodate them with the scheduling agreement? And who went to who first anyway, Pac or MW?
In this scenario, could the Pac-2 have sued the MW for NOT doing the scheduling agreement? And the Pac (WSU anyway) was able to put together a 2025 schedule (albeit a crappy one with 2 cross-country trips in a row and 3 total). With about the same timeframe as they had right after the last of the Traitorous 10 bailed in 2023.
Good win, I'm thinking perhaps (some news)
I should miss more games. Maybe I'm a jinx. Intended on going to the game, but emergency situation at work pulled me away until early morning. I recorded it before I left, but too tired to watch early morning and had to pop back in this morning. I'll try and watch it tonight. But good...
unlv.forums.rivals.com
in regards to how much money is expected.
Also Remember Harper was put on the spot in front of the regents when he was stupidly asked about funding Mullen's contract, bring up being 20 million in debt. You would think that would have been a great time to bring up the fact that we are due to receive 25 million for staying in this conference, right? Yet no mention at all.
Last edited:
Again the MW should have tried to keep the exit fees and poaching fees separate, but they are being combined in arbitration. This probably avoids additional legal fees, but really opens the door to combining everything to a single lump sum. Essentially conference a is asking conference B for fees twice. There are a precedent on how much exit fees should reasonably cost, and the MW's fees are already well above it. IF the poaching fees are considered to just be more of the same despite the separate agreement, then the amount we will receive will be significantly less.
Pretty sure we were like "so you want to come play in our sandbox, wed really like to have you" and the Pac 2 snobs were like "eh, you mean like for all sports to travel to New Mexico and Wyoming... No thanks.." and then they realized how much worse traveling to CUSA was and were like "what if we just paid you guys some money instead, while we try and pull you conference apart? "
Good win, I'm thinking perhaps (some news)
I should miss more games. Maybe I'm a jinx. Intended on going to the game, but emergency situation at work pulled me away until early morning. I recorded it before I left, but too tired to watch early morning and had to pop back in this morning. I'll try and watch it tonight. But good...
in regards to how much money is expected.
Also Remember Harper was put on the spot in front of the regents when he was stupidly asked about funding Mullen's contract, bring up being 20 million in debt. You would think that would have been a great time to bring up the fact that we are due to receive 25 million for staying in this conference, right? Yet no mention at all.
UNLV immediately clarified Harper's comments.
The word on the street is that the MWC will get $1 billion from the PAC! Anything that is said regarding the settlement is coming from people on the outside or if it came from anyone on the inside, that would open open an additional round of lawsuits since releasing the information to the public work be grounds from damages from either party. My belief is that just like the PAC contract numbers, people are just tossing numbers out to see what will stick!
Yeah we have one Beaver who hangs out on my site - pretty level-headed for a buck toothed rodent. He says the OSU fans were dead set against the merger from day one and would pull donations if we did it. So I asked him what OSU's other options were. P4 invite? Never happening, certainly not back then. WE were the bottom feeders. Independent? In Corvallis? yeah right. Beavs are full of themselves because they have a good Baseball program. Big F-ing deal.
Oh and another Coug idiot, an attorney no less, thinks he knows everything about everything, which of course is the sole domain of the Mighty, All-Knowing Loyal One. Waxes on and on about how the Traitorous 5 didn't want to stay in the MW (merger or not). OK, so what would they have done if the merger had happened? P4 invites? NOT. Independent? Hah. C-USA or SunBelt? AAC? Bye.
I'm sort of curious for comments from the Traitors. Might have to post the question on the WCS board.
The funniest traitors are the USU fans.
Guys you were only invited because the AAC 4 said no...
They were only invited because we said no... they'd still be in the MWC if we hadnt said no
We are locked into the MW through 2032.
Even if you think we are getting a P5 invite, which Im very confident we wont, both because our school wont spend the neccesary money too, and the P5 dont need UNLV to use Vegas, its not happening before 2031-2032
UNLV can have an out to a p5, but even if that happens (which it wont btw) it wont happen before 2031-2032. We are tied to the hip with UTEP Baby!!!!!
We have no guarnetees of payouts from the lawsuits, or guarentees about what our media deal will be either.
its glorious leadership from UNLV, slow clap
And yet they spout quite a bit about leaving the bottom feeders behind.
Last edited:
You said yourself we are likely ending up in the PAC in five years anyway.
So why spend millions now to do it vs opt out in 2032 for free.
The reality of the situation was UNLV didn't have the money to hire a Dan Mullen or try and re up Odom and pay exit fees to join the PAC.
You want to join the PAC..Ok. But it's probably Nick Rolovich at HC and not Dan Mullen.
UNLV's NIL collective is as strong as anybody in the MWC or the new PAC. And as long as that continues UNLV should be able to weather the next few years.
I know they did, but even in the clarification they didn't talk about the windfall of money we are about to receive with this great new GOR situation. They mostly talked about private donations, because this is what truly funded the contracts.
Now yes, after this is said and done, I think the traitorous 5 will be in a better spot than UNLV. But I am not 100% sold on that believe or not. My thing is why sign the GOR when you did? A lot has transpired from agreeing to it to the actually signing of it. See if anything gets settled with arbitration, or at least see where that is going.
Why sign a document that has extra language that will lock you into this conference even if we get zero extra dollars? What's the rush?
We have power in the MW, we are the bellcow now. We didn't have to sign that thing, especially as written. Especially when we have the PAC that would do parades in the streets throughout their towns if we were to join them right now. We could probably leave for free at this point. We had leverage
Don't think so? By adding us the payout per team could jump nearly a million vs taking UNLV over a team like a Texas State or Sac State that brings less than 500k media value to the table. It also raises the the PAC's profile significantly, especially if they don't have to take a flyer on a team that brings little value right now with media and competitiveness.
That is why I am frustrated. Just giving in when we did. Especially because I think there is a path to being in a better competitive conference and get more money.
Last edited:
There is more smoke to UNLV moving up to a P4 than people think. No, we aren’t SEC bound. But we are on the radar for the Big12 and ACC. However to your point it is unlikely we move before 2031-2032 unless something drastic happens with the ACC or Big12 that forces them to expand past their current footprint.
The amount we spend will be secondary to a media partner. They care more about market size and penetration within that media market. Having a historically well traveled fan base helps too, but the previous two metrics are two big things that matter the most.
While we lack the later, we do the well with the first two. Las Vegas punches above its weight for the size of our market. We are above Oklahoma city, Memphis, and New Orleans. But we have above average market penetration. Having 40m people traveling to Vegas a year helps tremendously. An advertisement seen in Vegas doesn’t necessarily mean its limited to only the Vegas population.
While we lack a fan base that travels in any meaningful numbers; we can point to Iowa State, Syracuse, and hopefully UCLA to show that our stadium looks good for TV. It helps that LSU / USC last season had an attendance larger than the Super Bowl a few months earlier.
You are correct power conferences do not need UNLV to use the stadium. But a trip to Vegas would be cheaper to haul a team + gear to and more exciting to any other p4 fanbase than Boise, OSU, WSU, CSU, SDSU, and USU.
Because the amounts are undetermined. Therefore not worth bringing up hypotheticals. (Lawsuits)
Your math ain't mathing. UNLV would not bump the PAC media deal by a million dollars.
Lets say PAC has an 8 million AAV with current 8 teams.
So basically the conference is worth 64 million to a media partner.
PAC adds Texas Stare who is valued at 2 million even. PAC gives them a full share.
AAV falls to 7.3 per school.
How much do you really think UNLV is worth.
Lets go bonkers and say UNLV is worth more than anybody in the PAC at 10 million. (They aren't)
You add them to the equation PAC media deal goes to 74 mil with an AAV of 8.3 million.
For UNLV to move the PAC media valuation a full million dollars in that scenario they'd need a valuation of 16-17 million on their own.
If UNLV was worth 17 million right now we'd be in the Big12 not the MWC.
It's going to be totally irrelevant and totally different by 2031 and likely way before then. Which is why this screaming at the sky about being in some semi-sorta-not as good G conference instead of the PAC is ridiculous nonsense. I think our AD realizes this, as well.
say they are worth 10 million a piece right now to make it simple. They have 8 member getting full share currently. 80 mil.
Add a Texas state which I don't think is worth more than 750k right now. Honestly I would be surprised if they are worth 500k. They have had some of the worst viewership than any other program, even if those numbers aren't terrible accurate. They are worth less than most of their current SBC teams that have the same issues.
80.75 Mil / 9 teams= 8.9mill per team.
I think UNLV could be worth as much as 8 mill themselves. I mean we are expected to get about 5 mil as a conference in the MW, with the majority of those teams likely worth less than that individually. So some team has to be pulling up that average. It is UNLV and maybe AFA.
88/9= 9.7 mil per team
There's my math, I even showed my work like a good boy!
That is 800k, nearly a million dollars. if we are worth 10 mil which we could be that is an even mill.
I think easily some teams in the current PAC are worth more than 10. I think the 2 PAC leftovers could be worth as much as 15. Boise is probably over 10 right now.
I think USU is closer to 5, the mean of the old MW.
So straight up, you think it was a good thing that we signed the GOR? Because that is my biggest gripe and you contest everything I say ( I kid, kinda)
How in the hell did signing the GOR help UNLV right now?
Agreed!
The same folks want to “howl at the wind” about NIL and recruiting too. It is what it is and all of it happens way above anyone’s pay grade on rebelnet!
I think with Harper and the coaches we now have in football and both basketball teams are capable of making do.
UNLV will adapt or die to the environment of NIL, recruiting and conference realignment in college sports, period!
Last edited:
