MWC & PAC Mediation Discussion for Poaching & Exit Fees

[Meister_Rebel]

We've all heard that the Pac and MWC have discussed going into Mediation over the Poaching and Exit fees. There hasn't been much said since. However, it does appear that both the Pac and MWC as of yesterday March 14th, 2025 have both filed for a "motion to Stay Proceedings in California" regarding mediation. Looks like this will drag on for a while.

“Today, at the request of the Mountain West Conference, the Pac-12 has agreed to file a mutual 60-day order to stay in the case to discuss mediation options,” the Pac-12 said in a statement. “It is important to state that we are in the early stages; no mediation dates have been set, and mediation is still uncertain. The Pac-12 remains confident in our position that the Poaching Penalty will be declared invalid and is committed to defending our stance.”

So, it appears we now have to wait on the courts to approve this. Once approved they have 60 days to see if they can come to some mutual agreement. It doesn't mean they will and it could just go back to the court. From the Pac's stated position above they think the the poaching penalty is invalid. I'm not sure if they are serious with this mediation.

Pac-12, Mountain West file motion to pause California poaching penalties case, enter mediation

The conferences appear closer to resolving their legal fights over the latest conference realignment and more than $150 million in fees.

www.nytimes.com

Hopefully the article isn't firewalled for you as it open for me without issues. Usually, the NYTimes will firewall their articles.

 

[dcut03]

We've all heard that the Pac and MWC have discussed going into Mediation over the Poaching and Exit fees. There hasn't been much said since. However, it does appear that both the Pac and MWC as of yesterday March 14th, 2025 have both filed for a "motion to Stay Proceedings in California" regarding mediation. Looks like this will drag on for a while.

“Today, at the request of the Mountain West Conference, the Pac-12 has agreed to file a mutual 60-day order to stay in the case to discuss mediation options,” the Pac-12 said in a statement. “It is important to state that we are in the early stages; no mediation dates have been set, and mediation is still uncertain. The Pac-12 remains confident in our position that the Poaching Penalty will be declared invalid and is committed to defending our stance.”

So, it appears we now have to wait on the courts to approve this. Once approved they have 60 days to see if they can come to some mutual agreement. It doesn't mean they will and it could just go back to the court. From the Pac's stated position above they think the the poaching penalty is invalid. I'm not sure if they are serious with this mediation.

Pac-12, Mountain West file motion to pause California poaching penalties case, enter mediation

The conferences appear closer to resolving their legal fights over the latest conference realignment and more than $150 million in fees.

www.nytimes.com

Hopefully the article isn't firewalled for you as it open for me without issues. Usually, the NYTimes will firewall their articles.

So it looks like UNLV is pretty much stuck in the MW even if the PAC win their lawsuits and we get significantly less than promised.

"What if the Mountain West — and therefore UNLV — doesn’t get all that it’s owed? It’s reasonable to expect any settlement would leave the league taking in less than $150 million. The Pac-12 still needs at least one more school, and UNLV’s name continues to float around as a possibility. San Diego State athletic director JD Wicker said recently the Pac-12’s new media rights deal could be completed by the end of March. Industry sources believe it could be closer to or after the Final Four in April, and further expansion by one or more schools could soon follow.

The Mountain West maintains that its new grant of rights is rock-solid, regardless of the financial specifics. The document says that if any provision becomes invalid or unenforceable, it doesn’t invalidate the agreement. That would seem to lock UNLV in. Harper’s public comments didn’t indicate a change of plans. So that’s the situation, for now."

Which to me was a mistake. Maybe we could still sue and get out. That is what the PAC did.

But with a P4 free pass, better competition, and potentially significantly better media payouts, and probably more manageable exit fees than advertised, why sign a document that locks you in without some sort of out if we get screwed with the promised money?

Can the Mountain West fend Pac-12 poaching efforts off for good? ‘We have a clear future’

Source: The New York Times
https://search.app/VNBvF

Shared via the Google App

 

[Meister_Rebel]

I can't see that article you linked. It's behind a paywall.

But, yeah, it's my understanding that the GOR has got us by the balls. Dumbest thing we could have done without some out clause. There is no out clause as I've read the GOR we signed. If we don't get the money they promised I think we are ****ed.

 

[WarthogRebel]

Do we have lawyers or do we rely on some homeless guy down on Maryland.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

So it looks like UNLV is pretty much stuck in the MW even if the PAC win their lawsuits and we get significantly less than promised.

"What if the Mountain West — and therefore UNLV — doesn’t get all that it’s owed? It’s reasonable to expect any settlement would leave the league taking in less than $150 million. The Pac-12 still needs at least one more school, and UNLV’s name continues to float around as a possibility. San Diego State athletic director JD Wicker said recently the Pac-12’s new media rights deal could be completed by the end of March. Industry sources believe it could be closer to or after the Final Four in April, and further expansion by one or more schools could soon follow.

The Mountain West maintains that its new grant of rights is rock-solid, regardless of the financial specifics. The document says that if any provision becomes invalid or unenforceable, it doesn’t invalidate the agreement. That would seem to lock UNLV in. Harper’s public comments didn’t indicate a change of plans. So that’s the situation, for now."

Which to me was a mistake. Maybe we could still sue and get out. That is what the PAC did.

But with a P4 free pass, better competition, and potentially significantly better media payouts, and probably more manageable exit fees than advertised, why sign a document that locks you in without some sort of out if we get screwed with the promised money?

Can the Mountain West fend Pac-12 poaching efforts off for good? ‘We have a clear future’

Source: The New York Times
https://search.app/VNBvF

Shared via the Google App

At this point who knows. I look at the PAC case and think they have to convince a judge the poaching fees are excessive and the agreement was signed under duress.

1- Duress..Sure I guess they could but if I'm the MWC lawyers I'm pointing to the fact that were able to cobble a schedule together for this upcoming season in less time so we're they really under duress?

2- Poaching fees were excessive. Maybe ? But you signed the contract. And you went ahead and piached anyway so they appear not to have been excessive enough. So either you didn't view them as excessive or you signed the contract in bad faith intending to challenge them in court from the start.

Not saying the MWC case doesn't have some holes as well but PAC case doesn't feel any stronger.

I don't think either side wants this to see arbitration or a court room.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

So the original March 25 Pac court date has come and gone due to the mediation, and still here we are. And sorry for being lazy, but what is/was the next court date for the traitor lawsuit? And are these two separate suits combined for mediation purposes? Or is the traitor lawsuit even in mediation? The All-knowing Loyal Coug should be answering these questions not asking them..but again, lazy. Can the Pac be any more inept and stupid? And where's our 8th member and our media deal?

That said, need an RB coach? Ours is available. .35, speeding and swerving on what I know to be a huge speed trap known as HWY 195. Puking all over his jail cell. 3rd DUI. And HWY 95 comes from Spokane, at least 60 miles from "north of Colfax". Basically nothing between, so shitfaced and swerving for 50 miles on a curvy 2 lane highway in his black Cadillac. Another superior SDSU hire by our SDSU coach. And sorry Wyoming for taking your just hired RB coach from North Dakota.

Former WSU RBs coach Robbie Rouse arrested on suspicion of DUI; police say he blew four times legal limit

PULLMAN – State troopers arrested former Washington State running backs coach Robbie Rouse earlier this month on suspicion of driving under the influence, a police report shows.

www.spokesman.com

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

So the original March 25 Pac court date has come and gone due to the mediation, and still here we are. And sorry for being lazy, but what is/was the next court date for the traitor lawsuit? And are these two separate suits combined for mediation purposes? Or is the traitor lawsuit even in mediation? The All-knowing Loyal Coug should be answering these questions not asking them..but again, lazy. Can the Pac be any more inept and stupid? And where's our 8th member and our media deal?

That said, need an RB coach? Ours is available. .35, speeding and swerving on what I know to be a huge speed trap known as HWY 195. Puking all over his jail cell. 3rd DUI. And HWY 95 comes from Spokane, at least 60 miles from "north of Colfax". Basically nothing between, so shitfaced and swerving for 50 miles on a curvy 2 lane highway in his black Cadillac. Another superior SDSU hire by our SDSU coach. And sorry Wyoming for taking your just hired RB coach from North Dakota.

Former WSU RBs coach Robbie Rouse arrested on suspicion of DUI; police say he blew four times legal limit

PULLMAN – State troopers arrested former Washington State running backs coach Robbie Rouse earlier this month on suspicion of driving under the influence, a police report shows.

www.spokesman.com

PAC will get their 8th. Likely Texas State. I think SMC will also join. My guess is the PAC might add a 9th member as a FB only addition to help with scheduling. Who that would be I don't know. They could probably give NMSU 1 million per year as a FB only member to help with scheduling (8 conference games 4 OOC Vs 7 and 5 which is a logistic/scheduling nightmare.) NMSU would likely jump at it since they are getting pennies from CUSA and they could just bury their other sports in the WAC or something.

The PAC will land on their feet and get more than MWC, but I'll be pretty surprised if they get more than 10 million per school in media deal. Nice for CSU/FRESNO/SDSU/USU not great for Boise since a tiny bump from the sweetheart deal they got from MWC and it will be tighten the belts time for WSU/OSU since less than half of what they are accustomed to getting.

 

[Meister_Rebel]

So the original March 25 Pac court date has come and gone due to the mediation, and still here we are. And sorry for being lazy, but what is/was the next court date for the traitor lawsuit? And are these two separate suits combined for mediation purposes? Or is the traitor lawsuit even in mediation? The All-knowing Loyal Coug should be answering these questions not asking them..but again, lazy. Can the Pac be any more inept and stupid? And where's our 8th member and our media deal?

That said, need an RB coach? Ours is available. .35, speeding and swerving on what I know to be a huge speed trap known as HWY 195. Puking all over his jail cell. 3rd DUI. And HWY 95 comes from Spokane, at least 60 miles from "north of Colfax". Basically nothing between, so shitfaced and swerving for 50 miles on a curvy 2 lane highway in his black Cadillac. Another superior SDSU hire by our SDSU coach. And sorry Wyoming for taking your just hired RB coach from North Dakota.

Former WSU RBs coach Robbie Rouse arrested on suspicion of DUI; police say he blew four times legal limit

PULLMAN – State troopers arrested former Washington State running backs coach Robbie Rouse earlier this month on suspicion of driving under the influence, a police report shows.

www.spokesman.com

What I've read is that both cases are attempting mediation.

"Friday’s filing also noted that a separate case in Colorado involving Boise State, Colorado State and Utah State against the Mountain West over exit fees is also set to go to mediation. In that case, the three schools are challenging their Mountain West exit fees, which could range from $19 million to $38 million each."

https://mediate.com/news/pac-12-mountain-west-file-motion-to-pause-california-poaching-penalties-case-enter-mediation/

 

[Meister_Rebel]

This article is a week old and discusses the cases/mediation but, for @Loyal Coug1 it has Glorias picture.

MSN

 

[dcut03]

At this point who knows. I look at the PAC case and think they have to convince a judge the poaching fees are excessive and the agreement was signed under duress.

1- Duress..Sure I guess they could but if I'm the MWC lawyers I'm pointing to the fact that were able to cobble a schedule together for this upcoming season in less time so we're they really under duress?

2- Poaching fees were excessive. Maybe ? But you signed the contract. And you went ahead and piached anyway so they appear not to have been excessive enough. So either you didn't view them as excessive or you signed the contract in bad faith intending to challenge them in court from the start.

Not saying the MWC case doesn't have some holes as well but PAC case doesn't feel any stronger.

I don't think either side wants this to see arbitration or a court room.

There have been more and more reports that at least UNLV is not expected the full amounts, actually they might be expecting significantly reduced amount than what is promised.
They also seemed to get both of our new coaching contracts financed without counting on any GOR-bonus money, which I think is a smart thing if nothing else to CYA.

I can see the argument for the PAC, yes they signed it, but the agreement wasn't fair. They were in a desperate state without a lot of options. I can see them signing the agreement knowing that the terms were not fair, knowing that they would have a case to sue down the road. Either that or they truly thought they would merge.

I get it from their perspective, the PAC 2 was completely screwed over and didn't that much compensation for it. Did the PAC fight the MW much on that initial agreement, or quietly go along knowing they would sue later? They would probably have a better case if they have documentation on countering their agreement to a more reasonable amount. Either way it is a little weird.

Bottom line is our bottom line will not be as good as it looked when this was brought up months ago. And it looks like we signed a document that made it at least tough to get out of this conference, if it looks like the wrong move after this is settled. That is unfortunate.

It is very possible that Harper/UNLV just thought that being a big fish in a small pond was the better play for a Playoff invite and P4 invite down the road. There is an argument for that, easier path to get a near perfect record, at the expense of SOS. We wouldn't win any ties that way, but less risk for a loss.

Honestly this upcoming year could really dictate that down the road. If UNLV can get over the hump and finally beat Boise on the Road, and then potentially beat them a second time in a championship game, perception of the program would be huge. We would get more benefit of the doubt with "ties" in the upcoming years.

If we lose to them again this year, especially twice, we will not get the benefit down the road if it is between us and them, or really whichever PAC champion it may be.

 

[Rod_the_Rebel]

So we agreed to stay because they’d pay us money, but even if they don’t, we stay anyway. Incredible deal.

 

[Boston Rebel 2]

So we agreed to stay because they’d pay us money, but even if they don’t, we stay anyway. Incredible deal.

Many knew this was a bad decision when it was signed somehow people convinced themselves otherwise. Terrible decision.

 

[Rebel1986]

There have been more and more reports that at least UNLV is not expected the full amounts, actually they might be expecting significantly reduced amount than what is promised.
They also seemed to get both of our new coaching contracts financed without counting on any GOR-bonus money, which I think is a smart thing if nothing else to CYA.

I can see the argument for the PAC, yes they signed it, but the agreement wasn't fair. They were in a desperate state without a lot of options. I can see them signing the agreement knowing that the terms were not fair, knowing that they would have a case to sue down the road. Either that or they truly thought they would merge.

I get it from their perspective, the PAC 2 was completely screwed over and didn't that much compensation for it. Did the PAC fight the MW much on that initial agreement, or quietly go along knowing they would sue later? They would probably have a better case if they have documentation on countering their agreement to a more reasonable amount. Either way it is a little weird.

Bottom line is our bottom line will not be as good as it looked when this was brought up months ago. And it looks like we signed a document that made it at least tough to get out of this conference, if it looks like the wrong move after this is settled. That is unfortunate.

It is very possible that Harper/UNLV just thought that being a big fish in a small pond was the better play for a Playoff invite and P4 invite down the road. There is an argument for that, easier path to get a near perfect record, at the expense of SOS. We wouldn't win any ties that way, but less risk for a loss.

Honestly this upcoming year could really dictate that down the road. If UNLV can get over the hump and finally beat Boise on the Road, and then potentially beat them a second time in a championship game, perception of the program would be huge. We would get more benefit of the doubt with "ties" in the upcoming years.

If we lose to them again this year, especially twice, we will not get the benefit down the road if it is between us and them, or really whichever PAC champion it may be.

You say the deal wasn't fair for the PAC, but you think it was fair that they used the connections they made while playing against the MWC to steal teams? The PAC just shows the corrupt tradition you can expect out of the west coast.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

There have been more and more reports that at least UNLV is not expected the full amounts, actually they might be expecting significantly reduced amount than what is promised.
They also seemed to get both of our new coaching contracts financed without counting on any GOR-bonus money, which I think is a smart thing if nothing else to CYA.

I can see the argument for the PAC, yes they signed it, but the agreement wasn't fair. They were in a desperate state without a lot of options. I can see them signing the agreement knowing that the terms were not fair, knowing that they would have a case to sue down the road. Either that or they truly thought they would merge.

I get it from their perspective, the PAC 2 was completely screwed over and didn't that much compensation for it. Did the PAC fight the MW much on that initial agreement, or quietly go along knowing they would sue later? They would probably have a better case if they have documentation on countering their agreement to a more reasonable amount. Either way it is a little weird.

Bottom line is our bottom line will not be as good as it looked when this was brought up months ago. And it looks like we signed a document that made it at least tough to get out of this conference, if it looks like the wrong move after this is settled. That is unfortunate.

It is very possible that Harper/UNLV just thought that being a big fish in a small pond was the better play for a Playoff invite and P4 invite down the road. There is an argument for that, easier path to get a near perfect record, at the expense of SOS. We wouldn't win any ties that way, but less risk for a loss.

Honestly this upcoming year could really dictate that down the road. If UNLV can get over the hump and finally beat Boise on the Road, and then potentially beat them a second time in a championship game, perception of the program would be huge. We would get more benefit of the doubt with "ties" in the upcoming years.

If we lose to them again this year, especially twice, we will not get the benefit down the road if it is between us and them, or really whichever PAC champion it may be.

'I can see the argument for the PAC, yes they signed it, but the agreement wasn't fair. They were in a desperate state without a lot of options. I can see them signing the agreement knowing that the terms were not fair, knowing that they would have a case to sue down the road. Either that or they truly thought they would merge.'

Sorry but nonsense. They signed it. If it wasn't fair you don't sign it and you throw together a schedule just like they did this year. This would also imply they signed it with no intention to honor it and every intention to litigate it. That is 100% entering a contract in bad faith.

Secondly there was never any intention whatsoever to merge. Wyoming AD said for months prior to MWC media days communication with the four schools that initially left dried up. Phone calls not returned, emails left unread etc. This thing had been brewing for some time.

As for UNLV hosing themselves with this GOR...Yeah maybe, we'll see, I mean based on the PACs case it appears contracts no longer mean anything. UNLV was 'under duress' having to make an important decision in a very short period of time. They would have needed more time to discuss with boosters ways to raise money for exit fees. MWC commisioner pressured them for a quick decision. UNLV was 'mislead' by the MWC Commisioner about payouts.

Why is that any weaker of an argument then what the PAC is saying? It's just as much nonsense as the PACs duress BS. The PAC schools had time to put schedule together. Evidence being they just did it. Like this year. There was no duress.

 

[Boston Rebel 2]

You say the deal wasn't fair for the PAC, but you think it was fair that they used the connections they made while playing against the MWC to steal teams? The PAC just shows the corrupt tradition you can expect out of the west coast.

They are definitely back stabbers but that is college sports today. Texas and OU didn't hesitate to leave their lifetime conference on more than one occasion.

 

[LVRebel2000]

'I can see the argument for the PAC, yes they signed it, but the agreement wasn't fair. They were in a desperate state without a lot of options. I can see them signing the agreement knowing that the terms were not fair, knowing that they would have a case to sue down the road. Either that or they truly thought they would merge.'

Sorry but nonsense. They signed it. If it wasn't fair you don't sign it and you throw together a schedule just like they did this year. This would also imply they signed it with no intention to honor it and every intention to litigate it. That is 100% entering a contract in bad faith.

Secondly there was never any intention whatsoever to merge. Wyoming AD said for months prior to MWC media days communication with the four schools that initially left dried up. Phone calls not returned, emails left unread etc. This thing had been brewing for some time.

As for UNLV hosing themselves with this GOR...Yeah maybe, we'll see, I mean based on the PACs case it appears contracts no longer mean anything. UNLV was 'under duress' having to make an important decision in a very short period of time. They would have needed more time to discuss with boosters ways to raise money for exit fees. MWC commisioner pressured them for a quick decision. UNLV was 'mislead' by the MWC Commisioner about payouts.

Why is that any weaker of an argument then what the PAC is saying? It's just as much nonsense as the PACs duress BS. The PAC schools had time to put schedule together. Evidence being they just did it. Like this year. There was no duress.

This is well stated, and where I stand too. Especially the statements about UNLV being under duress when it signed the agreement with the MW, and the possibility of the MW not delivering on the payouts that they described to UNLV.

 

[dcut03]

'I can see the argument for the PAC, yes they signed it, but the agreement wasn't fair. They were in a desperate state without a lot of options. I can see them signing the agreement knowing that the terms were not fair, knowing that they would have a case to sue down the road. Either that or they truly thought they would merge.'

Sorry but nonsense. They signed it. If it wasn't fair you don't sign it and you throw together a schedule just like they did this year. This would also imply they signed it with no intention to honor it and every intention to litigate it. That is 100% entering a contract in bad faith.

Secondly there was never any intention whatsoever to merge. Wyoming AD said for months prior to MWC media days communication with the four schools that initially left dried up. Phone calls not returned, emails left unread etc. This thing had been brewing for some time.

As for UNLV hosing themselves with this GOR...Yeah maybe, we'll see, I mean based on the PACs case it appears contracts no longer mean anything. UNLV was 'under duress' having to make an important decision in a very short period of time. They would have needed more time to discuss with boosters ways to raise money for exit fees. MWC commisioner pressured them for a quick decision. UNLV was 'mislead' by the MWC Commisioner about payouts.

Why is that any weaker of an argument then what the PAC is saying? It's just as much nonsense as the PACs duress BS. The PAC schools had time to put schedule together. Evidence being they just did it. Like this year. There was no duress.

But it is not the same thing.
Having less than a year to fill out a schedule ( for the next season) vs more than a year for scheduling the following season are 2 very different things. Schedules are filled out in advance quite a bit. It was as late as August when the B12 teams still announcing their departure. I would guess the PAC 2 were weighing their options in the ACC as well ( the NoCal schools announced in September). Remember, in order to be bowl eligible (nevermind CFP eligible) you can't have more that 1 FCS level opponent. There was no way they could get 11 FBS regular season games in that short notice.
As soon as they signed the agreement they probably started trying to schedule for the following year. And if they knew they were rebuilding the PAC, they could start scheduling for the new, unannounced teams as well, at least in principle. Just the scheduling agreement, not the poaching fees, was completely unreasonable. Us charging them like they are Ohio State and Michigan for than many games is absurd.
And that price we charged them again helps their argument of being taken advantage of, because we did.
And to your point, if it was that easy to put together a schedule so quickly, why sign the agreement at all?

The answer is simple, it wasn't and they couldn't.

Or are you saying that they could have easily put together a schedule and not signed a poaching agreement and decided to do it anyway just to try to dupe the MW and go through lawsuits, and still potentially face millions in extra fees to do so? How does that make sense?

Like you said they signed it, they should own up to it. My gut feels the same way.

But unfortunately it doesn't seem to be that cut and dry. Exit fees are the same, yet they get negotiated down all of the time. Reports are that the MW is not expected to get all of the money. All signs point to the fact that they do have an argument. At this point the only question is how much the fees get talked down.

 

[dcut03]

As for UNLV hosing themselves with this GOR...Yeah maybe, we'll see, I mean based on the PACs case it appears contracts no longer mean anything. UNLV was 'under duress' having to make an important decision in a very short period of time. They would have needed more time to discuss with boosters ways to raise money for exit fees. MWC commisioner pressured them for a quick decision. UNLV was 'mislead' by the MWC Commisioner about payouts.

You could be right here, but they finally signed the GOR just weeks ago. UNLV had a long time to think about it, and the money was very much in question since all of the lawsuits were on the table. I would hope they could still get out of it, but it seems unlikely, At least at face value. And there has been no indication that UNLV would challenge it, though UNLV is still mentioned as a PAC possibility.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

But it is not the same thing.
Having less than a year to fill out a schedule ( for the next season) vs more than a year for scheduling the following season are 2 very different things. Schedules are filled out in advance quite a bit. It was as late as August when the B12 teams still announcing their departure. I would guess the PAC 2 were weighing their options in the ACC as well ( the NoCal schools announced in September). Remember, in order to be bowl eligible (nevermind CFP eligible) you can't have more that 1 FCS level opponent. There was no way they could get 11 FBS regular season games in that short notice.
As soon as they signed the agreement they probably started trying to schedule for the following year. And if they knew they were rebuilding the PAC, they could start scheduling for the new, unannounced teams as well, at least in principle. Just the scheduling agreement, not the poaching fees, was completely unreasonable. Us charging them like they are Ohio State and Michigan for than many games is absurd.
And that price we charged them again helps their argument of being taken advantage of, because we did.
And to your point, if it was that easy to put together a schedule so quickly, why sign the agreement at all?

The answer is simple, it wasn't and they couldn't.

Or are you saying that they could have easily put together a schedule and not signed a poaching agreement and decided to do it anyway just to try to dupe the MW and go through lawsuits, and still potentially face millions in extra fees to do so? How does that make sense?

Like you said they signed it, they should own up to it. My gut feels the same way.

But unfortunately it doesn't seem to be that cut and dry. Exit fees are the same, yet they get negotiated down all of the time. Reports are that the MW is not expected to get all of the money. All signs point to the fact that they do have an argument. At this point the only question is how much the fees get talked down.

It was and they could. They had time prior to the scheduling agreement to make a schedule. They entered the agreement and signed it. Nobody forced them to sign it. There were other options available to them prior to signing the scheduling agreement.

They entered that agreement with no intention of honoring it. That's the definition of bad faith.

Add to that I'd they were possibly already kicking the tires on recreating the PAC with Boise/SDSU prior to signing the scheduling agreement, you are now looking at possible collusion.

This is why neither side wants discovery.

 

[Rebel1986]

But it is not the same thing.
Having less than a year to fill out a schedule ( for the next season) vs more than a year for scheduling the following season are 2 very different things. Schedules are filled out in advance quite a bit. It was as late as August when the B12 teams still announcing their departure. I would guess the PAC 2 were weighing their options in the ACC as well ( the NoCal schools announced in September). Remember, in order to be bowl eligible (nevermind CFP eligible) you can't have more that 1 FCS level opponent. There was no way they could get 11 FBS regular season games in that short notice.
As soon as they signed the agreement they probably started trying to schedule for the following year. And if they knew they were rebuilding the PAC, they could start scheduling for the new, unannounced teams as well, at least in principle. Just the scheduling agreement, not the poaching fees, was completely unreasonable. Us charging them like they are Ohio State and Michigan for than many games is absurd.
And that price we charged them again helps their argument of being taken advantage of, because we did.
And to your point, if it was that easy to put together a schedule so quickly, why sign the agreement at all?

The answer is simple, it wasn't and they couldn't.

Or are you saying that they could have easily put together a schedule and not signed a poaching agreement and decided to do it anyway just to try to dupe the MW and go through lawsuits, and still potentially face millions in extra fees to do so? How does that make sense?

Like you said they signed it, they should own up to it. My gut feels the same way.

But unfortunately it doesn't seem to be that cut and dry. Exit fees are the same, yet they get negotiated down all of the time. Reports are that the MW is not expected to get all of the money. All signs point to the fact that they do have an argument. At this point the only question is how much the fees get talked down.

Every criminal always tries to justify their actions!

 

[dcut03]

It was and they could. They had time prior to the scheduling agreement to make a schedule. They entered the agreement and signed it. Nobody forced them to sign it. There were other options available to them prior to signing the scheduling agreement.

They entered that agreement with no intention of honoring it. That's the definition of bad faith.

Add to that I'd they were possibly already kicking the tires on recreating the PAC with Boise/SDSU prior to signing the scheduling agreement, you are now looking at possible collusion.

This is why neither side wants discovery.

Your argument makes no sense though.

So instead of putting together 2 full schedules with less than a year notice with 7-8 additional FBS games per team, something you say could be done, they sign a completely unreasonable schedule agreement paying the MW at least 4x market value per game.

And then agreeing to the poaching agreement, which at least makes them rebuilding significantly harder to do. Even if they were going to challenge that, the legal fees alone.

And to your point opening themselves up to collusion.

Why do that?

Or...

They really had few options. They tried to see if they could schedule enough teams last minute and were striking out. They were backed in a corner and had to make a decision to sign this terrible agreement for them costing them 7 mil a piece up front, not counting the lost revenue they would be getting for playing regular OOC road games. And signing an agreement that could cut the legs off their expansion plan? I would guess their other option was having to play multiple FCS teams, eliminating them from Bowl and Playoff contention before the season started.

 

[LVRebel2000]

Your argument makes no sense though.

So instead of putting together 2 full schedules with less than a year notice with 7-8 additional FBS games per team, something you say could be done, they sign a completely unreasonable schedule agreement paying the MW at least 4x market value per game.

And then agreeing to the poaching agreement, which at least makes them rebuilding significantly harder to do. Even if they were going to challenge that, the legal fees alone.

And to your point opening themselves up to collusion.

Why do that?

Or...

They really had few options. They tried to see if they could schedule enough teams last minute and were striking out. They were backed in a corner and had to make a decision to sign this terrible agreement for them costing them 7 mil a piece up front, not counting the lost revenue they would be getting for playing regular OOC road games. And signing an agreement that could cut the legs off their expansion plan? I would guess their other option was having to play multiple FCS teams, eliminating them from Bowl and Playoff contention before the season started.

True, but the MW could have also told them to go pound sand, and not worked with them at all. Which one would have resulted in more duress?

 

[dcut03]

True, but the MW could have also told them to go pound sand, and not worked with them at all. Which one would have resulted in more duress?

But they didn't, and instead they had them sign a terrible deal for them.

These counter points against duress sure seem like they are strengthening the argument for duress!

 

[Rebel1986]

But they didn't, and instead they had them sign a terrible deal for them.

These counter points against duress sure seem like they are strengthening the argument for duress!

If it was all this duress that you seem to be pushing for, why couldn't they have signed an agreement with any of a hand full of other conferences? They could have always signed an agreement with the AAC, Conference USA, MAC or Sunbelt. I find it much more likely they signed an agreement with the MWC because they already new they were committing fraud and collusion in order to use this as a foot hold so they could high jack teams from the MWC.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

This article is a week old and discusses the cases/mediation but, for @Loyal Coug1 it has Glorias picture.

MSN

Thanks! Saves me from having to go to Pornhub to get excited.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

If it was all this duress that you seem to be pushing for, why couldn't they have signed an agreement with any of a hand full of other conferences? They could have always signed an agreement with the AAC, Conference USA, MAC or Sunbelt. I find it much more likely they signed an agreement with the MWC because they already new they were committing fraud and collusion in order to use this as a foot hold so they could high jack teams from the MWC.

I completely agree with the above. Although Kwackkoff signed it before being ousted, not Teresa. But what was telling was a few months later when she said there had been no contact with the MW about a possible merger, which was specifically called out in the Scheduling Agreement as a "next step".

As far as all this Pac duress goes, yeah the MW had no obligation to bail out the Pac. But they did, and put in the poaching clause as insurance to prevent exactly what ended up happening.

And yes, the Pac surely had other options. lame ones, but options.

 

[dcut03]

If it was all this duress that you seem to be pushing for, why couldn't they have signed an agreement with any of a hand full of other conferences? They could have always signed an agreement with the AAC, Conference USA, MAC or Sunbelt. I find it much more likely they signed an agreement with the MWC because they already new they were committing fraud and collusion in order to use this as a foot hold so they could high jack teams from the MWC.

Obviously the MW has advantages of regionality.

Again makes no sense.

There would be no fraud or collusion if they could do anything else. So why purposely sign agreement that is a terrible deal for you, cuts the legs off expansion down the road and opens yourself up to collusion by doing so.

I get it. It is us vs them on this board (with 1 Coug on this side). We love to shit on the PAC every chance we get. They didn't thimk we were worthy at first and they have screwed up our conference. So we talk try to laugh at them.

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

I dont see a single reason why the PAC would sign the agreement if they actually had any other real options.

We had them by the short and curlies. Gloria took advantage and did what she thought was best for the MW. I don't fault her for that. But if her end game was to do a reverse merger with the PAC a more reasonable agreement would have gone a long way. And I am just talking about the price for those games, not even the poaching agreement. She then tried to raise it another 400-500k for year 2. She pushed hard they pushed back and now we are here.

 

[SilverSpoon]

Obviously the MW has advantages of regionality.

Again makes no sense.

There would be no fraud or collusion if they could do anything else. So why purposely sign agreement that is a terrible deal for you, cuts the legs off expansion down the road and opens yourself up to collusion by doing so.

I get it. It is us vs them on this board (with 1 Coug on this side). We love to shit on the PAC every chance we get. They didn't thimk we were worthy at first and they have screwed up our conference. So we talk try to laugh at them.

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

I dont see a single reason why the PAC would sign the agreement if they actually had any other real options.

We had them by the short and curlies. Gloria took advantage and did what she thought was best for the MW. I don't fault her for that. But if her end game was to do a reverse merger with the PAC a more reasonable agreement would have gone a long way. And I am just talking about the price for those games, not even the poaching agreement. She then tried to raise it another 400-500k for year 2. She pushed hard they pushed back and now we are here.

The contract they signed was worth more than the alternative of an incomplete PAC2 schedule. So much had to be shifted around just to fit them into each schools open spots. Did the MW even want them to agree to the terms? Was the MW purposely trying to put it out of their price range in hopes of a stalemate? Was the poaching contract done to test loyalties to a future merger agreement? So many questions.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Obviously the MW has advantages of regionality.

Again makes no sense.

There would be no fraud or collusion if they could do anything else. So why purposely sign agreement that is a terrible deal for you, cuts the legs off expansion down the road and opens yourself up to collusion by doing so.

I get it. It is us vs them on this board (with 1 Coug on this side). We love to shit on the PAC every chance we get. They didn't thimk we were worthy at first and they have screwed up our conference. So we talk try to laugh at them.

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

I dont see a single reason why the PAC would sign the agreement if they actually had any other real options.

We had them by the short and curlies. Gloria took advantage and did what she thought was best for the MW. I don't fault her for that. But if her end game was to do a reverse merger with the PAC a more reasonable agreement would have gone a long way. And I am just talking about the price for those games, not even the poaching agreement. She then tried to raise it another 400-500k for year 2. She pushed hard they pushed back and now we are here.

I've said numerous times.

Wish we had joined.
PAC is a better conference top to bottom with more upside.

We did not have them at any disadvantage though.

They 100% could have put together an independent schedule vs the scheduling agreement with MWC.

They willfully entered that agreement with zero intention of honoring it. I can say with confidence (though not 100% evidence) SDSU/BOISE/WSU/OSU were planning this before the scheduling agreement was ever signed.

Why would Gloria hire a 'threat analysis' firm otherwise? She new it was a possibility. They created the poaching fees to guard against it. PAC signed it anyway.

PAC will end up with better media deal.

But it is a massive and I mean massive pie in the face if their lineup goes from WSU/OSU/SDSU/BOISE/FRESNO/CSU/USU plus the four AAC schools to them plus Texas State. Better than the MWC ? Absolutely...Infinitely better or nearly a power conference which was their goal? Nope.

I'd argue as a football conference they'll be better than the AAC but not leaps and bounds better.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

The contract they signed was worth more than the alternative of an incomplete PAC2 schedule. So much had to be shifted around just to fit them into each schools open spots. Did the MW even want them to agree to the terms? Was the MW purposely trying to put it out of their price range in hopes of a stalemate? Was the poaching contract done to test loyalties to a future merger agreement? So many questions.

The poaching fees were implemented to try and stop what went down from happening. Obviously didn't. The PAC 2 and the initial 4 MWC schools had no intention of ever honoring that contract.

 

[Rebel1986]

Obviously the MW has advantages of regionality.

Again makes no sense.

There would be no fraud or collusion if they could do anything else. So why purposely sign agreement that is a terrible deal for you, cuts the legs off expansion down the road and opens yourself up to collusion by doing so.

I get it. It is us vs them on this board (with 1 Coug on this side). We love to shit on the PAC every chance we get. They didn't thimk we were worthy at first and they have screwed up our conference. So we talk try to laugh at them.

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

I dont see a single reason why the PAC would sign the agreement if they actually had any other real options.

We had them by the short and curlies. Gloria took advantage and did what she thought was best for the MW. I don't fault her for that. But if her end game was to do a reverse merger with the PAC a more reasonable agreement would have gone a long way. And I am just talking about the price for those games, not even the poaching agreement. She then tried to raise it another 400-500k for year 2. She pushed hard they pushed back and now we are here.

By keeping the MWC teams closer, this gave them a foothold for negotiations that wouldn't have existed if they played teams in the Sunbelt which would have just speed up the irreverence of the PAC 2. It isn't us against them, it is them committing what was without question collusion and without question fraud. Do you honestly believe that the PAC2 didn't talk between each other how they would steal teams from the MWC prior to and after they signed the agreement with the MWC. Fraud in the fact that they had no intention of every honoring the agreement that they signed. Simple fact is they are crooked, and figured that breaking the rules and breaking contracts was no big deal if they thought they could get away with it. From day one the PAC2 knew what they were going to do! It is just more proof that the college education system and integrity never went hand in hand!

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Your argument makes no sense though.

So instead of putting together 2 full schedules with less than a year notice with 7-8 additional FBS games per team, something you say could be done, they sign a completely unreasonable schedule agreement paying the MW at least 4x market value per game.

And then agreeing to the poaching agreement, which at least makes them rebuilding significantly harder to do. Even if they were going to challenge that, the legal fees alone.

And to your point opening themselves up to collusion.

Why do that?

Or...

They really had few options. They tried to see if they could schedule enough teams last minute and were striking out. They were backed in a corner and had to make a decision to sign this terrible agreement for them costing them 7 mil a piece up front, not counting the lost revenue they would be getting for playing regular OOC road games. And signing an agreement that could cut the legs off their expansion plan? I would guess their other option was having to play multiple FCS teams, eliminating them from Bowl and Playoff contention before the season started.

It makes perfect sense.

The argument of 'duress' is nonsense.

They could have gone independent schedule.

They entered the agreement with the MWC in bad faith never intending to honor the poaching fees.

The PAC absolutely thought UNLV would break ranks along with USU.

The MWC would have folded. AFA would have bolted to AAC.

Gloria would have been forced to hold the MWC together with UNM/WYO/RENO/SJSU. Would have tried to get UH to stay. Would they? Doubt it. Is NIU joining that mess?

It would be merge with CUSA or dissolve the conference. I don't think there was a path to rebuild at that point.


The PAC signed an agreement that was written with the direct purpose of dissuading poaching. They poached anyway because they never intended to honor it.

You have a lot of faith in a brain trust over in the PAC that basically pitched to Memphis and Tulane 'Trust me bro it's gonna be great' Then offered to pay 2.5 million of a nearly 20 million dollar buyout. How do you approach them with no media deal in place or estimates that were obviously not even in the ballpark of getting them to jump.

PAC will be better, they also vastly over estimate their own worth.

Congrats on spending millions and millions of dollars to create the top G6 conference.

Which a merger would have accomplished anyway...Since the MWC was already viewed as top Group of..

The PAC had no intention of honoring it and every intention of crippling the MWC to the point they wouldn't have to.

 

[dcut03]

It makes perfect sense.

The argument of 'duress' is nonsense.

They could have gone independent schedule.

They entered the agreement with the MWC in bad faith never intending to honor the poaching fees.

The PAC absolutely thought UNLV would break ranks along with USU.

The MWC would have folded. AFA would have bolted to AAC.

Gloria would have been forced to hold the MWC together with UNM/WYO/RENO/SJSU. Would have tried to get UH to stay. Would they? Doubt it. Is NIU joining that mess?

It would be merge with CUSA or dissolve the conference. I don't think there was a path to rebuild at that point.


The PAC signed an agreement that was written with the direct purpose of dissuading poaching. They poached anyway because they never intended to honor it.

You have a lot of faith in a brain trust over in the PAC that basically pitched to Memphis and Tulane 'Trust me bro it's gonna be great' Then offered to pay 2.5 million of a nearly 20 million dollar buyout. How do you approach them with no media deal in place or estimates that were obviously not even in the ballpark of getting them to jump.

PAC will be better, they also vastly over estimate their own worth.

Congrats on spending millions and millions of dollars to create the top G6 conference.

Which a merger would have accomplished anyway...Since the MWC was already viewed as top Group of..

The PAC had no intention of honoring it and every intention of crippling the MWC to the point they wouldn't have to.

But they themselves were crushed by realignment down to 2 members, and they held it together.

Sh!t just rolls down hill.

So you think after playing hardball with Gloria, and losing, that they thought by taking 5-6 teams the MW would just fold and give up? Worst case they would reverse merge with the CUSA to keep the NCAAT credits. It would be easier for the MW to rebuild than the PAC. We talked about that at the time, but the consensus was they would 9 teams to make that idea full proof.

That is a huge risk, and it cost them millions, up front and with potential for even more down the road.

It doesn't matter what happened after the fact, what matters is why even sign the agreement if they had legitimate other options?

By signing the agreement, they pay well over 3 x market value to fill out their schedule, open themselves to possible collusion, and face potentially 150+ in fees that they have to get the courts to talk down. Fees that according to you, could have been 100% avoided.

I agree they signed the agreement in bad faith, as Loyal Coug pointed out, talks for a merger were a part of the agreement, and it seems like serious talks never really happened.

Why not just schedule without an agreement, since it is so easy to do, pay a more reasonable price for last year's games. be able to poach all the teams from the MW without the extra penalty and save them millions? Just because they are betting that the MW will fold?

OR

They actually were backed in a corner and this was their best option.

Sorry, it doesn't make sense.

And the speculation that they are going to be able to get out of some of these fees does seem to give validity to their arguments

 

[Rebel1986]

But they themselves were crushed by realignment down to 2 members, and they held it together.

Sh!t just rolls down hill.

So you think after playing hardball with Gloria, and losing, that they thought by taking 5-6 teams the MW would just fold and give up? Worst case they would reverse merge with the CUSA to keep the NCAAT credits. It would be easier for the MW to rebuild than the PAC. We talked about that at the time, but the consensus was they would 9 teams to make that idea full proof.

That is a huge risk, and it cost them millions, up front and with potential for even more down the road.

It doesn't matter what happened after the fact, what matters is why even sign the agreement if they had legitimate other options?

By signing the agreement, they pay well over 3 x market value to fill out their schedule, open themselves to possible collusion, and face potentially 150+ in fees that they have to get the courts to talk down. Fees that according to you, could have been 100% avoided.

I agree they signed the agreement in bad faith, as Loyal Coug pointed out, talks for a merger were a part of the agreement, and it seems like serious talks never really happened.

Why not just schedule without an agreement, since it is so easy to do, pay a more reasonable price for last year's games. be able to poach all the teams from the MW without the extra penalty and save them millions? Just because they are betting that the MW will fold?

OR

They actually were backed in a corner and this was their best option.

Sorry, it doesn't make sense.

And the speculation that they are going to be able to get out of some of these fees does seem to give validity to their arguments

You can continue to attempt to justify a criminal action, but it just doesn't hold water.