Tick Tick Tick
- Thread starter Rebel1986
- Start date
Maybe the MWC is stalling because in 2 days time the get double the money if no official letters and checks have been received...This is what is going on during the PAC meeting with the MWC 5!
Which part isnt settled.. They still are required to meet the bylaws for resigning from the conference in order to do so without the doubling of the exit fee. Even the original fee gets reduced, they still get penalized for not resigning within the timeframe required by the bylaws.. And they all had ample time to do so
I'm pretty sure that all of the schools leaving the MW have already signed 'binding' agreements with the PAC, so I highly doubt that they will pull out at this point. My guess is that the 5 departing schools have the checks and paperwork ready to go and will make sure the MWC receives them on time.
That would be very surprising if true. I hope it is, but thought that I had seen otherwise about their commitment to the new PAC conference, but I don't recall the details.
Then why have they waited so long? Is it a voting rights thing- once you submitted resignation you lose your voting rights.
I dont think it's second thoughts, I think they're beyond coming back, and waiting for mediation to solve their fees also doesn't seem like a reason...
Semantics mostly also a poison pill.
1- MWC bylaws state teams must sign an official release and pay 5k dollars to start the process. (Something to that affect).
By not doing this yet, they can argue that they haven't 'officially' left the conference and still have voting rights. Its a ploy, semantics etc.
2-There is/was inherent risk in the PAC rebuild. Smart to not officially leave until the 11th hour in case the rebuild went completely South.
MWC will likely get enough in mediation for Gloria to honor commitments to UNLV and AFA. Although the total payout won't be as much as first estimated.
PAC will be hamstrung a bit on additions. Memphis/Tulane are off the table. Texas State likely 8th member. I think Rice may also be a target. They have a ton of money.
MWC adds NDSU and UC Davis makes FBS jump in 2028ish.
We'll know in 3-5 years if remaining in the MWC was the right call or not.
I think they owe the exit fee + 5000 dollars on June 1st? Right? Or at least a portion of the full exit fee amount.
If the amount they owe isn't settled yet, then they can't fully fulfill the requirements. It is very possible that these mediations provide a legal hold/extension on the official exit process.
They have to give 'timely' notice as I understand it.
I think they'll put in official notice this weekend.
Its more spelled out than that...
June 1st requires the check and notice or exit fees get doubled...if they plan on leaving for 2026 season
June 30th- exit is official and fees are due. Media rights payments are halted...
Correct.
So the PAC waiting till the 11th hour isn't surprising. Could it be a sign that there is concern over there? Sure. But there's no real benefit to them to have already 'officially' left the conference either.
Semantics more than anything with a pinch of cover your own ass in case PAC rebuild went completely sideways.
They know their media numbers and I think they have an 8th member lined up in principle at this point.
They are taking advantage of the bylaws. No reason to give up voting rights before they have to.
Also, exit fees are often negotiated to be paid over time. The whole amount may not come before the end of June. None of the leaving schools likely have the capitial to pay it all now, unless the PAC is helping to pay for all of them.
Also, exit fees are often negotiated to be paid over time. The whole amount may not come before the end of June. None of the leaving schools likely have the capitial to pay it all now, unless the PAC is helping to pay for all of them.
Kinda. Its semantics though.
They have ADs (JD Wicker SDSU for instance) talking about his excitement about what's in store for the PAC. Their own PR and Social media accounts have blasted out graphic after graphic of the new 'PAC'.
Every AD and president has dome and interviews discussing the decision to rebuild the PAC.
I don't think there's a judge in the country that would say 'Yeah but they haven't officially left so they have voting rughts.' They've publicly announced their intentions.
Its really simple. Its gamesmanship and semantics.
So the PAC signing an agreement holds no value because of 'duress'..
But those bylaws are absolutely ironclad..
Are you joining the PAC or not. Yes or no.
We haven't decided yet.
Well then you don't get to vote because you may be voting in a way detrimental to the conference you are in.
Are you in or are you out.
I get what you are saying, but they are just following the bylaws to their advantage. The MW's next contract will likely have different language, but I think they changed it to it's current state because of what SDSU happened a few years before. I think the MW likes having language to gives a leaving team time to change their mind.
The counter argument to the leaving 5 is that they officially have not announced their new media contract, so they want to keep options open to return. Though reality, they do know their media valuation or least of the current 8 ( including Gonzaga). But before then, they shouldn't have signed until they new more concrete numbers.
One's person's "abuse" of semantics is another's being savvy and taking advantage of the rules.
The MW could counter sue the semantics angle to your point. Not sure if it would be worth it, but the door is open for that.
Last edited:
You mean like the contract they willingly signed for a scheduling agreement?
There isn't a judge in the country that would side with them on voting rights issue.
They have publicly announced their intentions to join the PAC. Meaning any vote they cast or didn't cast comes into question.
Do you really think the departing PAC schools want it to come out in discovery when they actually began talks with the PAC? What were the nature of the talks. What votes were taken during those talks.
Think about it for a minute.
I can't see any judge siding with them on this topic bylaws or not.
There's no benefit to them announcing early.
You can't publicly announce and be on record of your intentions to leave and also have a say in current or future decisions in the conference. It creates a conflict of interests.
Again judge simply says are you in or are you out. Here's you saying six months ago your intentions to leave in front of boosters.
Last edited:
There’s also the simple fact that the basis for the exit fees lawsuit was/is “we never said we were leaving”… assuming they give their official notice and pay the $5k fee the basis of the lawsuit is nullified and the jig is up.
If they don’t give official notice and continue on with the lawsuit their negotiating leverage gets worse.
FAFO
I could be wrong but I think some Twitter talking head said an extension was granted on the 'official exit' notice date.
I'm not sure why Gloria would accept that unless she was gaining something somewhere else.
The only way I can see UNLV becoming part of the PAC is this.
PAC says we'll give you 70 million between exit fees and poaching fees but you have to give UNLV a free pass.
MWC will owe UNLV what? 30 million-ish between percentage of exit and poaching fees and the additional 1.5 million per year?
So whatever Gloria gets 20-30 million goes bye bye to UNLV.
Maybe the right play for her is to let UNLV walk. Get the full 70 million. Turn around add NDSU maybe South Dakota State and Montana...
MWC media deal isn't going to be great anyway. Purely a guess we see around 3-4 mil AAV. UNLV leaves, replace with those three schools, probably still get close between 2.5 and 3.
I simply can't see any other way UNLV makes that jump. Im not sure if they even want to or feel they need to.
All comes down to what happens over next 3-5 years whether staying put was the right call.
This silence is getting pretty deafening. 2 weeks and no comments, hints, leaks? Nothing? Maybe it means just that - nothing is happening. Maybe they all gave up and went home.
May have been posted in another thread, byt Grainey's BFF says the notice was submitted yesterday.
Since the deadline is basically here with no resolution, the ONLY way UNLV leaves for the PAC now if it is a part of these negotiations like you mentioned.
Interesting thought process and possible, but probably unlikely. Truth is, the MW doesn't owe UNLV anything specific other than 24.5% after all expenses. It first has to reach a 65 million threshold we may not actually happen if the poaching fees are thrown out or negotiated down and the exit fees are talked down a good amount as well. Or say the exit fees are agreed to be paid out over time. Would it be worth it let UNLV go, the conference's potentially best remaining asset, to save a few million?
In truth I thought we were basically stuck once we actually signed the GOR. Which is why I was critical of doing so when we did.
Maybe big fish, small pond is the way Harper and the administration think is the best way to turn heads and get that Big 12 invite. Maybe we have been told by the B12 brass to stay put for now as they would rather deal with the know of the MW vs the unknown of the PAC ( even if the PAC gets a free pass). Those are the only logical reasons I would guess why we have been bullish on the idea of the PAC, other than being vengeful for being passed up the first time.
Im just guessing here, but the Pac board basically has 0 power as OSU/WSU have full veto power... what if their plan was to leave that P4 invite door open to keep Boise in tow till they sign an official contract and then nuke that clause- forcing the new 5 programs into a,long term commitment... why would you create a new conference that you're trying to build if you're thinking in 5 years 2-3 of your members are gone to a P4? Makes little sense. Meanwhile the MWC had to do so just to keep Unlv...and there's not much gamble there for them to do so
Because i think the original PAC 2 feel that they have as good of shot as any for the next expansion. I think they have some of the best media value currently out of the remaining g6 teams. They dont want to box themselves in.
The kind of numbers they were able to get last year were much better than many of the other lower level P4 teams.
Boise is a weird one. In general, there are a lot of things going against them for expansion. The market, academics, not great if they were to drop off for whatever reason. They were trending downward until Danielson took over. This year will be interesting for them without Koetter and Jeanty.
Would I prefer the PAC sure.
But think about this for a second.
UNLV pays a reduced exit to join the PAC. call it 12 million.
We lose all media payouts from this year and next plus our share of all conference basketball units this season and next.
Plus bowl payouts.
You're looking at probably close to 5-6 million per year plus the exit fees.
You're talking 20 some million dollars.
PAC is reportedly give a bridge loan to the departing 5 for the next two years.
That's a lot of debt to add.
15 million per year media deal..Sure you make that jump.
If its 10 or less? Im not so sure you do.
I just don't think UNLV would have pay much at all.
I think the MAX would be 11 million given 2x media is the high end of the standard. And that is without any extra help from the PAC. They have offered 6 in the past, so now we are down to 5 out of pocket. But Given the circumstances I think we could get them to pay more if not all of the expenses.
Sure we would lose some bonuses from credits and bowl games, and will lose some up front bonuses from staying, but we have no idea what those will be. It will likely NOT be the 10-14 million as promised.
But the PAC is a better conference in both major sports. Reduced share of tournament credits, but 1/2 the credits of 3-4 teams ( that some have actually potential to advance to gain MORE credits), than maybe a full share of 1-2 teams with low likelihood to advance.
Same situation with the CFP. It is either us, or no one in the MW. The PAC will likelihood have the best chance of making that every year (especially with UNLV in it). So 1/2 of full share of that most years will equate to more money.
I just think the PAC will net more money by a good amount, and any "bonus" from the MW from staying would likely be negated pretty quickly from jumping.
10 base vs 3.6 base is worth jumping just by itself. Then you look at base CFP sharing and the PAC teams will net more just from having fewer teams. Then you look at all of the extra revenue possibilities and the risk seems completely negated.
Sure I am assuming a few things, but it is based off of every other negotiations with conference realignment.
Whelp I guess UNLVs future is sealed We can never compete with the mighty PAC.
Eric Harper and Whitfield have doomed us to obscurity.
Turn the Fertitta Football Complex into the Guy Fieri Culinary Arts School and rename the street Favor Town BLVD.
Last edited:
I’ve always said that UNLV is in control of its own future despite what conference we’re in.
I agree...
I'd prefer to be in the PAC. Selfish reason but I'd much rather see UNLV play those schools than what's in the MWC.
But ultimately I don't think any of it matters in the long run. UNLV dictates and controls its own future.
Win, continue to build NIL, increase fan support and attendance and let the chips fall where they may.
It is not all doom and gloom.
I just prefer the PAC because I think it makes the most sense financially and to get picked up by the Big 12 ( if the P4 free pass actually exists).
And If the Big 12 doesn't come calling, you would be able to leave the MW now and cheaper. And say 5-7 years down the road, we would have netted more money and not be looking at likely even steeper exit fees.
I just don't like the MW, or least what it is becoming.. I don't like how they are trying to hold schools hostage that have other options with heavily punitive exit fees. I don't like how little they seem to care about media value when adding schools. I think Gloria takes things personally and cares more about her image and looking tough vs what is best for everyone. ( To be fair I think Gould is the same way).
In general, there was a path that for whatever reason we did not take. If we get in the Big 12, it won't matter at all. That is the ultimate goal.
I think it is arguable if staying vs leaving will make that goal easier.
Hold schools hostage with punitive fees when they have other options you say?
Like the PAC had before signing a scheduling agreement when there were other conferences they could have negotiated with at the same time. Options like that?
Gloria attempted to protect the conference with the poaching fees.
It was the PAC who turned their nose up at UNM San Jose and Wyoming.
The funniest sub story to all this..
The flagship PAC schools OSU and WSU went a combined 2-6 vs the schools not worthy of the PAC...
The problem with the Pac 12 is that OSU and WSU hold all the decision making cards. They have Veto power. You really want to step into that kind of hamstrung decision making matrix? 3 of the schools have a "me first" mentality and SDSU jumps around like well...
They were up against it. We don't know who they reached out to, and probably will never will since mediations are closed.
Maybe they didn't fully explore their options. Maybe they did and couldn't make anything else work.
Either way they signed a terrible deal at face value. Well overpaying just for the single year AND the crazy poaching fees on top of that.
If you want to be cynical, maybe they agreed to it just knowing they would try to sue later. That doesn't explain why they would still agree to paying well over 3x the market value for the other MW games. But following that logic, they got 65% back of their 100 million that was supposed to be handed their way, so maybe they knew through personal experience that these fees wouldn't hold up?
Yeah the PAC didn't fair well against the MW last year, WAZZU was in the CFP rankings relatively late in the season, and both schools got really good ratings, better than I think anyone expected along the way.
It all comes down to what you actually sign to.
What's better making 20 million more over 5 years, or having equal decision making power?
If we get into the BIg 12, we won't have equal say in things initially, you can gaurantee that.
I agree that Washington State played better in the first half of the season than most expected, but they did collapse at the end of the season. In regards to Oregon State, they were just bad. Oregon State lost by a score of 44-7 to the same California that UNLV beat without the head coach or offensive coach even showing up.
Until we know if they were in active negotiations we don't know if they were 'up against it'.
They just did a schedule in a similiar amount of time.
They could go independent, but that would mean all that sweet sweet settlement money they got for being left behind goes bye bye.
I have every reason to believe the PAC being reformed was in the works before the schedule agreement. It didn't just 'pop up' after that fell through. MWC schools were the target. BSU and SDSU behind it. Boise has sued the MWC multiple times. SDSU has tried to leave multiple times.
Unless you are of the opinion that OSU and WSU would be willing to part with 100s of million in settlement money to just join the MWC. Here Gloria here's a 10 million dollar severance package to step aside is infinitely cheaper than the money being burned to date.
They aren't sympathetic figures in any way.
Last edited:
I get both sides up it. Ultimately I don’t care about the Pac or the MWC. We could leave the MWC tomorrow and I would shed no tears for those left behind.
I’m hoping Harper is going through that requirement list from the big12 with the purpose of punching done boxes. He knows what UNLV needs.
I am a bit worried that the next President will be anti athletics and push to cut the changes Harper has been making.
I’m hoping Harper is going through that requirement list from the big12 with the purpose of punching done boxes. He knows what UNLV needs.
I am a bit worried that the next President will be anti athletics and push to cut the changes Harper has been making.
Why on earth would any new D1 university president be "anti-athletics" in today's world.. it's not early 90s landscape and with a nearly 30k enrollment and sprawling campus, b3ing anti-athletic seems like an automatic disqualification for the job.
