We could be… sure… but as it sits right now I’m sure both of us wants to leave and doesn’t want to pay $18 million to do it. Whether that’s to the AAC or PAC is irrelevant.Why would anyone agree to that? Also what makes anyone think we aren't negotiating with AFA to join the AAC and flip a middle finger to the Pac 2...
This lawsuit against the MWC started with Boise. Boise starts a lot of stuffs. SUDS is a Boise follower. That is the dynamics. SDSU have a lot of hatred for UNLV. Hope that help.
Is that right? Do all schools have to approve new incoming schools? Even still, the MWC would have 2 years after the other schools leave in 2026, so it would be 2028 I believeWe could be… sure… but as it sits right now I’m sure both of us wants to leave and doesn’t want to pay $18 million to do it. Whether that’s to the AAC or PAC is irrelevant.
As it sits UNLV and AFA, as long as they stick together, can by default dissolve the conference by vetoing any new members and making it insolvent.
Damn that is pretty good thinking.Ok, new wrinkle I just had a thought about…
UNLV and AFA remain in lockstep. No grant of rights, no commitment to the league, no nothing.
The commish, who has been given power to explore for new teams, presents teams A,B,C, and D. Acceptance to the conference requires 3/4 of the members to agree… UNLV and AFA politely decline… being 2/7ths of the members they have veto power.
The MW settles with the PAC for $40million with the stipulation of no fees on anyone else that decides to join.
UNLV and AFA are entitled to their portion of any distribution, even if it happens in the future or at that moment. UNLV and AFA argue that the league is no longer viable and by default has dissolved… UNLV heads to the PAC and AFA heads to the AAC.
🤷🏽♂️
I thought the majority vote has control. Prior to the 5 leaving it took 75% to approve or disapprove something which was 9 out of 12. With 7 teams remaining doesn't the 75% still apply. That means 5 teams can approve or disapprove. If UNLV and AF are the only 2 votes disapproving of new conference member and the remaining 5 approve our 2 votes lost. What am I missing here?Ok, new wrinkle I just had a thought about…
UNLV and AFA remain in lockstep. No grant of rights, no commitment to the league, no nothing.
The commish, who has been given power to explore for new teams, presents teams A,B,C, and D. Acceptance to the conference requires 3/4 of the members to agree… UNLV and AFA politely decline… being 2/7ths of the members they have veto power.
The MW settles with the PAC for $40million with the stipulation of no fees on anyone else that decides to join.
UNLV and AFA are entitled to their portion of any distribution, even if it happens in the future or at that moment. UNLV and AFA argue that the league is no longer viable and by default has dissolved… UNLV heads to the PAC and AFA heads to the AAC.
🤷🏽♂️
If the votes were based on 7 schools, I wonder if they round up or down. 75% would be 5.25, which is more than 5. So would it require 6 votes?I thought the majority vote has control. Prior to the 5 leaving it took 75% to approve or disapprove something which was 9 out of 12. With 7 teams remaining doesn't the 75% still apply. That means 5 teams can approve or disapprove. If UNLV and AF are the only 2 votes disapproving of new conference member and the remaining 5 approve our 2 votes lost. What am I missing here?
lol. I thought of that as soon as I posted so I had made an edit. Yeah, I don't know how they do that.If the votes were based on 7 schools, I wonder if they round up or down. 75% would be 5.25, which is more than 5. So would it require 6 votes?
Unless the bylaws specify, you round up since you need at least 75% of the membership votelol. I thought of that as soon as I posted so I had made an edit. Yeah, I don't know how they do that.
The contract should say something like "75% or more".lol. I thought of that as soon as I posted so I had made an edit. Yeah, I don't know how they do that.
It specifically says 3/4ths so I don’t see how you round up here. That would be saying if you have an 8 to 4 vote so you round up.Unless the bylaws specify, you round up since you need at least 75% of the membership vote
That’s a good point … bylaws. Interpretations.If the votes were based on 7 schools, I wonder if they round up or down. 75% would be 5.25, which is more than 5. So would it require 6 votes?
It says 3/4ths or more.The contract should say something like "75% or more".
Pretty sure I’m right about letting new people in, but yeah I think that would be correct that they’d technically have extra time to reestablish the conference.Is that right? Do all schools have to approve new incoming schools? Even still, the MWC would have 2 years after the other schools leave in 2026, so it would be 2028 I believe
This is what I’m saying.Ok so let me ask this.
Why is the conference not already dissolved?
We are at 7 technically 6 with Hawaii as football only.
I get that the conference is intact for another year.
However in 2026 we no longer even qualify for a conference. Couldn't an argument be made that with media rights, scheduling etc UNLV and the rest of the remaining schools should be allowed to leave based on the uncertainty?
Say UNLV and AF toe the line.
There is absolutely no guarantee that the MWC and it's commissioner are going to even be able to fill the remaining empty spots for the MWC to even qualify as a conference.
In that scenario UNLV would be screwed right? A free agent who's only opportunity would be to go independent.
I know there are basically two camps to this. Get the Hell out of MWC now and stay put and collect the money.
I recognize the risks involved in both and the potential benefits in both.
I don't think this would happen but let's say MWC is unable to attract any new members? What then?
This is what I’m saying.
Except with the added portion that as long as AF and UNLV stick together they won’t be able to add anyone that makes the conference “viable” so long as AF and UNLV don’t want them to.
It’s a stalemate between the MW and the power 2 (UNLV and AF).
Mostly because prestige of MWC vs CUSA. Then there's an increased revenue share, more payouts for NCAA tournament shares, the schools we'd bring in aren't in a position to reject a deal and also not in a position to demand more...I mean right now MWC commish is saying stay the line. You get a bigger cut and you will be compensated the same on next media deal regardless of who we add.
Ok fine but to do that she is going to have to reduce the cut for other schools.
1- How can you promise that when you can't even guarantee anybody will join.
2- Let's say you're negotiating with NMSU, UTEP. They both get around 750k for current media deal. Is it even worth it to them to leave if MWC can only offer 1 or 1.5 million because they have to compensate UNLV and AFA who are getting 5? We all sit here and bitch about Boise getting a bigger share now why should any other school be cool with it?
3- Some of that money we get is going to be needed to cover the lost attendance revenue bound to happen if we reload with CUSA in basketball and football.
I understand people saying take the money this new PAC thing is a disaster. I get it, it has its own question marks for sure. A lot of 'ifs'. But there are a lot of 'ifs' involved in taking the money and assuming the BIG12 is coming. There's no guarantee there either.
Yes that seems correct, they can stay a conference if they want to…Because they have 4 years to cease to be a conference... we have till 2026 with current members and then 2 year period to get up to 8 minimum. So in that 4 years, those remaining members can spend all the cash they want then dissolve the conference... I know all of this stuff is a little crazy, but we literally just had our conference of 12 blown up by a conference of 2 in the exact same situation...
Because they have 4 years to cease to be a conference... we have till 2026 with current members and then 2 year period to get up to 8 minimum. So in that 4 years, those remaining members can spend all the cash they want then dissolve the conference... I know all of this stuff is a little crazy, but we literally just had our conference of 12 blown up by a conference of 2 in the exact same situation...
Mostly because prestige of MWC vs CUSA. Then there's an increased revenue share, more payouts for NCAA tournament shares, the schools we'd bring in aren't in a position to reject a deal and also not in a position to demand more...
Lost attendance revenue? Dude, we have had like 4k a night for a decade...