UNLV Exploring Options After USU Joins PAC
- Thread starter rebswin2
- Start date
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.
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.
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
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?
edit: I was rounding down. So if you don't round you are probably right.
Last edited:
Again though..You're talking minimum 20 million dollars or more for each school that remains and theyre not going to get any money if they vote to dissolve the conference. If we leave, we pay and lose our vote. Any team that announces its leaving loses its vote. If I was getting left behind, why would I vote myself out of a position to get a huge payout? And if we vote to dissolve only to turn around and leave, we will end up in a lawsuit that we acted in collusion with Pac 12 to avoid paying exit fees for any one left behind.
So you as an AD have to have a serious conversation with a lot of people... do you turn down 30-40 million dollars and actually take a 18 million dollar hit to do so, just to basically be in the same situation you were before? That's a good way to lose your job.
So you as an AD have to have a serious conversation with a lot of people... do you turn down 30-40 million dollars and actually take a 18 million dollar hit to do so, just to basically be in the same situation you were before? That's a good way to lose your job.
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?
lol. I thought of that as soon as I posted so I had made an edit. Yeah, I don't know how they do that.
Unless the bylaws specify, you round up since you need at least 75% of the membership vote
The contract should say something like "75% or more".
It specifically says 3/4ths so I don’t see how you round up here. That would be saying if you have an 8 to 4 vote so you round up.
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.
I’m more thinking of it as UNLV and AFA using the argument that the conference was basically defunct when we had to leave, so we shouldn’t owe any money.
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?
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).
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...
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.
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...
Yes that seems correct, they can stay a conference if they want to…
UNLV and AFA’s argument would be that the conference was essentially dead and we can no longer be held to the ridiculous exit fee that’s worth more than double what was even remaining on our existing media rights deal.
Basically a contract that ensures you are dead isn’t enforceable.
AFA and UNLV can basically hold the rest of the MW hostage unless they let them off the hook for the exit fees.
As far as remaining a conference goes, if I’m not mistaken the MWs media deal also ends in 2026… even if it’s far below what they’re currently getting anything is better than nothing and if you don’t have a conference put together by then you are screwed.
You’re gonna want to let UNLV and AF walk.
If AFA were to come to agreement with AAC tomorrow would you still be in the camp of stay put and take the money?
You think it will even be that for basketball vs Sam Houston State?
Prestige of MWC over CUSA? My guy half the prestige just walked out the door.
You think UNLV is going to keep even current attendance in football with a CUSA home schedule? I don't.
“Stay and take the money” is no longer an option IMHO, as the conference is no longer worth rebuilding. No matter how large the promise of cash for you to stay ($50million anyone?) there is no guarantee you are even going to see half of that… and to do what? Expand on a conference with SJSU, UNM, WYO, UNR, HI, and AF, with what?
You’d be G5 in name only and you’d be dead with absolutely zero shot at ever being able to make a name for yourself that even warrants invitation to another G5, much less a P4.
No amount of money that’s realistic is worth that.
The only question now is how do you get out without paying $18million?
Air Force and UNLV are the only teams left with any value… which is why they got promised bonuses and a bigger share if they stayed. Both have had interest shown in them by the AAC and the PAC, the extent to which I’m not sure, but even behind the scenes I’m sure it’s there. Both I’m sure have issues paying the exit fees I’m sure as well… we obviously know this with UNLV but I’m sure it has to be the same with a government funded service academy to at least some extent.
So the play is this IMHO…
UNLV and AFA go to the MW and say “look, we feel for you guys, we really do, but it’s over and there ain’t nothing left but the crying. This is not a viable conference as it is and no matter who you want to add isn’t going to make it so. Now we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way… waive the conference exit fee for us or we’ll block anyone you try to add (that would be the quiet part that’s implied)… you can continue your collection efforts with the PAC and those other traitors and then you 5 can split the money you collect. That’s an extra 6% of the total settlement to each one of you sorry ass schools.
Once you let us out we’ll announce our intentions and you can get back to building your conference back up with whoever you want and you’ll all have a boatload of cash in reserves… how’s that sound?”
I don’t think the MW can say no.
If I’m UNLV and AFA I stick together and try to leverage a little bit, but honestly not too much, and go as a package deal to either the AAC or PAC. I think the PAC would probably be a better scenario but AAC would be fine as well.
That’s how I see it anyway.
Were pretty much on same page here.
I looked at what schools would be realistic options for MWC to poach.
Took out any AAC schools. MWC can't match their TV deal plus travel seems stupid for a lot of them. Travel has to be considered in this since these schools don't have Cal/Stanford money.
I considered FCS schools but said no for now.
Introducing your new MWC
UNLV
AFA
HAWAII
WYO
RENO
SJSU
UNM
UTEP
TEXAS STATE
LA TECH
SAM HOUSTON STATE
I'm not trying to be snarky. I legitimately think that is probably the best we can do.
I mean, for a hardcore basketball fan, that schedule sucks.. but those fans are showing up regardless... For the fringe Las Vegas pseudo UNLV fan, if we are winning a lot of games, they will show up to watch the winning program.. We all know that, we've said it constantly Vegas supports a winner. We might not like it as true fans, but there will be a bunch of fans in the seats if were competing to win the championship and dance...
UNLV still has to compete with VGK and Raiders.
Winning will help no argument. But the worse the schedule the less that winning will help.
Sure back in the 80s 90s and when UNLV was only show in town didn't matter who they played.
Now I think it does matter.
@reagan21 @Masked_rebel @oneepstein
Something I've seen barely touched on.
MWC went into negotiations with PAC for scheduling agreement.
Now obviously the MWC would be in contact with all MWC schools to see how best to accommodate the scheduling. They likely had talks with ADs and university president's on some level along with their 'threatcaster' to formulate and agree on the stipulations of bye outs and how best to protect the conference.
If SDSU/BSU/CSU/FRESNO were already in talks with PAC about leaving and subsequent poaching, wouldn't that mean those schools were negotiating in bad faith? Like they already knew they were out but had a hand in formulating the contract. Possibly steering discussions to create an easier exit path?
They knew they were getting poached/leaving etc, but we're involved in the agreement. Seems..Shady?
(Hope that made sense)
Something I've seen barely touched on.
MWC went into negotiations with PAC for scheduling agreement.
Now obviously the MWC would be in contact with all MWC schools to see how best to accommodate the scheduling. They likely had talks with ADs and university president's on some level along with their 'threatcaster' to formulate and agree on the stipulations of bye outs and how best to protect the conference.
If SDSU/BSU/CSU/FRESNO were already in talks with PAC about leaving and subsequent poaching, wouldn't that mean those schools were negotiating in bad faith? Like they already knew they were out but had a hand in formulating the contract. Possibly steering discussions to create an easier exit path?
They knew they were getting poached/leaving etc, but we're involved in the agreement. Seems..Shady?
(Hope that made sense)
I’m not a lawyer but this where discovery comes in, and why specifically, UNLV and AFA have to refrain from saying the quiet part out loud.
Discovery can be dragged out for forever when you’re talking about monster institutions like this.
Even more reason why you should be allowed to get out while the getting is good… or at least less bad.
I think the word I was looking for was collusion..
It just took me a 3k word diatribe before I remembered it.
