(03-05-2022 12:23 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:19 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

I guess, but where everyone loses me is the part where you all think we should play another year in CUSA so you end up with LESS exit money from us.

The SBC3 knew from the start that we would have to pay extra for breaching the contract. No argument there. It is just odd that CUSA wouldn’t tell us how much money they wanted from the get go.

If I was a CUSA leftover fan, I would want the SBC3 to leave early so you could extra money to split less ways. If we stay another year then we wouldn’t be breaching contract so we wouldn’t be paying any extra than the required fees.

I don't recall anyone on these boards saying they want you guys to stay for another year.

I do, but enough money might change my mind.

(03-05-2022 12:23 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:19 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

I guess, but where everyone loses me is the part where you all think we should play another year in CUSA so you end up with LESS exit money from us.

The SBC3 knew from the start that we would have to pay extra for breaching the contract. No argument there. It is just odd that CUSA wouldn’t tell us how much money they wanted from the get go.

If I was a CUSA leftover fan, I would want the SBC3 to leave early so you could extra money to split less ways. If we stay another year then we wouldn’t be breaching contract so we wouldn’t be paying any extra than the required fees.

I don't recall anyone on these boards saying they want you guys to stay for another year.

Exactly.

(03-05-2022 10:49 AM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  UAB DID CHOOSE to shut football down!!!!! Their powers that be knew the rules and the consequences and shuttered the program anyhow. CUSA CHOSE not to enforce the rules and give UAB a chance to recover the program. There is no provision in the rules for "in case your admin shuts your program down".

That being said, I am glad it was handled this way, but what is good for the goose.

Which rule did C-USA not enforce?

UAB never gave notice they were leaving the conference as Marshall has. The way I understand it, we never lost our FBS classification due to NCAA waivers.

(03-05-2022 12:17 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 10:49 AM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  UAB DID CHOOSE to shut football down!!!!! Their powers that be knew the rules and the consequences and shuttered the program anyhow. CUSA CHOSE not to enforce the rules and give UAB a chance to recover the program. There is no provision in the rules for "in case your admin shuts your program down".

That being said, I am glad it was handled this way, but what is good for the goose.

I'm on your side but it is not the same thing and that argument will not hold water.

I am on the side of the SB3 but find a different argument.

One more thing. If anyone things shutting their program down is so great, (We all know Tuscaloosa had it orchestrated), feel free to give it a try and check back with me in three years and tell me how you like it.

Just for the record, I am ecstatic that CUSA handled it the way they did, but I also see where it could cause pause for question .

I'm honestly just so bored by all of this...

(03-05-2022 12:23 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:19 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

I guess, but where everyone loses me is the part where you all think we should play another year in CUSA so you end up with LESS exit money from us.

The SBC3 knew from the start that we would have to pay extra for breaching the contract. No argument there. It is just odd that CUSA wouldn’t tell us how much money they wanted from the get go.

If I was a CUSA leftover fan, I would want the SBC3 to leave early so you could extra money to split less ways. If we stay another year then we wouldn’t be breaching contract so we wouldn’t be paying any extra than the required fees.

I don't recall anyone on these boards saying they want you guys to stay for another year.

Ummmmmm, that’s exactly what all of this pissing and moaning has been about. The SBC3 has been trying to get a figure from CUSA since November on what it will cost us to leave early. So don’t claim that we are trying to exit penalty free. CUSA ghosted us for one of two reasons:

1. They truly wanted us to play another year. I don’t understand this one due to the point I made earlier. What does any leftover CUSA team gain from that, other than less exit money from the SBC3?

2. They wanted to go this route to gain more money. This leads to my other question. Why didn’t CUSA throw out what they thought a fair amount was back in December? At the very least this would have started negotiations. Now they made this thing a legal situation, and run the risk of losing. Not to mention the legal fees they will incur fighting with us. It seems like it would have been a lot easier on their end give us a number they want and stick to it.

Either way it honestly doesn’t matter to me. With everything going on the world today I would be happy to spend another year in CUSA, or move onto the SBC. None of you all are my enemies, and I am thankful that I live in place where I don’t have to worry about being invaded by a foreign country. Stuff like conference realignment is small cakes.

(03-05-2022 01:00 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  I'm honestly just so bored by all of this...

I am too. I've told myself more than once to stop posting but dang it..it's like driving by a car wreck....you can't not look.

(03-05-2022 01:03 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:23 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:19 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

I guess, but where everyone loses me is the part where you all think we should play another year in CUSA so you end up with LESS exit money from us.

The SBC3 knew from the start that we would have to pay extra for breaching the contract. No argument there. It is just odd that CUSA wouldn’t tell us how much money they wanted from the get go.

If I was a CUSA leftover fan, I would want the SBC3 to leave early so you could extra money to split less ways. If we stay another year then we wouldn’t be breaching contract so we wouldn’t be paying any extra than the required fees.

I don't recall anyone on these boards saying they want you guys to stay for another year.

Ummmmmm, that’s exactly what all of this pissing and moaning has been about. The SBC3 has been trying to get a figure from CUSA since November on what it will cost us to leave early. So don’t claim that we are trying to exit penalty free. CUSA ghosted us for one of two reasons:

1. They truly wanted us to play another year. I don’t understand this one due to the point I made earlier. What does any leftover CUSA team gain from that, other than less exit money from the SBC3?

2. They wanted to go this route to gain more money. This leads to my other question. Why didn’t CUSA throw out what they thought a fair amount was back in December? At the very least this would have started negotiations. Now they made this thing a legal situation, and run the risk of losing. Not to mention the legal fees they will incur fighting with us. It seems like it would have been a lot easier on their end give us a number they want and stick to it.

Either way it honestly doesn’t matter to me. With everything going on the world today I would be happy to spend another year in CUSA, or move onto the SBC. None of you all are my enemies, and I am thankful that I live in place where I don’t have to worry about being invaded by a foreign country. Stuff like conference realignment is small cakes.

Not true at all CUSA responded to the request from the SBC3 wanting to leave a year early. Those 3 just didnt like the response by CUSA....

"your next step is arbitration" and if they did that this would be over or close to it by now. Lets be honest, if CUSA said it will take so and so amount to leave early and the sb3 did not like that amount. They would then be filing in court, CUSA broke the bylaws by offering to settle. It seems silly but so does the UAB argument.

Can you show a link to any amount the sb3 offered or their response to following the rules they signed? I'm not going to take the time to read through all of these post in all of the treads. So if you know where any amount is posted with a link to that school...please post it because I would like to see it. Not just something that says "we offered a fair amount"

(03-05-2022 12:19 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

I guess, but where everyone loses me is the part where you all think we should play another year in CUSA so you end up with LESS exit money from us.

The SBC3 knew from the start that we would have to pay extra for breaching the contract. No argument there. It is just odd that CUSA wouldn’t tell us how much money they wanted from the get go.

If I was a CUSA leftover fan, I would want the SBC3 to leave early so you could extra money to split less ways. If we stay another year then we wouldn’t be breaching contract so we wouldn’t be paying any extra than the required fees.

I see mostly 2 trains of thoughts here. I don’t think either group is yearning for y'all to stay.

One group has the desire to jettison the SBC3 by June, leaving the biggest bag of money as possible.

The other group is ambivalent about losing the SB3, but is more interested in the contract requirement discussions. I am definitely in this group.

Now the C-USA board is a different matter. I think they would like the SB3 to stay for 22/23 just to avoid all the possible hassles with schedule changing complaints, TV contracts, bylaw precedents and having to deal with disruption for 2 seasons instead of 1.

This is all fascinating and could be a significant change to school/conference dynamics on a large scale. I personally hope the contract is honored and sovereign immunity is not recognized, because I don’t want to see schools moving around willy nilly in the future like we see with players these days. How would a conference even enforce a grant of rights contract? I guess some that comes down to me being old. Us old folks don’t like changes, especially fast changes.

(03-05-2022 11:11 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 10:49 AM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  UAB DID CHOOSE to shut football down!!!!! Their powers that be knew the rules and the consequences and shuttered the program anyhow. CUSA CHOSE not to enforce the rules and give UAB a chance to recover the program. There is no provision in the rules for "in case your admin shuts your program down".

That being said, I am glad it was handled this way, but what is good for the goose.

What's good for the goose has nothing to do with the weasel.

Oh, how clever.

(03-05-2022 01:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:03 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:23 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:19 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

I guess, but where everyone loses me is the part where you all think we should play another year in CUSA so you end up with LESS exit money from us.

The SBC3 knew from the start that we would have to pay extra for breaching the contract. No argument there. It is just odd that CUSA wouldn’t tell us how much money they wanted from the get go.

If I was a CUSA leftover fan, I would want the SBC3 to leave early so you could extra money to split less ways. If we stay another year then we wouldn’t be breaching contract so we wouldn’t be paying any extra than the required fees.

I don't recall anyone on these boards saying they want you guys to stay for another year.

Ummmmmm, that’s exactly what all of this pissing and moaning has been about. The SBC3 has been trying to get a figure from CUSA since November on what it will cost us to leave early. So don’t claim that we are trying to exit penalty free. CUSA ghosted us for one of two reasons:

1. They truly wanted us to play another year. I don’t understand this one due to the point I made earlier. What does any leftover CUSA team gain from that, other than less exit money from the SBC3?

2. They wanted to go this route to gain more money. This leads to my other question. Why didn’t CUSA throw out what they thought a fair amount was back in December? At the very least this would have started negotiations. Now they made this thing a legal situation, and run the risk of losing. Not to mention the legal fees they will incur fighting with us. It seems like it would have been a lot easier on their end give us a number they want and stick to it.

Either way it honestly doesn’t matter to me. With everything going on the world today I would be happy to spend another year in CUSA, or move onto the SBC. None of you all are my enemies, and I am thankful that I live in place where I don’t have to worry about being invaded by a foreign country. Stuff like conference realignment is small cakes.

Not true at all CUSA responded to the request from the SBC3 wanting to leave a year early. Those 3 just didnt like the response by CUSA....

"your next step is arbitration" and if they did that this would be over or close to it by now. Lets be honest, if CUSA said it will take so and so amount to leave early and the sb3 did not like that amount. They would then be filing in court, CUSA broke the bylaws by offering to settle. It seems silly but so does the UAB argument.

Can you show a link to any amount the sb3 offered or their response to following the rules they signed? I'm not going to take the time to read through all of these post in all of the treads. So if you know where any amount is posted with a link to that school...please post it because I would like to see it. Not just something that says "we offered a fair amount"

I don’t think any school offered any particular amount, but that is only because CUSA never gave them an amount that they wanted for them to leave early. All 3 schools were willing to pay, they just needed to know how much.

The whole “the next step is arbitration” is fine, but shouldn’t CUSA have done that when the SBC3 notified them they wouldn’t be staying for 2022? It would have been over well before March 1st. Thus, leading to the SBC3 NOT needing to file TROs so they could be included on the SBC schedule. Or at least that is my understanding of it.

I really am not trying to argue. I am just trying to reason out why CUSA wanted us to stay another year. It probably all boils down the CUSA trying to play their hand just right to maximize the penalty money. I certainly don’t have a problem with that. It just seems kind of risky when things aren’t 100% a slam dunk to go your way.

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

Like the low character administrators maki g a decision that favors one school over the others? We are waiting for north Texas womens hoops team to fulfill a contractual obligation. And just who did that decision favor?

(03-05-2022 01:45 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

Like the low character administrators maki g a decision that favors one school over the others? We are waiting for north Texas womens hoops team to fulfill a contractual obligation. And just who did that decision favor?

What irrelevant, unrelated event are you trying to link as justification for your school's low character decision now?

(03-05-2022 01:37 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:03 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:23 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:19 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  I guess, but where everyone loses me is the part where you all think we should play another year in CUSA so you end up with LESS exit money from us.

The SBC3 knew from the start that we would have to pay extra for breaching the contract. No argument there. It is just odd that CUSA wouldn’t tell us how much money they wanted from the get go.

If I was a CUSA leftover fan, I would want the SBC3 to leave early so you could extra money to split less ways. If we stay another year then we wouldn’t be breaching contract so we wouldn’t be paying any extra than the required fees.

I don't recall anyone on these boards saying they want you guys to stay for another year.

Ummmmmm, that’s exactly what all of this pissing and moaning has been about. The SBC3 has been trying to get a figure from CUSA since November on what it will cost us to leave early. So don’t claim that we are trying to exit penalty free. CUSA ghosted us for one of two reasons:

1. They truly wanted us to play another year. I don’t understand this one due to the point I made earlier. What does any leftover CUSA team gain from that, other than less exit money from the SBC3?

2. They wanted to go this route to gain more money. This leads to my other question. Why didn’t CUSA throw out what they thought a fair amount was back in December? At the very least this would have started negotiations. Now they made this thing a legal situation, and run the risk of losing. Not to mention the legal fees they will incur fighting with us. It seems like it would have been a lot easier on their end give us a number they want and stick to it.

Either way it honestly doesn’t matter to me. With everything going on the world today I would be happy to spend another year in CUSA, or move onto the SBC. None of you all are my enemies, and I am thankful that I live in place where I don’t have to worry about being invaded by a foreign country. Stuff like conference realignment is small cakes.

Not true at all CUSA responded to the request from the SBC3 wanting to leave a year early. Those 3 just didnt like the response by CUSA....

"your next step is arbitration" and if they did that this would be over or close to it by now. Lets be honest, if CUSA said it will take so and so amount to leave early and the sb3 did not like that amount. They would then be filing in court, CUSA broke the bylaws by offering to settle. It seems silly but so does the UAB argument.

Can you show a link to any amount the sb3 offered or their response to following the rules they signed? I'm not going to take the time to read through all of these post in all of the treads. So if you know where any amount is posted with a link to that school...please post it because I would like to see it. Not just something that says "we offered a fair amount"

I don’t think any school offered any particular amount, but that is only because CUSA never gave them an amount that they wanted for them to leave early. All 3 schools were willing to pay, they just needed to know how much.

The whole “the next step is arbitration” is fine, but shouldn’t CUSA have done that when the SBC3 notified them they wouldn’t be staying for 2022? It would have been over well before March 1st. Thus, leading to the SBC3 NOT needing to file TROs so they could be included on the SBC schedule. Or at least that is my understanding of it.

I really am not trying to argue. I am just trying to reason out why CUSA wanted us to stay another year. It probably all boils down the CUSA trying to play their hand just right to maximize the penalty money. I certainly don’t have a problem with that. It just seems kind of risky when things aren’t 100% a slam dunk to go your way.

This is my understanding of what took place and its second hand info that came directly from Western's president which is president of CUSA board.

1. CUSA got the request to leave early
2. CUSA attorney looked over the request
3. They reported back to Judy
4. At some point after that a conference call was set up with Judy, the attorney, and board
5. The decision made was to respond to the SB3 with what their next step should be. That would be to honor the 14 months or go to arbitration as set out by the bylaws

I did not ask for or get a timeline on how long this took. But I doubt if we are talking anything but a couple weeks. I did not get the impression CUSA was stalling but I don't know that for sure. I would bet somewhere with in the rules of the bylaw there's something on the time frame of each step.

BTW is good to see people can talk about this without the emotional baggage that we all see in other threads. None of us really knows what went on to get to this step so getting caught up emotionally is just silly, in my opinion....

but then again that's what fans do. We post on our emotion when it comes to sports.

(03-05-2022 01:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:03 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:23 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:19 PM)HTOWN_HERD Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

I guess, but where everyone loses me is the part where you all think we should play another year in CUSA so you end up with LESS exit money from us.

The SBC3 knew from the start that we would have to pay extra for breaching the contract. No argument there. It is just odd that CUSA wouldn’t tell us how much money they wanted from the get go.

If I was a CUSA leftover fan, I would want the SBC3 to leave early so you could extra money to split less ways. If we stay another year then we wouldn’t be breaching contract so we wouldn’t be paying any extra than the required fees.

I don't recall anyone on these boards saying they want you guys to stay for another year.

Ummmmmm, that’s exactly what all of this pissing and moaning has been about. The SBC3 has been trying to get a figure from CUSA since November on what it will cost us to leave early. So don’t claim that we are trying to exit penalty free. CUSA ghosted us for one of two reasons:

1. They truly wanted us to play another year. I don’t understand this one due to the point I made earlier. What does any leftover CUSA team gain from that, other than less exit money from the SBC3?

2. They wanted to go this route to gain more money. This leads to my other question. Why didn’t CUSA throw out what they thought a fair amount was back in December? At the very least this would have started negotiations. Now they made this thing a legal situation, and run the risk of losing. Not to mention the legal fees they will incur fighting with us. It seems like it would have been a lot easier on their end give us a number they want and stick to it.

Either way it honestly doesn’t matter to me. With everything going on the world today I would be happy to spend another year in CUSA, or move onto the SBC. None of you all are my enemies, and I am thankful that I live in place where I don’t have to worry about being invaded by a foreign country. Stuff like conference realignment is small cakes.

Not true at all CUSA responded to the request from the SBC3 wanting to leave a year early. Those 3 just didnt like the response by CUSA....

"your next step is arbitration" and if they did that this would be over or close to it by now. Lets be honest, if CUSA said it will take so and so amount to leave early and the sb3 did not like that amount. They would then be filing in court, CUSA broke the bylaws by offering to settle. It seems silly but so does the UAB argument.

Can you show a link to any amount the sb3 offered or their response to following the rules they signed? I'm not going to take the time to read through all of these post in all of the treads. So if you know where any amount is posted with a link to that school...please post it because I would like to see it. Not just something that says "we offered a fair amount"

I have been told that (and this guy hasn’t been wrong yet) that we offered the exit fees as outlined.

(03-05-2022 02:13 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Can you show a link to any amount the sb3 offered or their response to following the rules they signed?

I have been told that (and this guy hasn’t been wrong yet) that we offered the exit fees as outlined.

Said more succinctly- "No, there is no link, just a bunch of internet inuendo".

(03-05-2022 02:02 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:45 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

Like the low character administrators maki g a decision that favors one school over the others? We are waiting for north Texas womens hoops team to fulfill a contractual obligation. And just who did that decision favor?

What irrelevant, unrelated event are you trying to link as justification for your school's low character decision now?

On 2/24 North texas women were scheduled at usm. North texas didnt make the trip "do to weather". However on the same day our mens team adjusted travel plans and bussed to denton. Instead of making the game up this past monday or tuesday Judy ruled no contest. Giving us one less game. Its funny that that one more chance of a win ties us with who?? And we swept the greatest women's program to ever pee behind a pair of nikes.
While the real low character people point to this being irrelevant its like the democrats. The end justifies the means. As long as the office decisions benefit texas + tech collation things are ok.
Just one small "unrelated" reason we dont give a hoot what your feeling are on us leaving.

(03-05-2022 02:02 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:45 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

Like the low character administrators maki g a decision that favors one school over the others? We are waiting for north Texas womens hoops team to fulfill a contractual obligation. And just who did that decision favor?

What irrelevant, unrelated event are you trying to link as justification for your school's low character decision now?

Weather cancellation, I think.

So - irrelevant and unrelated as you said.

(03-05-2022 02:17 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 02:02 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:45 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 11:13 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  It all boils down to some low character administrations trying to justify not wanting to complete their contractual obligations.

Like the low character administrators maki g a decision that favors one school over the others? We are waiting for north Texas womens hoops team to fulfill a contractual obligation. And just who did that decision favor?

What irrelevant, unrelated event are you trying to link as justification for your school's low character decision now?

Weather cancellation, I think.

So - irrelevant and unrelated as you said.

The difference in a 1 to 3 seed is unrelated?

(03-05-2022 02:17 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 02:13 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Can you show a link to any amount the sb3 offered or their response to following the rules they signed?

I have been told that (and this guy hasn’t been wrong yet) that we offered the exit fees as outlined.

Said more succinctly- "No, there is no link, just a bunch of internet inuendo".

Why don’t you stop being a jerk?

I’m getting really tired of it (in general) and if the snark doesn’t stop (in general) I have no problem with locking threads.