|
|
In my opinion, it's not about what we "gain". It's about protecting the integrity of the league's by-laws.Originally Posted by GEAUX UL
The question is pretty simple: Can institutions sign/agree to a legal contract, then turn around and do whatever the heck they want to do?
Would you want a situation like this to happen to the Sun Belt? If Ga State, App and Coastal were invited to another conference, wouldn't you expect them to follow the by-laws of the SBC?
I'd hope you would.
To answer your first question, yes. Institutions can and do breach contracts. It happens all the time for all sorts of reasons.
As to your second question, I genuinely wouldn’t give a damn about the “integrity of the by-laws.” I’d just want it to work out as good as possible for my school and my conference. Specifically, I’d much rather them leave early and get a nice payday than force them to stay and get nothing. Its really a no brainer.
And yet ... here you are discussing them.
We're trying to get both.
We won't, but in theory we may end up with more money (or we get both). Either way, win-win.
And NCAA distributions to the conferences are at least in part based on total number of members or total scholarships offered by those members. Those amounts to C-USA would automatically be reduced if those schools leave early.
For 2018 NCAA distributions, those amounts would have been in a range of from $650,000 up to possibly well over $800,000 per member. Those amounts are likely significantly higher for 2023. That's why a $1 million additional fee isn't enough to allow schools to leave a year early. $2 million is more like it.
The departing schools either have to stay or pay their share of those lost NCAA distributions upfront to even think about being allowed to leave early. And then add in additional damages for publicly violating the bylaws.
Last edited by FriscoDawg; 02-18-2022 at 06:01 PM.
Can we just count the defector's games as forfeits and have easy wins?
Without Skippy, I hope we don’t need that much help to get a W.
What about allowing them to leave the conference but requiring them to fulfill their scheduling commitments or buy them out a-la P5 practice? Then when they can’t afford to buy out the games, we can agree to play the games but they are eliminated from conference title games due to lack of conference affiliation.
Right now FIU is scheduled to close the 2022 regular season with three straight games vs. the SB3. FIU will have no November games if those three depart and they can't schedule a couple of replacement games.
Teams losing games to the SB3 should be able to fill at least two of those games with C-USA teams not currently scheduled.
Yeah, it's this.
If they reach a figure tomorrow to buy out early, they'll just release an 11 team schedule that I'm sure they've already prepared. I imagine it's set up for as little disruption to this one as possible (obviously FIUs will change a lot).
I wish I thought this would work and make them stay, but if we get some cash out of it I think that's the trade off.
Okay Geaux, so why ask a question if you're unwilling to consider another angle? Sorry I wasted my time responding to you.
Cant help but notice the whole "to hell with rules or integrity" mindset is just what one might expect from a fan of the Ragin Corruptions ...
cf. ULL "name game" discussions
Chuck, settle down. You literally proposed two questions in your response so I engaged with those questions. This is how conversation works.
I appreciate your response.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
