CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

The WAC?!!

by Lawboy · 8/30/2010

Advertisement
L
Lawboy
Why do I get the feeling that BYU ends up in the WAC for 2011 and 2012, and perhaps beyond? The WAC sure is acting like it is going to enforce its agreement against its members for the $5M buyout, but that only works if BYU joins by September 1. Also, those schools (Nevada, FSU) can't leave until after 2012, so that gives the WAC and BYU 2 years with those schools to convince them not to leave, including changing an ESPN deal for more $$$. It also gives another year for the WAC to convince some MWC teams to head on over. And if the $$$ is right, I think many of them would.



I think the WAC is still the destination, and BYU will have an out clause for after 2012. Would be a smart move, buys time for the Big XII, and opens door for a change in the future.



Karl Benson is not messing around:



http://www.wacsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
C
CAFB_04-12
I hadn't thought much of those tweets on the right mentioning 2012. Sounds plausible. Wouldn't that be the ultimate move -- to force UNR and FSU to honor the agreement to play through 2012, still pay the exit fee, and BYU still gets independent football to boot!
B
bluebrotha
Lawboy wrote:
Why do I get the feeling that BYU ends up in the WAC for 2011 and 2012, and perhaps beyond? The WAC sure is acting like it is going to enforce its agreement against its members for the $5M buyout, but that only works if BYU joins by September 1. Also, those schools (Nevada, FSU) can't leave until after 2012, so that gives the WAC and BYU 2 years with those schools to convince them not to leave, including changing an ESPN deal for more $$$. It also gives another year for the WAC to convince some MWC teams to head on over. And if the $$$ is right, I think many of them would.



I think the WAC is still the destination, and BYU will have an out clause for after 2012. Would be a smart move, buys time for the Big XII, and opens door for a change in the future.



Karl Benson is not messing around:



http://www.wacsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Use their exit fees as incentives for other potential WAC schools. Tell SDSU, UNLV, UTEP etc they keep the 5 million if they join.
C
crh55
This is a good move in the short term. Independence should not be the end goal, hopefully it is just a stepping stone to get the Big 12 invite. I would rather see us in the Big 12 than trying to become "The Notre Dame of the west"



Football in Utah would be pretty sweet if it had Texas and Oklahoma coming to play in Provo and USC and UCLA coming to SLC regularly.
S
scott715
Hair wants the WAC to fold so that the MWC won't owe the $10M.
Advertisement
Y
Y 4 Ever
crh55 wrote:
This is a good move in the short term. Independence should not be the end goal, hopefully it is just a stepping stone to get the Big 12 invite. I would rather see us in the Big 12 than trying to become "The Notre Dame of the west"



Football in Utah would be pretty sweet if it had Texas and Oklahoma coming to play in Provo and USC and UCLA coming to SLC regularly.


You're not going to actually WATCH that crap, are you?
B
bplewe
scott715 wrote:
Hair wants the WAC to fold so that the MWC won't owe the $10M.


But the WAC would have to fold within the next 60 days, and it won't. It will exist for at least another year, so the contract says they have to pay.
B
Brayden Green
Hair wants a lot of things. Among these: A brain, a heart, the noive...
L
Lawboy
bplewe wrote:
Hair wants the WAC to fold so that the MWC won't owe the $10M.


But the WAC would have to fold within the next 60 days, and it won't. It will exist for at least another year, so the contract says they have to pay.


The contract says that if BYU joins by September 1 and they leave they have to pay. No BYU= no $5M buyout provision. I am sure they are all hoping BYU chooses the WCC. And since they screwed over the WAC deal for BYU, I am sure many at BYU want to see us choose the WAC to screw them back where it hurts most. I wouldn't mind it, that is certain.
B
blue42
Lawboy wrote:
scott715 wrote:
Hair wants the WAC to fold so that the MWC won't owe the $10M.


But the WAC would have to fold within the next 60 days, and it won't. It will exist for at least another year, so the contract says they have to pay.


The contract says that if BYU joins by September 1 and they leave they have to pay. No BYU= no $5M buyout provision. I am sure they are all hoping BYU chooses the WCC. And since they screwed over the WAC deal for BYU, I am sure many at BYU want to see us choose the WAC to screw them back where it hurts most. I wouldn't mind it, that is certain.


I may be missing something here, but I don't know if I have heard officially that if BYU doesn't go to the WAC the buyout clause is void, or is this just speculation? If it is official then why did Benson on Friday send letters for demand of payment in 60 days to both Fresno and Nevada even when BYU hasn't said one way or another what they will do? It sounds to me the payment is due if those schools leave no matter what BYU does.
Advertisement
S
snoscythe
Lawboy wrote:
scott715 wrote:
Hair wants the WAC to fold so that the MWC won't owe the $10M.


But the WAC would have to fold within the next 60 days, and it won't. It will exist for at least another year, so the contract says they have to pay.


The contract says that if BYU joins by September 1 and they leave they have to pay. No BYU= no $5M buyout provision. I am sure they are all hoping BYU chooses the WCC. And since they screwed over the WAC deal for BYU, I am sure many at BYU want to see us choose the WAC to screw them back where it hurts most. I wouldn't mind it, that is certain.


Where have you read that the $5M penalty is contingent on BYU joining? If that's the case, Benson's demand letter dated the 27th is worthless. If you are right, why isn't UNR or Fresno State saying "hold on" to Benson's angry pressers?



My understanding has always been that BYU was a moving force behind the provision being put into effect, but that the provision is simply a liquidated damages they have to pay if they leave the conference---whether or not the Cougs are on board.
L
Lawboy
Read here among other places:



http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/sports" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The resolution calls for a five-million dollar penalty should any WAC member leave. But Capozzi said it is contingent on BYU becoming a WAC member. He added, "I don't think Fresno State should be paying five-million dollars. If the WAC is really insistent, I would clearly take it to court. One of the clauses, clause six, indicates if BYU or any of the other schools leaves then the resolution is terminated."



No BYU=deal null and void. It is a specific clause in the deal.
S
snoscythe
Lawboy wrote:
Read here among other places:



http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/sports" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The resolution calls for a five-million dollar penalty should any WAC member leave. But Capozzi said it is contingent on BYU becoming a WAC member. He added, "I don't think Fresno State should be paying five-million dollars. If the WAC is really insistent, I would clearly take it to court. One of the clauses, clause six, indicates if BYU or any of the other schools leaves then the resolution is terminated."



No BYU=deal null and void. It is a specific clause in the deal.


Sounds like it isn't as clear as you make it seem. Otherwise, Benson wouldn't be making demands, and there wouldn't be talk of taking it to court.
J
jonnylingo
snoscythe wrote:
Read here among other places:



http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/sports" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The resolution calls for a five-million dollar penalty should any WAC member leave. But Capozzi said it is contingent on BYU becoming a WAC member. He added, "I don't think Fresno State should be paying five-million dollars. If the WAC is really insistent, I would clearly take it to court. One of the clauses, clause six, indicates if BYU or any of the other schools leaves then the resolution is terminated."



No BYU=deal null and void. It is a specific clause in the deal.


Sounds like it isn't as clear as you make it seem. Otherwise, Benson wouldn't be making demands, and there wouldn't be talk of taking it to court.


Unless he knows something we don't .... yet.
S
scott715
Go to the WAC for a year and we can have a piece of that $10M.
Advertisement
M
Mars
snoscythe wrote:
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/sports" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



No BYU=deal null and void. It is a specific clause in the deal.
Sounds like it isn't as clear as you make it seem.

From everything I've read, it's exactly that clear. The entire MOU is quoted word-for-word on the SLTrib website, which I've posted here this week.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.