mthoopsfan
Well-known member
I agree on both points. Lots of uncharted territory in the recent realignments.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
It happenin
- Thread starter HelenaHandBasket
- Start date
All good info hoops and you have more experience than I do in this arena.The suit is not about the departure fees. The suit is about the separate and unusual/unique agreement that the MW forced on MW in order for the P2 to schedule 6 games, which has a "pouching penalty". I have no idea about the merits or prospects of the suit, but there was considerable pressure and duress.
"The two sides will play the 2024 season as pseudo-partners with each MW team playing at least one game against Oregon State or Washington State with the MW getting $14 million to play 12 games against the Pac-2." The MW said their teams will only play you, if you pay us $14 million and agree not to pouch any of our teams. Now a bunch of MW teams want to depart the MW and join the Pac-2. I see the argument that they should be allowed to do that, especially if their departure fee is paid.
""The MWC’s excessive and punitive Poaching Penalty violates federal and state antitrust law, California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and basic principles of contract law,"the lawsuit reads. "First, the Poaching Penalty is a per se violation of antitrust law because it is a naked, horizontal agreement in restraint of trade. The Poaching Penalty weakens the Pac-12 in competition with other conferences for MWC member schools, diminishes the compensation available for schools interested in joining the Pac-12, and reduces MWC member schools’ options for mobility. On the flip side of the coin, the Poaching Penalty does nothing to increase the amount of college football played, which was the purpose of the Scheduling Agreement."
Inside the Pac-12's lawsuit against the Mountain West that claims 'poaching fees' invalid
In addition to poaching five of its top schools, the Pac-12 also wants to take the Mountain West to court. The Pac-12 has filed a lawsuit against the MW in fednevadasportsnet.com
I understand what they are contesting. Part of their claim was that they only signed that contract because they were in a vulnerable position. And they were. However, the duress was not placed by the mountain west conference who was helping out (albeit probably in hopes of a merger), but by all the former PAC 12 teams who left WSU and OSU in a lurch related to scheduling. Nor was it unreasonable to set terms for the agreement and protect their league as any business would. We will see if it truly violated the antitrust laws.
As pointed out before by another poster they had the money to schedule anyone they wanted to. Theres plenty of FBS teams that would have given up a bye for $2-4 million dollars. They made their own choice and signed their own contract. As you pointed out it will be interesting to see which way the courts lean in the argument as I believe both sides will have an argument. Could they end up settling on a lesser fee after some legal posturing?
At this point the actions of the PAC 12 seem clear as to destroy the mountain west to get out of all fees and keep the pockets deep as I’m sure there was incentives promised to new members. If that is the case, I believe the mountain west would probably have a counter suit. There is a lot of jobs on the line at the conference level.
In either case the mountain west is going to have to move fast without a verdict to ensure that they have enough teams to not vote and dissolve the conference.
Seems like a hell of a mess to me.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
I think some of the duress is that the MWC wanted to double the scheduling amount from $14 million to $30 million for the 2025 season.
Which isn’t really applicable to the first contract. They never came to an agreement for the 2025 season so I think that is a moot point and didn’t play into the original contract did it? I can see why the mountain west would ask for more with 2026 looming as a hard NCAA timeline for the PAC 2 and probably a big reason they didn’t reach that agreement.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
But it could demonstrate a pattern by the MWC.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
I wondered this too (your first para). Or, at least tie up the MW for awhile and force them to compromise. I think it's a tougher argument for the MW to defend itself, when so many of its teams want to leave. It's not like the P2 is just cherry picking a team or two. This smells anticompetitive to me. I think the P2 could take a few more MW teams, and then there would be enough for a MW vote to dissolve the agreement. Maybe even the buy outs too (don't know on that).
OrgonGriz
Well-known member
In all this I still say UM needs to at the very least express interest in the MWC.
UM has been extremely successful at the FCS level with the number of wins, conference championships, national championships etc. I however feel UM has peaked at this level and have been spending millions on facilities and upgrades just to stay at this level. That hard to do. Especially when you see programs with much less to offer in facilities, fan bases, traditions starting to recruit coaches and players to year in and year out press UM. All without spending near the money.
It’s frankly amazing to me to see how quickly the Dakota schools caught up to and in some cases surpassed UM.
Over the past decade or so we have seen previous high production FCS teams opt to move to the FBS. They had to have some insight on future direction of college football. They certainly didn’t move just because. I’m sure they also saw how they were spending millions on facilities to see lesser funded programs starting to compete.
I believe change is important for growth. I think UM is at a cross roads. So they want to continue to try and maintain in a division that has very limited options and money. Or do they decide to grow and build towards a new future and direction?
Imagine having OOC games at WA-Griz against Oregon St, Wash St, Fresno St! Being in an FBS conference that a reality! Plus every couple years you might even get a Big10 school or Big12 school to come in WA-Griz. However, that only happens at the next level.
UM, MSU, NDSU, SDSU, SAC and a couple other FCS teams could be strong additions to back fill the MWC. But they all need to make their interests know. Maybe they have. Maybe they haven’t. But they all may have an opportunity to be the binding that could help keep the MWC together and to build a new MWC!
UM has been extremely successful at the FCS level with the number of wins, conference championships, national championships etc. I however feel UM has peaked at this level and have been spending millions on facilities and upgrades just to stay at this level. That hard to do. Especially when you see programs with much less to offer in facilities, fan bases, traditions starting to recruit coaches and players to year in and year out press UM. All without spending near the money.
It’s frankly amazing to me to see how quickly the Dakota schools caught up to and in some cases surpassed UM.
Over the past decade or so we have seen previous high production FCS teams opt to move to the FBS. They had to have some insight on future direction of college football. They certainly didn’t move just because. I’m sure they also saw how they were spending millions on facilities to see lesser funded programs starting to compete.
I believe change is important for growth. I think UM is at a cross roads. So they want to continue to try and maintain in a division that has very limited options and money. Or do they decide to grow and build towards a new future and direction?
Imagine having OOC games at WA-Griz against Oregon St, Wash St, Fresno St! Being in an FBS conference that a reality! Plus every couple years you might even get a Big10 school or Big12 school to come in WA-Griz. However, that only happens at the next level.
UM, MSU, NDSU, SDSU, SAC and a couple other FCS teams could be strong additions to back fill the MWC. But they all need to make their interests know. Maybe they have. Maybe they haven’t. But they all may have an opportunity to be the binding that could help keep the MWC together and to build a new MWC!
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
Who’s going to give UM $25 million a year extra to have a medium MW athletic budget and a big NIL fund?
Ut-Grizfan
Well-known member
I'm not an expert, however I do like to read up on things and am basing this off what other lawyers/people more knowledgeable then me on the topic have stated about the suit, in this case specifically about claiming they signed under duress.
Seen this guy's posts in the topic being shared around alot, seems like he knows what he's talking about
OrgonGriz
Well-known member
I would guess that figure might come down as the up half of the MWC left. But I’d think the MWC would be will to help offset some costs to gain members. The schools entering would take a lesser revenue share to payback the conference. I would also believe that UM could receive more money going to play OOC games against PAC, Big10,Big12 etc. I’d think a FBS group of 5 team could get a higher $ amount for playing those games than an FCS team might.
I would also imagine ANY media deal the new MWC would get would be more than the BSC could ever get.
Look I’m not saying there wouldn’t be hurdles or bumps or bruises. But at least we would be going in a direction or driving our future.
Would any Griz fan be happy if the current Power conferences broke off and left the Group of 5 to only have the group of 5 have their own playoffs and the current FCS keep there playoff? We would be in the third tier at that point.
Myself I’d rather play for a NC game against the Group of 5 conferences.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
The feeling I am getting is that UM isn't even lukewarm on the idea of joining the MWC. It seems that the only BSC team that is actively entertaining such a move is Sac St.
It sounded from what I have heard like there is less than zero interest, and the MUS's belief is that we just cannot afford it, period.
I haven't read the complaint, but I'll say this: If there is no diversity jurisdiction (meaning the opposing parties are from different states), and there is no federal question (meaning a federal law at issue), almost all federal judges I've encountered will want to get that case off his/her calendar.
Now, here's the rub: The MWC is headquartered in Colorado, and the PAC is headquartered in California (diversity jurisdiction, given that the amount in controversy hits the threshold). What I'm not sold on from the article is the assertion that the MWC's ties to California by virtue of having members there destroys diversity jurisdiction. That seems a bit like arguing that a bank like Chase isn't a resident of NY, but instead California, because it has branches in California. Not true.
Further, if the pleading standards aren't met, but subject-matter jurisdiction exists, a federal judge will almost always give the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. Lastly, if there is something I'm missing with the jurisdiction question regarding the MWC's ties to California making it a resident of California, I would be filing a 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in conjunction with a 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. That's just me, and I can barely read.
Last edited:
Listen to this young man!
You guys need to let it go. P5 didn’t exist when he played.
oldngrizzly
Well-known member
100% correct.Plus the fact that Montana is making a shit pot full of money the way it is.A classic case of not having foresite. It's all about the here and now until that is gone then they will be left trying to figure out why did we not do something when we had a chance.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
But that is shit pot full of FCS money.
I'm a long-time move-up guy who's had a "belated clarification of my previous" thinking." Why?
The FCS has been great for this program. We have thrived after years of frustration in the old Pacific Coast and Skyline Conferences. Just look at our facilities, our fan base, egriz, hell, even our mascots. Look at the enthusiasm for the pursuit of a "national championship," as opposed to this board's long cynicisim of any second-rate Wasabi Weedeater Bad Boys Mowers Toilet Bowl. And as long as the two Montana schools are yoked together in any consideration of a conference, we will always have the hated Cats as a rival, no matter the dilution in the overall competition.
Look, we are an FCS "power," and always will be. And Montanans love that. It goes straight to their character as tough gun-toting vigilantes. Which is why they vote for an avaricious old buck-hustling illiterate businessman with a moderate to severe case of mendacity and a coin-slot for a conscience. He acts powerful. He acts tough. And he hates the powerful blue states as much as most Montanans.
To move up would be an affront to everything Montana stands for, and go sharply against the overwhelming sentiment of this board as I have known it almost since its inception at the dawn of the internet era.
Nope. Stop wasting your time. We're right where we should be.
The FCS has been great for this program. We have thrived after years of frustration in the old Pacific Coast and Skyline Conferences. Just look at our facilities, our fan base, egriz, hell, even our mascots. Look at the enthusiasm for the pursuit of a "national championship," as opposed to this board's long cynicisim of any second-rate Wasabi Weedeater Bad Boys Mowers Toilet Bowl. And as long as the two Montana schools are yoked together in any consideration of a conference, we will always have the hated Cats as a rival, no matter the dilution in the overall competition.
Look, we are an FCS "power," and always will be. And Montanans love that. It goes straight to their character as tough gun-toting vigilantes. Which is why they vote for an avaricious old buck-hustling illiterate businessman with a moderate to severe case of mendacity and a coin-slot for a conscience. He acts powerful. He acts tough. And he hates the powerful blue states as much as most Montanans.
To move up would be an affront to everything Montana stands for, and go sharply against the overwhelming sentiment of this board as I have known it almost since its inception at the dawn of the internet era.
Nope. Stop wasting your time. We're right where we should be.
No shame in that, not everyone is cut out for the P5 level.
I've answered every question I've seen about my career. Not positive why you care anyways. I don't care about yours, but you crow about it enough that everyone here knows all about it.
Hm, so you once said I lied, now you're backtracking to say I was only "borderline dishonest," I guess by tomorrow you'll trust me with your life.
I got proven wrong on Olympic stats, which I posted with "someone correct me if I'm wrong"? Ok. I hope that talking point has brought your retirement some comfort.
My interest in "big time" college football is definitely waning. When Cal and Stanford are in the ACC and Oregon and USC share a conference with Rutgers, something is just amiss. I fully recognize I long for an old school college football that is long gone and never coming back, but that regionality and quirkiness was just such a big part of what made the sport so fun for so long. I watch the griz nowadays more than any other team, despite not even having a degree from Montana. I completely see the complaints of others that the FCS is being watered down, but the Big Sky is still fun.
But, hey, I'll be satisfied either way, really. Just kinda interested in seeing where this all goes.
