Jump to content
  • Welcome to GoMeanGreen.com!

    Thank you for visiting us!  Registering is easy and free, and provides you with the ability to participate in the discussions along with many cool features and content.

Sun Belt schedule includes Marshall, ODU, USM


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, untbowler said:

shots fired by Sun Belt and Judge Judy still only has a BB Gun. 

I can't figure out if Judy really thinks she'll be able to successfully coerce these 3 schools from leaving by holding their feet to the fire, or if she's just threatening because that's the only thing left she can do (because she can't figure out any other resolution)?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, golfingomez said:

side note, i don't care who you are, USM, Marshall and ODU have a hellacious conference schedule. 16 conference games are going to be tough, especially with the amount of doubleheaders they'll have to play 

 

Sure, but you can go 7-9 and still be bowl eligible . . .

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the conference by-laws are immaterial here then what if the conference parted ways with the three today and cancelled all remaining conference winter/spring sports schedules/championships with the three universities immediately? 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, keith said:

If the conference by-laws are immaterial here then what if the conference parted ways with the three today and cancelled all remaining conference winter/spring sports schedules/championships with the three universities immediately? 

they could... and that would allow those schools to have more bargaining power with the exit fees.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you want to force schools to stay that don't want to participate?   NT would want out too if AAC had spots ready for us next season. 

Schedules are easy fixes without them.  Just change cross-division games, or eliminate divisions, or move up incoming schools early too, lol.  NT has history with NMSU and SHSU. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

I can't figure out if Judy really thinks she'll be able to successfully coerce these 3 schools from leaving by holding their feet to the fire, or if she's just threatening because that's the only thing left she can do (because she can't figure out any other resolution)?

 

All of you don't think she is really in her office by herself making these decisions right? You do realize CUSA has an entire legal team that is deciding the direction they go. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they can leave without regard for the existing by-laws and have sovereign immunity, why do we think they would pay any exit fees?  They will give up any future conference pay-outs, but that's about it.

I understand that the conference *could* just let them go, but why should it?  Putting aside any animosity for the current commissioner or the conference (our president is the chair of the board of directors), why should the conference just roll-over and not stand up for its rights?  The conference is a going-concern.  It will be here next year and the year after and the year after and the year after, etc.  If they don't put up some sort of fight then any future member can just leave on a whim and point to this as justification.

The three claimed that the conference wouldn't negotiate, but when the conference agreed to submit to an impartial arbitration, they went running to the courts.  Why are they afraid to hear what an impartial body might say? 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

 

All of you don't think she is really in her office by herself making these decisions right? You do realize CUSA has an entire legal team that is deciding the direction they go. 

Of course.    She's not Judy Putin.

And again, I understand she ultimately answers to the University Presidents.

But she's the figurehead.  She's the leader of everything that the conference office is doing and recommending to those University Presidents to consider.  She's the one they all are supposed to trust to guide them through the rapidly-changing NCAA landscape.  Big things like TV/Media deals are going to require her sign-off/approval before presenting to the Presidents, and she & her office have flubbed just about all of them.

So, it's no surprise that when faced with an adverse situation like 3 members, including 2 C-USA charter schools!, just up-and-leaving... she (and her team) is incapable of looking far enough ahead and derelict of thinking capacity to find a resolution that works for all.   She (and her team) just react defensively, and fall back to an entrenched, "point-at-the-signed-contract!" thought process with zero innovation.    And to compound her problems now, the last remaining 5 voting members (5!) are all schools that have not shown an iota of initiative to build-up their athletics programs (save WKU), and now see mega dollar signs in exit fees as a way to help bankroll their poor athletics programs.   Think presidents like Battaille.  These presidents will assuredly vote for that money, no matter what it takes.
All of the other schools who have vested interests in their athletics programs succeeding are leaving (or, in WKU's case, trying to leave)!

She deserves every bit of criticism thrown her way.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, keith said:

If they can leave without regard for the existing by-laws and have sovereign immunity, why do we think they would pay any exit fees?  They will give up any future conference pay-outs, but that's about it.

I understand that the conference *could* just let them go, but why should it?  Putting aside any animosity for the current commissioner or the conference (our president is the chair of the board of directors), why should the conference just roll-over and not stand up for its rights?  The conference is a going-concern.  It will be here next year and the year after and the year after and the year after, etc.  If they don't put up some sort of fight then any future member can just leave on a whim and point to this as justification.

The three claimed that the conference wouldn't negotiate, but when the conference agreed to submit to an impartial arbitration, they went running to the courts.  Why are they afraid to hear what an impartial body might say? 

I'm pretty sure the 3 schools that are leaving early acknowledged the penalties early on and came to the negotiating table with offers.   C-USA was the entity that balked at those original offers, dug-in, and pointed at the contracts as a basis to collect every dime they thought they deserved.   So those 3 schools, likely knowing what they had in their back pockets (the lawsuits they currently have set up), left the table.  Why hang around when you know you can leave & pay little-to-nothing?

After those schools dug-in and filed suit, Judy & Co. are finally able to recognize the fight coming, and now they want to come to the table on her terms.    Sorry, it's too late.   

C-USA could have met those schools early on, got their proposed numbers, come up with something a little higher, and negotiated slightly to the middle... then, when the eventual impasse came, she could recommend the 3rd party arbitrator.   Since they'd already be engaged with each other, maybe those 3 schools would have considered the arbitration then, rather than filing suit like they have.  Who knows?

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

I'm pretty sure the 3 schools that are leaving early acknowledged the penalties early on and came to the negotiating table with offers.   C-USA was the entity that balked at those original offers, dug-in, and pointed at the contracts as a basis to collect every dime they thought they deserved.   So those 3 schools, likely knowing what they had in their back pockets (the lawsuits they currently have set up), left the table.  Why hang around when you know you can leave & pay little-to-nothing?

After those schools dug-in and filed suit, Judy & Co. are finally able to recognize the fight coming, and now they want to come to the table on her terms.    Sorry, it's too late.   

C-USA could have met those schools early on, got their proposed numbers, come up with something a little higher, and negotiated slightly to the middle... then, when the eventual impasse came, she could recommend the 3rd party arbitrator.   Since they'd already be engaged with each other, maybe those 3 schools would have considered the arbitration then, rather than filing suit like they have.  Who knows?

I'm sure there is a lot none of us know about in terms what's going on behind closed doors or in private conversations.  The problem I see with respect to just getting them to pay penalties is that is not included as a remedy in the conference bylaws.  The "remedy" documented is that any member wishing to depart the conference may only do so on July 1 of a given year provided that they first provide notice 14 months in advance of July 1.  Basically, there is no remedy.  You must abide by the rules set forth.  I think someone here said "performance" (i.e. doing what you agreed to do) cannot be enforced as part of a contract dispute.  I don't know if that's what this really is.  The whole conference and conference membership agreement seems to be a little murky on the legal front.  

Regardless, it seems that if the Conference leadership entered into a settlement negotiation, then it would be violating its own bylaws since there is no provision for that as a remedy.  These are same bylaws all the member institutions are holding the Conference accountable for (as well as fellow members), so I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as everyone thinks it is.  

Edited by keith
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, keith said:

I'm sure there is a lot none of us know about in terms what's going on behind closed doors or in private conversations.  The problem I see with respect to just getting them to pay penalties is that is not included as a remedy in the conference bylaws.  The "remedy" documented is that any member wishing to depart the conference may only do so on July 1 of a given year provided that they first provide notice 14 months in advance of July 1.  Basically, there is no remedy.  You must abide by the rules set forth.  I think someone here said "performance" (i.e. doing what you agreed to do) cannot be enforced as part of a contract dispute.  I don't know if that's what this really is.  The whole conference and conference membership agreement seems to be a little murky on the legal front.  

Regardless, it seems that if the Conference leadership entered into a settlement negotiation, then it would be violating its own bylaws since there is no provision for that as a remedy.  These are same bylaws all the member institutions are holding the Conference accountable for (as well as fellow members), so I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as everyone thinks it is.  

I’m sure there are provisions for making exceptions to the by-laws via agreement by the members. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mean Green Matt said:

Hilarious Troll move from the Sun Belt regardless of what happens from here. 

I honestly don't think it's a troll move.   

These 3 schools have made it perfectly clear they'll be playing in the SBC in 2022.   If the SBC is needing to get a schedule out right now, they should probably get them on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

I honestly don't think it's a troll move.   

These 3 schools have made it perfectly clear they'll be playing in the SBC in 2022.   If the SBC is needing to get a schedule out right now, they should probably get them on it.

I agree mostly. But you can’t tell me they weren’t smirking when it went out. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Of course.    She's not Judy Putin.

And again, I understand she ultimately answers to the University Presidents.

But she's the figurehead.  She's the leader of everything that the conference office is doing and recommending to those University Presidents to consider.  She's the one they all are supposed to trust to guide them through the rapidly-changing NCAA landscape.  Big things like TV/Media deals are going to require her sign-off/approval before presenting to the Presidents, and she & her office have flubbed just about all of them.

So, it's no surprise that when faced with an adverse situation like 3 members, including 2 C-USA charter schools!, just up-and-leaving... she (and her team) is incapable of looking far enough ahead and derelict of thinking capacity to find a resolution that works for all.   She (and her team) just react defensively, and fall back to an entrenched, "point-at-the-signed-contract!" thought process with zero innovation.    And to compound her problems now, the last remaining 5 voting members (5!) are all schools that have not shown an iota of initiative to build-up their athletics programs (save WKU), and now see mega dollar signs in exit fees as a way to help bankroll their poor athletics programs.   Think presidents like Battaille.  These presidents will assuredly vote for that money, no matter what it takes.
All of the other schools who have vested interests in their athletics programs succeeding are leaving (or, in WKU's case, trying to leave)!

She deserves every bit of criticism thrown her way.

 

Agree on the media portion. 

 

I disagree on the legal portion. I don't have hard evidence, but I suspect the SBC3 offered an insultingly low offer as a penalty for leaving. Rumors say an offer was made, but no one has said how much. Maybe I'm wrong on this and I fully admit that, that's just how it looks to me from the outside. If that's how it went down, I don't see what other options CUSA had. 

I also find it odd that if the 3 wanted out, why not go to arbitration and allow a neutral 3rd party decide who and how much they owe? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think it's sad that Southern Miss is having to go down to the Sunland. I know they're financially strapped, but USM was a great program just a couple decades back. So sad.

The other two I couldn't care less about.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.