(02-05-2014 11:14 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 09:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If I were Chancellor at AState and a provision was put on the table to institute a $10 million exit fee, I'd collude with my counter-part at UL to announce departure.

Either the membership backs down or the membership replaces us while we scurry about trying to raid the other members, I like my chances getting six other FBS members of the Sun Belt to join us.

Even if the fee was only for CUSA or MAC?

Absolutely.

Look everyone is playing shuffleboard.

Right now the plausible plays Sun Belt and CUSA schools have in this game jointly are MWC and AAC. If the best bargaining chip I have as commissioner is: "You can get there from here and we aren't going screw you when you go.", then I'm playing that chip.

Ethically speaking what does it say for a collection of schools to demand ransom in excess of the value of a member?

TV deal bakes out to less than $100k per member. The CFP base share is $1 million per team up to 12 it doesn't matter if we have Houston and Cincinnati as members or EKU and Liberty, that's a static sum. There is variance for the buster money and the quality of play money but those numbers are speculative (see USM collapse).

The reality is if challenged legally these fees have to bear to relationship to the value lost otherwise they will be struck down as punitive.

I can't sit down with the accountants and show that school X leaving cost the league anything. If you leave early, yeah we can calculate some real costs (and that was done with MTSU and FAU) but waiving distribution upon departure is more than adequate compensation when proper notice is given.

Now would the Cajuns go to court to prove they aren't worth $2 million? Probably not. The costs to strike the fee wash much of the savings.

Would Arkansas State go to court to prove they aren't worth $10 million if it were standing between them whatever dream alliance has popped into being? Probably so and the thing would get messy and eventually a reasonable number would be paid.

Net result. You don't get $10 million. You incur added publicity over the school wanting out. You rack up pointless legal fees and in the end you don't get the jackpot payout and you don't keep the school.

If you create an exit fee large enough to deter departure the fee is too large to withstand challenge.

(02-05-2014 10:07 AM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  At some point the opportunities to move elsewhere will dry up. We are very close to that place right now. If CUSA had to do it again I doubt they would have expanded to 14.

About the only thing I can think of that would start another round of movement would be if the Univ. of Texas conference (as I call it) decided to expand by 2 to get to 12. If that happened I could see possibly it resulting in 1 Sun Belt team moving. But outside of that I don't see any scenarios that would lead to big movement.

CUSA went to 14 to insulate against further raids (they lost three more) and to preserve the existing TV payout. They had the choice of going to 12 and risk the publicity of a TV rights reduction or go to 14 and ride it out.

Unless the TV networks start handing out TV deals of roughly $2 million per team to all the G5 the system remains inherently unstable.

We've yet to see if any of AAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt as they are about to be aligned can work well with each other internally.

The risk of B12 choosing to be a 12 member league remains out there.

What if AAC loses two to the Big 12? Simple answer, they add two and march on or add four and march on. Complicated answer depending on the dynamics created it might not be so easy and they could fracture. What if AAC loses and UConn, Temple, and Memphis are left behind demanding worthy basketball opponents? What if AAC loses and Houston, UCF, and USF are left behind demanding worthy football opponents?

What is the dynamic in CUSA where UTEP and Rice have seen the power balance shift from being southern/southwestern to southeastern/southern?

Remember not all moves are about television or money. If schools feel disaffected they are a risk to sit and stew. Marshall and ECU stewed for years in CUSA about their outlier status, what they lacked was sufficient regional teams to do something about it. CUSA had to manufacture the solution adding ODU and UNCC. If the eastern side of AAC or CUSA feels disaffected each has ample new partners. Ditto the western side of AAC and CUSA.

The future of the Sun Belt doesn't just hinge on whether P5 dominos reach us or whether AAC or CUSA turn predatory. It also hinges on the talents of Bankowsky and Aresco to hold together their own leagues.

Figured some of you would be commenting that we shouldn't charge any team for leaving,
or that free get out of jail cards should be issued,
or do not pass go, do not collect on way out, etc.

Maybe I am wrong but I can easily see exit fees up for discussion in the next year or two at the league meetings. Maybe it will come to nothing but I do think it will be a subject of discussion.

(02-06-2014 09:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Absolutely.

Look everyone is playing shuffleboard.

Right now the plausible plays Sun Belt and CUSA schools have in this game jointly are MWC and AAC. If the best bargaining chip I have as commissioner is: "You can get there from here and we aren't going screw you when you go.", then I'm playing that chip.

Ethically speaking what does it say for a collection of schools to demand ransom in excess of the value of a member?

TV deal bakes out to less than $100k per member. The CFP base share is $1 million per team up to 12 it doesn't matter if we have Houston and Cincinnati as members or EKU and Liberty, that's a static sum. There is variance for the buster money and the quality of play money but those numbers are speculative (see USM collapse).

The reality is if challenged legally these fees have to bear to relationship to the value lost otherwise they will be struck down as punitive.

I can't sit down with the accountants and show that school X leaving cost the league anything. If you leave early, yeah we can calculate some real costs (and that was done with MTSU and FAU) but waiving distribution upon departure is more than adequate compensation when proper notice is given.

Now would the Cajuns go to court to prove they aren't worth $2 million? Probably not. The costs to strike the fee wash much of the savings.

Would Arkansas State go to court to prove they aren't worth $10 million if it were standing between them whatever dream alliance has popped into being? Probably so and the thing would get messy and eventually a reasonable number would be paid.

Net result. You don't get $10 million. You incur added publicity over the school wanting out. You rack up pointless legal fees and in the end you don't get the jackpot payout and you don't keep the school.

If you create an exit fee large enough to deter departure the fee is too large to withstand challenge.

You are talking about forcing schools to stay, I'm talking about unanimous agreement not to make a "lateral" move. An exit fee or GOR being a unanimous commitment rather than forcing anyone to do anything. If its not unanimous, it just increases instability.

You refer to a dream alliance, but the other side of that coin is a nightmare. Everyone wants to imagine the dream...but ignore the possible harm to their schools if they are left with NE Tennessee and Colorado School of Mines.

None of our schools have any guarantee that they are not going to be the one left holding a bag in a nightmare scenario. Not stAte, not ULL, not TXST, or USA. There is a real risk there to these schools.

(02-06-2014 01:06 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Figured some of you would be commenting that we shouldn't charge any team for leaving,
or that free get out of jail cards should be issued,
or do not pass go, do not collect on way out, etc.

You paid $1 million to enter the Sun Belt (possibly spread over a couple years, that's been done in the past).

With the CFP revenue kicking in, waiving revenue for a year (possibly two depending on the timing) will easily exceed the amount you paid as being worth entry.

Why should leaving be more expensive than entry? The point of an entry fee is you are purchasing equity in the assets of the league and upon entry will share fully in the enjoyment of those assets. Leaving the league you give up your equity and the right to enjoy the assets.

I didn't support exit fees when the other schools left and I knew AState wasn't getting an invite and I don't support them now with unreliable yahoos claiming AState is going someplace else.

This is a business relationship not marriage and divorce.

It's not a negligent driver being punished with punitive damages.

If CUSA blows up and a new eastern league forms and App is one of the ones called then App's business relationship with the rest of us is going to end there should be no punishment for leaving.

(02-06-2014 01:26 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Absolutely.

Look everyone is playing shuffleboard.

Right now the plausible plays Sun Belt and CUSA schools have in this game jointly are MWC and AAC. If the best bargaining chip I have as commissioner is: "You can get there from here and we aren't going screw you when you go.", then I'm playing that chip.

Ethically speaking what does it say for a collection of schools to demand ransom in excess of the value of a member?

TV deal bakes out to less than $100k per member. The CFP base share is $1 million per team up to 12 it doesn't matter if we have Houston and Cincinnati as members or EKU and Liberty, that's a static sum. There is variance for the buster money and the quality of play money but those numbers are speculative (see USM collapse).

The reality is if challenged legally these fees have to bear to relationship to the value lost otherwise they will be struck down as punitive.

I can't sit down with the accountants and show that school X leaving cost the league anything. If you leave early, yeah we can calculate some real costs (and that was done with MTSU and FAU) but waiving distribution upon departure is more than adequate compensation when proper notice is given.

Now would the Cajuns go to court to prove they aren't worth $2 million? Probably not. The costs to strike the fee wash much of the savings.

Would Arkansas State go to court to prove they aren't worth $10 million if it were standing between them whatever dream alliance has popped into being? Probably so and the thing would get messy and eventually a reasonable number would be paid.

Net result. You don't get $10 million. You incur added publicity over the school wanting out. You rack up pointless legal fees and in the end you don't get the jackpot payout and you don't keep the school.

If you create an exit fee large enough to deter departure the fee is too large to withstand challenge.

You are talking about forcing schools to stay, I'm talking about unanimous agreement not to make a "lateral" move. An exit fee or GOR being a unanimous commitment rather than forcing anyone to do anything. If its not unanimous, it just increases instability.

You refer to a dream alliance, but the other side of that coin is a nightmare. Everyone wants to imagine the dream...but ignore the possible harm to their schools if they are left with NE Tennessee and Colorado School of Mines.

None of our schools have any guarantee that they are not going to be the one left holding a bag in a nightmare scenario. Not stAte, not ULL, not TXST, or USA. There is a real risk there to these schools.

You are forgetting a critical point. Everyone can vote to hang together all they want but the minute someone no longer wants to play they are going to leave if they have a place to go.

Their first move more than likely is to file suit challenging the exit fee which has been done repeatedly and the relevant case law says such fees cannot be a fine or punitive. The fee must bear some reasonable relationship to the economic loss of the other members. I don't see how you can come up with a supportable economic loss near $10 million.

I'm a pragmatist, I don't care much for the idea of building a Maginot Line that can be easily driven around.

As a practical matter, back in 2004 when the WAC was trying to raid non-western Sun Belt schools, the league didn't sit down and pass an exit fee.

The league issued a statement of solidarty and included quotes from an official at every targeted school. Just as legally enforceable as an out-sized exit fee and it was effective. The stability that was generated from that led to WKU moving to FBS and also led to the first serious effort at football for USA.

I don't support anything like a $10 mil exit fee, but I do believe something like a 1.5-2 mil. exit fee should be considered. That will not deter a school from leaving if they want and it will leave the league with a sum of money to benefit those who are left.

I would also be in favor of no exit fee, just 12 month notice, of any school going to a P5 conference. The exit fee would only apply to a school leaving to join another G5 conference.

I would counter with if there's gonna be an exit fee, it should be in the amount it would take every school on the schedule to buy a one off game with an equal level team.

So, say if a top 75 team left from the west, they would have to pay for each of the schools left in the west to buy a game with a top 75 team and then whomever is in the east that played them that year.

Of course, then there's the calculation of that fee (not to mention the home vs. away aspect), but that would be a starting point. It's rational, reasonable in the effort to make the conference whole, and still acts as a deterrent to making lateral conference moves. I also think it would be defendable in a court of law, as it wouldn't be an arbitrary number that the conference imposed.

It would never pass, but that would be the starting point.

(02-06-2014 04:52 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I would counter with if there's gonna be an exit fee, it should be in the amount it would take every school on the schedule to buy a one off game with an equal level team.

So, say if a top 75 team left from the west, they would have to pay for each of the schools left in the west to buy a game with a top 75 team and then whomever is in the east that played them that year.

Of course, then there's the calculation of that fee (not to mention the home vs. away aspect), but that would be a starting point. It's rational, reasonable in the effort to make the conference whole, and still acts as a deterrent to making lateral conference moves. I also think it would be defendable in a court of law, as it wouldn't be an arbitrary number that the conference imposed.

It would never pass, but that would be the starting point.

Right now we skip two opponents on the schedule. If we lost two teams the number of league games would remain constant with no change in the quality because you are getting a league opponent.

Non-starter in front of judge.

Heck when Louisville sued Duke over a broken scheduling agreement a judge in Louisville ruled against the Cardinals buying the argument that any Division I is a suitable replacement for losing a Division I contracted game.

So arkstfan, do you even support the 12 month notice requirement?

(02-06-2014 05:01 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  So arkstfan, do you even support the 12 month notice requirement?

Previously answered.

(02-06-2014 09:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The reality is if challenged legally these fees have to bear to relationship to the value lost otherwise they will be struck down as punitive.

I can't sit down with the accountants and show that school X leaving cost the league anything. If you leave early, yeah we can calculate some real costs (and that was done with MTSU and FAU) but waiving distribution upon departure is more than adequate compensation when proper notice is given.

(02-06-2014 01:26 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Absolutely.

Look everyone is playing shuffleboard.

Right now the plausible plays Sun Belt and CUSA schools have in this game jointly are MWC and AAC. If the best bargaining chip I have as commissioner is: "You can get there from here and we aren't going screw you when you go.", then I'm playing that chip.

Ethically speaking what does it say for a collection of schools to demand ransom in excess of the value of a member?

TV deal bakes out to less than $100k per member. The CFP base share is $1 million per team up to 12 it doesn't matter if we have Houston and Cincinnati as members or EKU and Liberty, that's a static sum. There is variance for the buster money and the quality of play money but those numbers are speculative (see USM collapse).

The reality is if challenged legally these fees have to bear to relationship to the value lost otherwise they will be struck down as punitive.

I can't sit down with the accountants and show that school X leaving cost the league anything. If you leave early, yeah we can calculate some real costs (and that was done with MTSU and FAU) but waiving distribution upon departure is more than adequate compensation when proper notice is given.

Now would the Cajuns go to court to prove they aren't worth $2 million? Probably not. The costs to strike the fee wash much of the savings.

Would Arkansas State go to court to prove they aren't worth $10 million if it were standing between them whatever dream alliance has popped into being? Probably so and the thing would get messy and eventually a reasonable number would be paid.

Net result. You don't get $10 million. You incur added publicity over the school wanting out. You rack up pointless legal fees and in the end you don't get the jackpot payout and you don't keep the school.

If you create an exit fee large enough to deter departure the fee is too large to withstand challenge.

You are talking about forcing schools to stay, I'm talking about unanimous agreement not to make a "lateral" move.

What part of if a team wants out no matter where they go (CUSA)...it's not a "lateral" move for them.? That your opinion but it's not shared by the schools of this conference or former schools of the SBC.

Why can't you wrap it around your brain that if a school "moves" they are moving because it's better for them? I would love to see someone go to court and try to enforce a exit fee because of the term... "lateral" move

their best chance to win that fight is to say...

ark30inf said it was so..so it's so! Other words...NO CHANCE

(02-06-2014 06:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  What part of if a team wants out no matter where they go (CUSA)...it's not a "lateral" move for them.? That your opinion but it's not shared by the schools of this conference or former schools of the SBC.

Why can't you wrap it around your brain that if a school "moves" they are moving because it's better for them? I would love to see someone go to court and try to enforce a exit fee because of the term... "lateral" move

their best chance to win that fight is to say...

ark30inf said it was so..so it's so! Other words...NO CHANCE

A large part of why a school might accept an invitation out is because if they do not accept it...someone else will and they will be left holding the bag being forced to add Liberty or Colorado School of Mines or something.

Trust me. Nobody is anxiously dying to be with FIU or UAB just because they are so awesome to be with that they can't be resisted.

How many times have we seen "I like our current lineup more than CUSA but would take an invitation in a heartbeat". That is what I am suggesting that we (next year's members of the SBC) stop.

I understand that you think CUSA is neato keen and marvy. That is great. Fantastic. Proud of you. No go be satisfied with that and stop telling SBC members that they should be jealous of WKU. What WKU fans think the SBC or its members ought to do....is of ZERO importance.

(02-06-2014 03:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  As a practical matter, back in 2004 when the WAC was trying to raid non-western Sun Belt schools, the league didn't sit down and pass an exit fee.

The league issued a statement of solidarty and included quotes from an official at every targeted school. Just as legally enforceable as an out-sized exit fee and it was effective. The stability that was generated from that led to WKU moving to FBS and also led to the first serious effort at football for USA.

An exit fee or GOR for the Big 12 and ACC was basically just a public notice that they unanimously agreed they weren't leaving.

Like I said, any exit fee or GOR passed over objections of some of the schools would be even worse than not having one. What is needed is unanimity. A GOR or exit fee that was unanimous would just be a "liar's fee".

If you issue a statement of solidarity that is unanimous.....an exit fee or GOR in that case should not be a problem no matter how high since nobody is leaving right?

Anyway, whatever it takes for everyone to assure everyone else that they are not leaving unless it is for greener pastures than CUSA is....or in the case of Idaho and New Mexico, a more geographically suitable home.

(02-06-2014 06:34 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 06:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  What part of if a team wants out no matter where they go (CUSA)...it's not a "lateral" move for them.? That your opinion but it's not shared by the schools of this conference or former schools of the SBC.

Why can't you wrap it around your brain that if a school "moves" they are moving because it's better for them? I would love to see someone go to court and try to enforce a exit fee because of the term... "lateral" move

their best chance to win that fight is to say...

ark30inf said it was so..so it's so! Other words...NO CHANCE

A large part of why a school might accept an invitation out is because if they do not accept it...someone else will and they will be left holding the bag being forced to add Liberty or Colorado School of Mines or something.

Trust me. Nobody is anxiously dying to be with FIU or UAB just because they are so awesome to be with that they can't be resisted.

How many times have we seen "I like our current lineup more than CUSA but would take an invitation in a heartbeat". That is what I am suggesting that we (next year's members of the SBC) stop.

I understand that you think CUSA is neato keen and marvy. That is great. Fantastic. Proud of you. No go be satisfied with that and stop telling SBC members that they should be jealous of WKU. What WKU fans think the SBC or its members ought to do....is of ZERO importance.

No I understand you want out of the SBC (I've read those post by you) but you know in your heart ASU is here for the long term so it's in "your" best interest if the SBC can force schools to stay.

I really understand where you are coming from on that...as a fan

But make no mistake about it schools didn't leave because they though others would. That's make believe in your head to help you cope with the fact every school in this conference wants out.

CUSA is a better fit for Western and it was better for the FU's for their reasons, and those might not be the same as Westerns. Everyone has their own reasons....

but leaving because being afraid someone else will isn't one of them.

That's make believe on your part just as this "lateral" movement.

Personally I had reasons I wouldn't mind playing football in the SBC...I love the southern travel but that doesn't out weight the gains for Western in renewing old rivalries or better basketball.

You are having some serious denial issues going on.

(02-06-2014 06:51 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  No I understand you want out of the SBC (I've read those post by you) but you know in your heart ASU is here for the long term so it's in "your" best interest if the SBC can force schools to stay.

I really understand where you are coming from on that...as a fan

But make no mistake about it schools didn't leave because they though others would. That's make believe in your head to help you cope with the fact every school in this conference wants out.

CUSA is a better fit for Western and it was better for the FU's for their reasons, and those might not be the same as Westerns. Everyone has their own reasons....

but leaving because being afraid someone else will isn't one of them.

That's make believe on your part just as this "lateral" movement.

Personally I had reasons I wouldn't mind playing football in the SBC...I love the southern travel but that doesn't out weight the gains for Western in renewing old rivalries or better basketball.

You are having some serious denial issues going on.

That's all fascinating I'm sure. Yet what you think SBC members ought to do...is still of no interest whatsoever. What you think we think...is still of no interest whatsoever. In all honesty, what Liberty or Jax State thinks we ought to do is of far more interest...and that's not much.

Pretty much everything you say or post has been from the position of Sheriff with a shiny new CUSA badge here to defend the "pecking order" and try to slam me for not following the script or "right-thinking".

This is a thread about OUR future exit fees or lack thereof. And by OUR I mean SBC members....who have not already exited....and have some actual stake in the subject.

You are free to comment, but don't be offended that I give your opinion of future SBC strategy ZERO weight. Your badge don't work here mate.

(02-06-2014 07:34 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 06:51 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  No I understand you want out of the SBC (I've read those post by you) but you know in your heart ASU is here for the long term so it's in "your" best interest if the SBC can force schools to stay.

I really understand where you are coming from on that...as a fan

But make no mistake about it schools didn't leave because they though others would. That's make believe in your head to help you cope with the fact every school in this conference wants out.

CUSA is a better fit for Western and it was better for the FU's for their reasons, and those might not be the same as Westerns. Everyone has their own reasons....

but leaving because being afraid someone else will isn't one of them.

That's make believe on your part just as this "lateral" movement.

Personally I had reasons I wouldn't mind playing football in the SBC...I love the southern travel but that doesn't out weight the gains for Western in renewing old rivalries or better basketball.

You are having some serious denial issues going on.

That's all fascinating I'm sure. Yet what you think SBC members ought to do...is still of no interest whatsoever. What you think we think...is still of no interest whatsoever. In all honesty, what Liberty or Jax State thinks we ought to do is of far more interest...and that's not much.

Pretty much everything you say or post has been from the position of Sheriff with a shiny new CUSA badge here to defend the "pecking order" and try to slam me for not following the script or "right-thinking".

This is a thread about OUR future exit fees or lack thereof. And by OUR I mean SBC members....who have not already exited....and have some actual stake in the subject.

You are free to comment, but don't be offended that I give your opinion of future SBC strategy ZERO weight. Your badge don't work here mate.

So basically you have nothing to argue your point with so you fall back to...

you are not in this conference which I agree with, exit fees of the SBC has nothing to do with Western.

But I understand why you refused to debate this any farther ...

you have NOTHING. Well other than the denial and your fantasy land that you choose to believe (which I really don't think even you believe that crap).

(02-06-2014 07:55 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  So basically you have nothing to argue your point with so you fall back to...

you are not in this conference which I agree with, exit fees of the SBC has nothing to do with Western.

But I understand why you refused to debate this any farther ...

you have NOTHING. Well other than the denial and your fantasy land that you choose to believe (which I really don't think even you believe that crap).

Basically, I understand that you are here to support and defend CUSA and spread FUD about the SBC and I have no interest in giving you more of a platform to do so. You can feel free to characterize it any way that makes you feel better, I give it ZERO weight.