Jump to content

Ram1554

Members
  • Posts

    1,811
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ram1554

  1. It would be a good fit if it happens. Do you want another school like VCU or Dayton to balance them out?
  2. FWIW, it looks like they did finish top 25 in the 2010 BCS standings. Either way, Hawaii won a lot of games in that era, and it made sense to add them as an affiliate to the MWC back then. However, it has been a challenge for UH since they've joined for football, and the current stadium situation is just not up to par. I have a feeling that something has to give because it doesn’t feel like our current arrangement is working out for either side. Perhaps it’s the travel subs, idk.
  3. Both Hawaii AND San Jose need to get serious about finishing their stadiums sooner rather than later. Multiple sub-20k stadiums are not a good look for a conference, especially if it isn’t the case the construction is ongoing to fix the problems. Also, it seems like Mackey could use some work. I believe Nevada is one of only 3 FBS football stadiums with a track around the field.
  4. I still have doubts about the practicality of legally merging the two entities. I have a hard time seeing the benefit of doing all the work to integrate the two non-profit corporations. IMO, a more likely scenario is that the 11 full MWC members more simply get invited to the PAC by W/OSU. Not sure what happens to our two affiliate members.
  5. As I have said in this thread a number of times, OSU/WSU should go on offense and call their own board meeting where they 1) vote to expand with MWC schools 2) fire Kliavkoff 3) hire Glo. They are technically the only voting members according to the bylaws. I don't think the courts or departing members could stop them.
  6. That’s why I am saying they should somewhat “go rouge” and do their own thing. According to the bylaws all 12 schools agreed upon, OSU/WSU are now the only schools able to take actions. The Beavs and Cougs should have been using that to their own advantage since the Calford departures by calling their own board meetings. Unless the 10 departing schools file a counter lawsuit for an injunction against OSU/WSU, the courts can’t really get in the way of the PNW twins. My guess is that the court system would throw out any type of legal action by the 10 departing members.
  7. OSU/WSU need to get the MWC schools in the PAC12 asap, so there is no question about conference dissolution. They really ought to go on offense and call their own board meeting where they 1) vote to expand 2) fire Kliavkoff 3) hire Glo. Let the courts figure out if they had that authority after the fact. But for the time being they should just move forward by following the current bylaws, which state that OSU/WSU are the only ones that can vote on PAC12 actions as they have not withdrawn from the conference.
  8. I guess I disagree. I think it’d be beneficial for us all to immediately get A5 status even if it is only for two years when things might change. It’d greatly help with recruiting going forward. In terms of liabilities, I believe I read that the Comcast situation will be settled this school year by withholding a portion of the conference payouts from existing members. The other liability are the lawsuits but perhaps there is a way to not have that impact incoming members in exchange for letting OSU and WSU keep most of the asset windfalls.
  9. I realize that. But it sounds optimistic that the voting rights issue should be a relatively quick decision - "The filings include a request for a hearing on the temporary restraining order on Monday, which could give clarity before the scheduled meeting two days later." So this may be concluded by early next week. After that, OSU/WSU should be able to control the destiny of the PAC and they would be the sole decision makers in the CEO Group. As I said before, they should start with inviting all 12 MWC members to begin PAC conference play in fall 2024. No merging conference entities, just a straight invitation for all of us.
  10. Here are the PAC12 bylaws: https://pac-12compliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-22-P12-Handbook.V1.pdf. "8. Quorum. A majority of the entire CEO Group must be present to provide a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the CEO Group. As used in this Constitution and Bylaws, “entire CEO Group” means the total number of CEO Group members entitled to vote." "CHAPTER 7—CONFERENCE ACTIONS 1. Action at a Meeting. Except as otherwise provided by law or in this Constitution and Bylaws, the act of the CEO Group, the Council or a committee means action at a meeting of the CEO Group, the Council or committee by vote of a majority of the members present at the time of the vote, if a quorum is present at such time. If there are an insufficient number of votes to approve or reject an action, the Commissioner shall contact the members who were not present to obtain the outstanding vote(s) necessary to decide the issue. All responses to such inquiries must be submitted in writing to the Commissioner. "
  11. We will see what the courts say, but I would think you would just need OSU and WSU in attendance to have a quorum because they are the only eligible voting members. So you’d have 100% of voting members with those two present.
  12. I’m not advocating for anyone to get left out. I am asking what are the potential holdups for OSU/WSU not being able to simply invite all 12 MWC members to join the PAC next summer? Thus negating exit fees. It just seems simpler and more beneficial for us all to carry on under the PAC banner as soon as possible. And I’m not talking about legally merging the two conference entities, which may take awhile to sort out. Instead, I’m referring to us all jumping over to the PAC after this year and leaving the MWC for dead. The only downside I see is potentially getting sued by our current TV partners.
  13. It may have already been discussed in the last 1,000+ pages, but what is stopping all 12 MWC members from dissolving our conference via an immediate vote? It says right in the bylaws that we are able to dissolve the conference as an entity. Would it just be that we owe damages to our current TV partners for not providing them content the last two years of our contract? But if all 12 of us are essentially conference-less after this school year, the PAC could take us all in next summer and we could carry on under the PAC banner. Alternatively, who exactly are we beholden to for exit fees? If we all decide to give notice to “leave” the conference and then each get invited to the PAC, wouldn’t there be no one left in the MWC to collect exit fees thus rendering them moot. I may be going in circles here, but I am having a hard time concluding why this reverse merger stuff needs to be such a challenge.
  14. No, that doesn’t have to happen. There’s no need for programs like UNT, UTEP, Rice, TXSU, SHSU, etc. simply because they’re in Texas. They’re not already in the MW because the money isn’t there to add them. The MW12 with the PAC2 and Zags would be a solid conference. We should only add a Memphis-caliber school if they add to the TV contract and benefit the conference.
  15. I only tend to see mentions of football scheduling in these types of articles. However, OSU/WSU each have 16 other sports besides football, and they need to be focused on all these programs equally (at least on the surface). Figuring out how to fill what is essentially an indy football schedule is one thing, but to also need to do that for all their other sports sounds damn near impossible for next school year. The clock is ticking. It’s already 11 short months away from fall 2024 sports starting next August, and I just don’t see how staying as the PAC2 conference is even remotely viable. Sorting out the logistics of a scheduling partnership with another conference for 16 sports also sounds like a mess.
  16. Adding both UTSA and Texas State makes zero sense. We don’t need a second school in that market. Are you not paying attention to how expansion works? It has already been determined that the TXSUs, UNTs and UTEPs don’t add value to our TV contract. Secondly, Texas State has done nothing since moving up. They’ve been just as bad, if not worse, than NMSU. They’ve been a losing program in the Sun Belt. They’ve yet to make a bowl game, which is a really low bar these days. It’s not a good school in athletics or academics. Your incessant posts about adding schools like UNT, UTEP, and Texas State are getting tiresome. Expansion is NOT imperative. Only expand if a quality program(s) comes along like OSU, WSU, or Gonzaga. None of the existing MW members are going anywhere and our current formation is fine as is.
  17. The MWC had been fine as a 12 team conference for a decade. There’s no immediate need to expand. If a good opportunity comes along like OSU/WSU, Memphis, UTSA, then great, go for it. However, this thread has turned into a complete joke with people calling for adding the UTEPs, UNTs, and Texas States of the world. Good lord.
  18. Can people give it up with the Texas State talk already. They have one good win in their entire FBS history. It’s redundant to add both UTSA and Texas State. It’s not going to happen. The TV money is not there.
  19. Not sold on Texas State. It’s redundant in that area if we can get UTSA. Plus, TXST has been horrible since they’ve moved up Again, no one does travel partners anymore. Even if the MWC did adopt that scheduling model, it only makes sense for trips to CSU/Wyoming. You can’t logically pair anyone else up that makes travel much easier. This isn’t the PAC10 of the 1990s.
  20. If she really did say that, I am guessing it was that 16 was the goal when talking about OSU, WSU, Stanford and Cal. That was a slam dunk. Hard pass on NMSU, UTEP, UNT, Rice, TXSt, and FCS schools.
  21. Doubt it. Maybe there would be a small chance if the MWC exit fees were more reasonable like $5m. But since they’re not, it makes sense for USF to just stay put and wait for a Big12 or ACC invite down the road.
  22. Who has interest in adding two teams from Texas? Why are you saying that is a “goal” of the MWC? That *might* have been a possibility when SMU and UTSA were both on the table. Now that SMU is gone, the only potentially viable candidate is UTSA but even they have some warts.
  23. I agree. It’ll come down to if Memphis and Tulane WANT to join. A hold up could be paying the $10m American exit fee while signing up for the $34m MWC exit fee. They may just want to wait it out for the ACC to implode because they have a really good chance at joining up with those Wake Forest-type leftovers. If we really must expand east, I think you have to call up Memphis and Tulane first. If they decline, the only other two schools that should be in the conversation are UTSA and Tulsa. That’s it.
  24. Your point is valid about UTSA. However, Memphis, Tulane or Tulsa should have the funds to pay their exit fee. It’s reduced by giving a longer notice.
×
×
  • Create New...