The "UN"-Official SDSU to the Pac thread.

[SalinasSpartan]

On 6/21/2023 at 9:35 AM, OrediggerPoke said:

No I don’t think damages would shake out that way.  The damage is a reasonable estimate of loss of future conference revenues (at the time of contracting).   It is irrelevant that SDSU won’t be collecting a check from the conference going forward.  A lot of focus is made on media deals - - sdsu’s provided value to the conference and its members is not limited to media deals (which can be somewhat forecast).
 

I honestly don’t care what sdsu pays other than hoping the conference takes a strong position against sdsu so as to disincentivize other conference members from leaving in the future.  
 

But in reality, contract law isn’t a difficult concept or application.  The difficulty lies in financial modeling.  

So are GORs considered “ironclad” because there really isn’t speculation involved as there is with exit fees? They keep that schools TV revenue so bingo bango the conference is whole, almost by definition. 

[East Coast Aztec]

On 6/21/2023 at 9:40 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

Seems like the exit fees are basically an educated guess of how much the conference loses out moving forward without a member.

For how long?  Some theoretic perpetuity?  That would be difficult to justify in court.  Could the opposite then happen, and a member can litigate for losses due to bad deals and poor performance of conference members?  The media deal is done in 26.  There are no discussions of renegotiations or shopping that I have seen so there is no loss during the period of negotiation.  Otherwise, would not BYU, TCU and Utah still be paying for "damages"?  Because I do not believe they are.  Because that is a ridiculous ask.

[East Coast Aztec]

On 6/21/2023 at 9:35 AM, OrediggerPoke said:

No I don’t think damages would shake out that way.  The damage is a reasonable estimate of loss of future conference revenues (at the time of contracting).   It is irrelevant that SDSU won’t be collecting a check from the conference going forward.  A lot of focus is made on media deals - - sdsu’s provided value to the conference and its members is not limited to media deals (which can be somewhat forecast).
 

I honestly don’t care what sdsu pays other than hoping the conference takes a strong position against sdsu so as to disincentivize other conference members from leaving in the future.  
 

But in reality, contract law isn’t a difficult concept or application.  The difficulty lies in financial modeling.  

What is your "at the time of contracting" entail?  SDSU will likely be out of the picture if that verbiage includes the negotiation period, so their absence should not be factored at all, they are not a party in the process at that time.  That would be like, using your scenario, a lessor demanding monies from a party that left and paid fees for an early termination, in an entirely new lease agreement.  That doesn't happen.  And as you have said, performance based revenues are separate, so credits are not factored.  And the contract was a split, with BSU having their own agreement parsed out.  So what would the damages actually be, if not the split the MWC is already keeping?

Furthermore, does anyone have the actual documentation on the exit fee increase, with the majority votes of the presidents?  I want to know if this was voted on, or was shoved in unilaterally after the original agreement was signed.  If this was not voted on in an amendment, is there any contractual obligation?  

[SparkysDad]

The best outcome for SOME of the remaining MWC schools is for SDSU to join a weakened PAC, let's say Stanford, Cal, Wazzu and Oregon State.

Then the top of the MWC can join the PAC, using realignment to drop the lowest remaining MWC programs and everybody gets a (small) step up - except those "lowest" programs who shall remain nameless.

I think most forget that conference realignment is also an opportunity to cut off the bottom of the raided conferences in some cases and JMHO, but that's potentially the case here and a positive outcome I could see for the Always the Bridesmaid, Boise State program.

[East Coast Aztec]

On 6/21/2023 at 10:31 AM, SparkysDad said:

The best outcome for SOME of the remaining MWC schools is for SDSU to join a weakened PAC, let's say Stanford, Cal, Wazzu and Oregon State.

Then the top of the MWC can join the PAC, using realignment to drop the lowest remaining MWC programs and everybody gets a (small) step up - except those "lowest" programs who shall remain nameless.

I think most forget that conference realignment is also an opportunity to cut off the bottom of the raided conferences in some cases and JMHO, but that's potentially the case here and a positive outcome I could see for the Always the Bridesmaid, Boise State program.

Still strange that SMU is getting looked at and not Boise.  Out of all the conference members to have a real gripe on this, it is BSU.

[jdgaucho]

On 6/21/2023 at 9:12 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

Any conference that actually cares about having good programs.  So apparently not the Big West.

 

They're not going fb independent.  But if they somehow did, Oregon and Washington's chancellors might like the idea of aligning with several west coast AAU members and see their teams play in Hawaii every other year .  

[SparkysDad]

On 6/21/2023 at 11:36 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

Still strange that SMU is getting looked at and not Boise.  Out of all the conference members to have a real gripe on this, it is BSU.

Lots of factors keeping Boise State at arms length as a candidate for a Power Conference upgrade...TV market (although growing), academics (although slowly improving from a very low starting point) and the inability to maintain the frankly unsustainable level of success in football that BSU enjoyed with Petersen in his Golden Era.

[AztecSU]

On 6/21/2023 at 8:49 AM, OrediggerPoke said:

Why would they? Tourney credits are shared equally amongst conference members and would be considered ‘conference money’ and not SDSU money. Plus the credits are already earned and is already a conference asset.   Therefore, it is a zero sum.  It is irrelevant that SDSU earned the majority of credits.
 

Damages are a measure of the harm sustained going forward.  Monies already earned (whether paid out in the future or presently) is an existing asset and not a future asset.  

I'm referring to SDSU's portion of the 'conference money'. 

[jdgaucho]

On 6/21/2023 at 10:36 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

Still strange that SMU is getting looked at and not Boise.  Out of all the conference members to have a real gripe on this, it is BSU.

 It's not their hoops program holding them back.  Is it a concern their fb will fall off a cliff?  

[jdgaucho]

On 6/21/2023 at 10:44 AM, SparkysDad said:

Lots of factors keeping Boise State at arms length as a candidate for a Power Conference upgrade...TV market (although growing), academics (although slowly improving from a very low starting point) and the inability to maintain the frankly unsustainable level of success in football that BSU enjoyed with Petersen in his Golden Era.

 

But anyone who takes them is also adding an improving hoops program which never hurts.

[East Coast Aztec]

On 6/21/2023 at 10:44 AM, SparkysDad said:

Lots of factors keeping Boise State at arms length as a candidate for a Power Conference upgrade...TV market (although growing), academics (although slowly improving from a very low starting point) and the inability to maintain the frankly unsustainable level of success in football that BSU enjoyed with Petersen in his Golden Era.

I do see those pop up, but for a western-centric conference thinking of longevity, Boise's population will grow, the academic infrastructure has been growing in the 9 years I have been visiting there, so it should be factored as a potential, and certainly moreso since it is just Boise State in Boise, and pretty much Idaho in general.

And when it comes to a "what have you actually done for me" in regards to conference measurables, it should be NCAAT credits as either an at-large or you won games in the tourney, and non-MWC-tied bowl games or BCS/NY6.  Only Boise matches or exceeds SDSU in that regard, so that too should be looked at as a "help, not hurt" factor.  Just don't see where SMU has done that.

[AztecSU]

On 6/21/2023 at 10:36 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

Still strange that SMU is getting looked at and not Boise.  Out of all the conference members to have a real gripe on this, it is BSU.

Agreed. PAC is still the PAC, they don't see themselves as king makers, and it's hurt them over the last 20 years of realignment IMO. 

[SparkysDad]

On 6/21/2023 at 11:49 AM, jdgaucho said:

 

But anyone who takes them is also adding an improving hoops program which never hurts.

 

On 6/21/2023 at 11:50 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

I do see those pop up, but for a western-centric conference thinking of longevity, Boise's population will grow, the academic infrastructure has been growing in the 9 years I have been visiting there, so it should be factored as a potential, and certainly moreso since it is just Boise State in Boise, and pretty much Idaho in general.

And when it comes to a "what have you actually done for me" in regards to conference measurables, it should be NCAAT credits as either an at-large or you won games in the tourney, and non-MWC-tied bowl games or BCS/NY6.  Only Boise matches or exceeds SDSU in that regard, so that too should be looked at as a "help, not hurt" factor.  Just don't see where SMU has done that.

Taking off the Blue Colored glasses of a TBSUF, if Boise State were to fall off a cliff in football, there would be a lot of similarities to a program like the University of New Mexico. Not much in state college or pro sports competition, a non-recruiting hotbed, "isolated" market...and Albuquerque is a significantly bigger TV market than Boise!

Basically writing that Boise State is one bad football coach away from being slightly worse than the Lobos makes me sad! 

[Fowl]

On 6/21/2023 at 9:15 AM, OrediggerPoke said:

Contract law doesn’t work that way. The tourney credits and liquidated damages are essentially separate contractual provisions related to conference affiliation.  
 

 A simple example comparison I would give is the commercial real estate tenant who exits their lease early (and which includes a liquidated damages provision of say $100,000 per year for terminating the lease early) and the commercial tenant then trying to claim that the liquidated damages should be offset because they remodeled the kitchen and are leaving the commercial space in a better condition than they found it.  The average commercial lease directly states that improvements are to become the property of the landlord on lease termination.  There are numerous case examples out there that basically state the liquidated damages is a forecast of lost future rent/occupancy and the improvements made is irrelevant because there is a separate contractual provision directly dealing with improvements and ownership of the improvements upon termination of the relationship.  

What specific contract did SDSU sign?

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/21/2023 at 12:13 PM, Fowl said:

What specific contract did SDSU sign?

If you look at my posts you’ll see I stated I don’t know the conference bylaws history/contract background.  I’ve never taken the time to look into it.  
 

But - a big misconception amongst most lay people that I run into (including clients) is that you have to ‘sign’ something to be a party to or to be bound to a contract or contractual provisions.  Outside of the statute of frauds (which mostly applies to real property transactions and which has its own exceptions and promissory estoppel recovery potential even without an enforceable contract), contract obligations can be formed orally or even through conduct.  Without getting too deep into contract theory, there are principles called ratification and estoppel theory.
 

Quite simply - If I accept a benefit knowing the contemplated terms, then I might be deemed to have assented to or ‘ratified’ or have even amended a contract.  A common example I see in my practice is a party accepting a payment for some sort of service but then later claiming that they should have been paid more (problematic is courts might view the conduct of cashing the payment as ratifying the contract at that price).   
 

Applied to SDSU’s situation, if they joined or maintained conference affiliation with direct knowledge of the purported buyout, they may be deemed to have assented to or agreed to the term regardless as to whether they ‘signed’ anything.  
 

 

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/21/2023 at 11:44 AM, AztecSU said:

I'm referring to SDSU's portion of the 'conference money'. 

There is no entitlement to a portion of the conference money unless you are a conference member.  The concepts you are trying to address are called ‘mitigation of damages’ or ‘offsets’ in the calculation of damages.  I personally don’t see them applying here.  

[RSF]

On 6/21/2023 at 11:59 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

For how long?  Some theoretic perpetuity?  That would be difficult to justify in court.  Could the opposite then happen, and a member can litigate for losses due to bad deals and poor performance of conference members?  The media deal is done in 26.  There are no discussions of renegotiations or shopping that I have seen so there is no loss during the period of negotiation.  Otherwise, would not BYU, TCU and Utah still be paying for "damages"?  Because I do not believe they are.  Because that is a ridiculous ask.

For the length of the GOR.  And the Mwc doesn't and didn't have one, so no to the BYU/TCU/Utah situation.

[East Coast Aztec]

On 6/21/2023 at 11:28 AM, OrediggerPoke said:

If you look at my posts you’ll see I stated I don’t know the conference bylaws history/contract background.  I’ve never taken the time to look into it.  
 

But - a big misconception amongst most lay people that I run into (including clients) is that you have to ‘sign’ something to be a party to or to be bound to a contract or contractual provisions.  Outside of the statute of frauds (which mostly applies to real property transactions and which has its own exceptions and promissory estoppel recovery potential even without an enforceable contract), contract obligations can be formed orally or even through conduct.  Without getting too deep into contract theory, there are principles called ratification and estoppel theory.
 

Quite simply - If I accept a benefit knowing the contemplated terms, then I might be deemed to have assented to or ‘ratified’ or have even amended a contract.  A common example I see in my practice is a party accepting a payment for some sort of service but then later claiming that they should have been paid more (problematic is courts might view the conduct of cashing the payment as ratifying the contract at that price).   
 

Applied to SDSU’s situation, if they joined or maintained conference affiliation with direct knowledge of the purported buyout, they may be deemed to have assented to or agreed to the term regardless as to whether they ‘signed’ anything.  
 

 

Ya see, this is why I always appreciate OrediggerPoke post.  

 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 6/21/2023 at 9:59 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

For how long?  Some theoretic perpetuity?  That would be difficult to justify in court.  Could the opposite then happen, and a member can litigate for losses due to bad deals and poor performance of conference members?  The media deal is done in 26.  There are no discussions of renegotiations or shopping that I have seen so there is no loss during the period of negotiation.  Otherwise, would not BYU, TCU and Utah still be paying for "damages"?  Because I do not believe they are.  Because that is a ridiculous ask.

Dunno, I’m not a lawyer. Just from reading in this thread that’s what it seems like exit fees are for.
 

I mean couldn’t you could just as easily turn it around and say that a school shouldn’t have to pay any fees when leaving? Because the second they leave the conference the damages haven’t actually occurred, that doesn’t happen until football games start being played, right? So why should a school have to pay anything at all when they leave a conference? Would that be “fair”? I dunno, maybe? Maybe not?
 

But none of this shit really matters because this isn’t going to be litigated. The current system of exit fees existing and being negotiated down has been around for a while, and that’s what will happen here. Is SDSU paying $34M? Of course not. Are they going to pay the $17M or whatever the amount is? Doubt it. It’ll probably be a less then 17M and spread out over several years. 

[agswin]

The reality is that it just seems unlikely that the PAC (even a somewhat weakened PAC) is ever going to really get behind bsu.  The Cal State schools will be a big stretch academically, as we have seen with SDSU,  but I believe that bsu is likely just a bridge too far.

The PAC has a pretty long history of looking down their noses academically at all the Cal State Schools.  Maybe I will be wrong, but I believe bsu is going to viewed as another notch below what the PAC12 elite gang is willing to accept. 

Just do not see it happening.