Message Boards

Ok, so if I understand Benson's press conference, there are probably TWO separate law suits coming related to the Nevada/Fresno State defections.

Suit One: This one is already been filed in Denver. It is to force Nevada and Fresno to stay in the WAC through the 2011/2012 seasons. They announced several months after the deadline to leave after the 2010/2011 seasons (like Boise, who announced just before the deadline).

- I think this one is cut and dry. The rules are very very clear on when you have to announce you are leaving for a different conference. Those rules are well established and well know and part of the conference bylaws from the beginning. I don't think Fresno and Nevada have a chance in this suit.

Suit Two: This one is evidently still pending the 60 day windows. Fresno and Nevada have 60 days to pay the $5M exit fee that they agreed to after Boise State announced that they were leaving. There is probably some legal fancy footwork going on here. Nevada is claiming that they agreed in principle to the $5M exit fee, but never signed it, so they don't have to pay. Fresno is arguing that only the FIRST team has to pay, not the second team, and that Nevada is the first team, so Fresno doesn't have to pay.

-I think this is going to be messy. I think Nevada's argument is actually pretty lame. So much of what goes on in these conferences is based on "agreements in principle" on the phone because the presidents are all too busy to all get together in one place every time a decision has to be made. Nevada agreed the to $5M exit fee, and that should be binding.

Look at it a different way. Let's say that Fresno and Nevada HADN'T left, and the BYU Indy with the WAC deal had gone through. Would Nevada expect to gain all the advantages of that deal, even though they had NOT signed it at the time the deal was announced? What if the WAC had said "Everyone BUT Nevada gets the split payments from BYU, and everyone BUT Nevada gets the BBall payments, because Nevada had only agreed in principle to this deal and not signed it" . Nevada would (rightly so) be absolutely livid about that, and demand that they get all the same benefits as everyone else, because they too were part of the deal. I don't think Nevada can have it both ways.