Another of many indications that NIL is broken

[NT80]

11 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

The whole thing is eventually going to burn itself down. Wait until the next Great Recession hits…that money is going to dry up for NIL. Right now, middle class folks that think their school needs funds for better players are already being squeezed out by the cost of attending the games. Soon enough, the higher net worth folks at these G5s are going to bail when they realize this isn’t helping their school out in any significant way.

The top 30-50 schools that want to be NFL-little schools and run like that just need to go away. And leave the rest of us to have a setup that looks and acts like amateurish college football. 

As Tennessee announced, the cost of attending college events may soon include automatic "talent fees" being added to the ticket prices.   

[Jason Howeth]

23 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Would the MWC have any grounds to countersue the PAC for breach of contract?

I'll expand your question a little bit to ask, "what recourse might the MWC have because of this poaching?" Regarding a claim against the Pac-12, the first answer that comes to mind is not breach of contract, because the MWC and Pac-12 aren't in any type of agreement where a prohibition on poaching a team makes sense (unless they built that into their agreement to play football this year). But, tortious interference with a contract might apply. Essentially a party like the MWC in this scenario would have a claim against the Pac-12 because the Pac-12 interfered with MWC's agreement with Boise St., for example. There would be loads of questions about how damages can be calculated, but that's for actual lawyers and accountants on the case to decide.

Another recourse for the MWC might be breach of contract against Boise St. But I have a very good feeling that in lieu of making a claim like that available to the MWC if Boise St. leaves, the MWC requires the substantial buy-out amount. 

Last couple notes on the tortious interference claim: MWC would never go after the Pac for that because it would open the flood gates to every other conference suing another conference each time a school moves. The MWC wouldn't want to sue the Pac to get some sort of damages for Boise St. leaving, and then turn around only to see C-USA to get the bright idea that it can sue the MWC for poaching TCU from many years ago (that's the latest example I could think of). Also, very likely that the NCAA, which charters the conferences and governs their administration quite a bit, has prohibitions on retaliatory litigation in the case of a school leaving. 

 

tl;dr: No, MWC probably wouldn't have any claims for many reasons.

[GBarksdale]

With all of this becoming a huge wild west mess, wondering how long it will be before Congress steps in?

[Mean Green 93-98]

1 hour ago, GBarksdale said:

With all of this becoming a huge wild west mess, wondering how long it will be before Congress steps in?

The last entity I would trust to straighten out this mess is the U.S. Government.  IIRC, that's who let the NIL genie out of the bottle in the first place.

[97and03]

5 hours ago, Jason Howeth said:

I'll expand your question a little bit to ask, "what recourse might the MWC have because of this poaching?" Regarding a claim against the Pac-12, the first answer that comes to mind is not breach of contract, because the MWC and Pac-12 aren't in any type of agreement where a prohibition on poaching a team makes sense (unless they built that into their agreement to play football this year). But, tortious interference with a contract might apply. Essentially a party like the MWC in this scenario would have a claim against the Pac-12 because the Pac-12 interfered with MWC's agreement with Boise St., for example. There would be loads of questions about how damages can be calculated, but that's for actual lawyers and accountants on the case to decide.

Another recourse for the MWC might be breach of contract against Boise St. But I have a very good feeling that in lieu of making a claim like that available to the MWC if Boise St. leaves, the MWC requires the substantial buy-out amount. 

Last couple notes on the tortious interference claim: MWC would never go after the Pac for that because it would open the flood gates to every other conference suing another conference each time a school moves. The MWC wouldn't want to sue the Pac to get some sort of damages for Boise St. leaving, and then turn around only to see C-USA to get the bright idea that it can sue the MWC for poaching TCU from many years ago (that's the latest example I could think of). Also, very likely that the NCAA, which charters the conferences and governs their administration quite a bit, has prohibitions on retaliatory litigation in the case of a school leaving. 

 

tl;dr: No, MWC probably wouldn't have any claims for many reasons.

They did have a poaching clause in their agreement to play this year. Ten million per school poached as I recall. 

[DentonStang]

I saw Texas State is talking to everyone including AAC. If AAC is adding and MWC needs 2 and PAC needs 1, we're going to see complete chaos with CUSA and sunbelt too.  I even saw MWC is talking to MAC teams.  Insanity.

[NT80]

NCAA's Charlie Baker urges Congress to act amid NIL 'dysfunction'

"The president of the NCAA lashed out at "evidence of dysfunction in today's NIL environment" while reiterating his desire to see Congress create national guidelines to shape so-called name, image and likeness endorsement deals that are reshaping college sports."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41480474/ncaa-charlie-baker-urges-congress-act-amid-nil-dysfunction