There are plenty of opinions circulating around the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) and the Mountain West Conference (MWC) with regards to conference realignments, with commissioners, school presidents and athletic directors all chiming in on various futures, financial consequences and just who exactly is to blame for this confusion.

Blame is a hard thing to place on any single institution when you talk about conference realignment.  There really isn’t a fault that needs to be assigned to a certain individual.  Like a wild gate in a good, hard country wind, the blame-game is bound to blow back and forth. And that is precisely what has been happening over the past fortnight.

It is also why we’ve seen so many articles that point to pinning a certain athletic director down, or subject negative opinions towards this conference commissioner or that particular school. We’ve heard reporters ask questions to commissioners about what school’s who aren’t even in their conference would do, or pose legal questions to coaches that have no clue whatsoever what the answers are going to be.

But the truth of that matter is that every school is simply trying to “Choose the Right”, which is a line aptly used by many in the LDS faith on Sunday’s across the world, yet means something completely different in the business of college athletics.

College athletics is a billion dollar business these days. Conferences are put together in order to help institutions align and thus become more powerful. Football is king. That’s the short and sweet version of college sports. Every program is chasing a Bowl Championship Series (BCS) bid, whether they are in an automatic qualifier (AQ) conference or ones like the WAC and MWC, which are not.  The schools that are not in AQ conferences are trying to get into the ones that are, because that means you have a better shot at it. Other sports, even popular ones like college hoops and baseball, fall far short of importance to football.

So programs are trying to choose the right, with football the main topic. Not for morality purposes, but for bigger paydays.  With that said, here are five questions that have been asked to us over the last two weeks.

Why has the business become so cutthroat?

A number of writers across the country have used the term “predatory” to describe a number of recent conference realignments, specifically the WAC and MWC, with school presidents seeming spiteful in email communications and commissioners threatening legal action. Those are somewhat the actions of predators, i.e. going for the kill.

At least a small part of it comes down to the egos of the men and women involved.  That’s how the origins of the MWC began, and how the WAC began to splinter after years of success.  That infamous split occurred in 1999 when a large portion of the future MWC ( BYU, Utah, Colorado State, Air Force, UNLV, New Mexico, San Diego State and Wyoming) met secretly at the Denver International Airport in the summer of 1998 to discuss a new conference.

Geography is another reason why the WAC was cut in half back then, and sliced once again in 2010.  Boise State, Nevada and Fresno State have all voiced their concerns with not only the distance of travel inside the conference being an issue, but the cost.

“There’s nothing we can do about our geography; we’re not going to get any closer to the (continent),” Hawaii athletic director Jim Donovan said.

Back in the 1990’s, the two geographical extremes of the 16-team WAC were paired together and several coaches were not at all cool with it.

“It isn’t good when you have coaches criticizing it constantly,” WAC Commissioner Karl Benson said. “We simply could not get our 16 teams to agree upon two divisions, so we had to come up with the quad idea.

“Everyone keeps saying the league exploded. That’s not true. We really imploded from the inside. I really felt like we had gotten off to a good start those first two years. We had BYU on the verge of a Fiesta Bowl berth and then Utah reached the national finals in men’s basketball. Things were happening for us.”

No matter what others around the WAC think, Nevada chose the right in 2000 when they joined the WAC and right once again when they joined the MWC in 2010.

Between 1999-2004, the WAC added a half-dozen new teams, including Nevada and Boise State while losing five members, including SMU, plus longtime member UTEP. These were more geographical issues that had to be sorted out, with the new members all fitting into the WAC’s vision and the departing members more aligned with Conference USA.

Putting egos and simple geography aside, the number one reason college athletics have become a big cutthroat business is because of money. This issue has taken over college football and college athletics like a python in a mouse cage. Just this past summer, BCS-darling Boise State left the WAC  for what most feel is a greener (a more probable AQ status conference in the next few years) MWC. Boise State, despite perfect records in 2004 and 2008, were excluded from big payday BCS bowl games, as their president so notably acknowledged in 2009 during his BCS commentary.

The WAC is not the only conference that is dealing with this issue.  Utah left the MWC for the Pac-10 this summer because the Pac-10 has AQ status and they no longer need dumb luck in order to get the cash they feel they deserve. Utah had to rely on that in the past, but not any longer.  The move by the Utes hurt the MWC as a whole, but it should be understandable to anyone living in a capitalist society such as the United States as to their reasoning.

But why is moving up so hard to understand?

In the back of many people’s minds, I think they get it.  I think they understand a program giving themselves a better shot at a building a more lucrative school.  Boise State’s path is exactly what Nevada and Fresno State are following, that is, once they were given the opportunity by the MWC. In fact many Nevada and Fresno State fans were hoping that when Boise State made the decision to join the MWC that the Wolf Pack and Bulldogs would be included as well.

That didn’t happen until recent events.

Before the invite, Nevada and Fresno State fans were miffed a bit at Boise State getting the opportunity that they wanted for their school.  There was that basic element of jealously that has now quickly faded with their own MWC invite. The playing field has somewhat been leveled and most fans in Reno and Fresno feel that things are fair once again.

And every current member of the MWC and WAC would likely agree that the MWC has been working at a more rapid pace to gain AQ status.  They are in year three of a four-year BCS trial basis, and will likely be a member conference sooner rather than later. The WAC isn’t even in year one; they have absolutely no plan to gain membership.

However, for Hawaii, which spent time this summer trying to reach out a deal to join the Pac-10 when that conference looked at expansion, plus schools like Utah State and Idaho, there is this feeling of despair and unfairness now more than ever.  Three schools that they use to have a union with have been plucked from its depths and placed in a grouping that is rising faster.  This isn’t a scenario that involves Cinderella, some marvelous mice and a Prince either. There is no glass slipper. They are not invited to the ball.

For these schools, the scenario is much more of a nightmare, like a vulture which has started at the eyes and is now working its way down. There is no happiness until the pain is gone. It is completely unfair.

“It is devastating,” said Jim Donovan, UH athletic director regarding the departures of Nevada and Fresno State. “There’s no positive spin I can put on this in the short term. We’re going to look at our options and move forward.

“It was a 180-degree turn. It was like you’re going in for a touchdown and throw an interception at the goal line and the other team returns it for a touchdown.”

Is that why the WAC is so pissed and threatening?

Yes.  That’s what it comes down to.  They are being left behind in the marketplace that is college football, and whenever you have men with big egos competing against other men with big egos you are bound to ruffle more than feathers.

If you ask people in Logan, most think the sky is falling. They are a deeply upset crew of fans and staffers.  They thought in this case that they actually had a deal done that would finally improve their situation, and make no mistake about it, it would have improved their situation.  Adding BYU to the WAC, even without football, would have been a boon to the Aggies. It gives them a natural in-state rival, a team they already play in football each season, plus guarantees a home date with them in basketball, which is of course the Aggies top sport at the moment.  That doesn’t include all the other sports that would create more interest in Cougar-Aggie battles.

A rivalry like that just adds more fuel to the fire, which of course leads to more interest.

But that’s exactly why adding BYU was really just a so-so thing for so many other schools, including Nevada and Fresno State. Without adding their most natural rivals, what did BYU really bring to the table for them?  A non-conference football game every other year or so? Another conference basketball team?

Sure, but that’s pretty inconsequential stuff in the big scheme of things.  The BCS is the big thing. Programs can live and ride in high style with one BCS appearance for quite some time. That’s what most programs are aiming for.  If you have to take second place, then lining yourself up against natural in-state rivals, just as Utah State was trying to do with BYU, is a quality move.

However, adding BYU was not a sweet deal to most of the other WAC programs because the Cougars are not their rival.  The prevailing thought was that the motion to the WAC board passed only because adding BYU in non-football sports gave the conference a slight bump in status, future games even in football, plus a stab in the back of the MWC, which took away the WAC’s BCS horse Boise State earlier in the summer. That’s why the vote went through, with only Nevada abstaining.

It really isn’t hard to see the scenario from a completely different angle if you just slightly twist the names. For instance, what if it was UNLV that was looking to boost its national profile and go independent in football, pulling out of the MWC and placing their non-football sports in the WAC?  Sounds crazy, but just stay with me for a minute.  For Nevada, that’s a resolution they’d accept in a heartbeat.  It would mean getting the Rebels in some way each year, including two basketball games, plus every other sport in an inner-conference situation. That would boost fan interest and potential revenue without question.  It wouldn’t change much in football, but to get your natural rival in any fashion would be great from the viewpoint of a Pack fan.

But what about for the Aggies or Vandals? Would adding UNLV do anything for them? Not really.  They’d probably vote yes since again, the MWC would get jousted a bit from the backside and the conference they are in gets a small lift in esteem.  But beyond that it would do nothing for them.

Nevada football is moving up on the BCS chain

That’s why the fierceness from the WAC commissioner, a man who seems beyond upset and is ready to go after Nevada and Fresno State with all the legal force he has available, is so hard to understand.  This is happening over and over again in college athletics, and for a program like Nevada to be paired up with in-state rival UNLV, plus Boise State again, it makes for a much more sound business model to go in that direction.

What’s so hard to understand with choosing that right?

Benson, who has been arguably the top voice during this obvious MWC-WAC clash, has been doing plenty of mud-slinging after his BYU-to-the-WAC venture, dubbed semi-cleverly “The Project”, failed in front of the eyes of the national sports media.  Here were his first comments in the aftermath of losing the battle.

Benson Audio Presser

Benson followed up those comments over the course of the next few days by speaking to other members of the press, talking candidly about Nevada and Fresno State, and again mentioning both school’s actions as “selfish”.

Even that term is strong considering that Nevada and Fresno State were doing what was in their best interests. That’s the same thing Utah State was doing when they were trying to add BYU.

In perhaps his most perplexing, yet strongly worded statement of all, Benson admitted in the link above that Nevada never signed a resolution (a so-called Memorandum of Understanding) which laid out the details of “The Project”, plus a subsequent item that called for a $5 million dollar penalty if one of the current WAC members (which excluded the already departing Boise State, plus Louisiana Tech for other conference reasons) were to break the agreement. This statement, more than any other in our opinion, is where the crux of this issue currently lies between the WAC’s eyes and Nevada’s.

“WAC legal counsel also believes strongly that despite Nevada’s not signing the agreement that they are subject to the terms of the resolution, and will be subject to the five-million dollar penalty,” Benson said during his original news conference.

And little has changed with Benson’s stance on that issue. He believes Nevada and Fresno State both have to not only pay a $5 million dollar exit penalty, but that they also have to stay in the WAC until the conclusion of the 2011-12 season. The WAC released this statement earlier today.

“The WAC fully expects to receive the $5 million from both Fresno State and Nevada and will take legal recourse if necessary to obtain the money,” said Benson. “As for the termination date, WAC Bylaws make it very clear that Fresno State and Nevada must remain in the WAC through the 2011-12 season unless the WAC authorizes an ‘early out.’ Fresno State and Nevada leaving the WAC following the 2010-11 season would cause irreparable financial harm to the remaining WAC members in terms of football scheduling and potential loss of revenue from television and bowl games. The damages that Hawai’i, Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, San Jose State and Utah State would incur could exceed as much as $2 million per school.”

Does the WAC have a leg to stand on legally?

Naturally, Nevada, which has already submitted a letter to the WAC office per the WAC handbook outlining their decision to move to another conference in time for the start of the 2011-12 seasons, has disagreed with those statements in almost every way.

“We disagree with Commissioner Benson’s interpretation,” Nevada President Milton Glick said. “We will be contacting the WAC directly to resolve these issues, and hope they can be resolved in an expeditious fashion.”

The WAC is truly out on a limb right now, for a few obvious reasons. Nevada, and Fresno State for that matter, both have a number of strong legal arguments at this juncture, with one standing out more than any other. The “Memorandum of Understanding” is void if BYU does not officially join the WAC by September 1, 2010. Since BYU has not announced their intentions of joining the WAC to this point, and most feel that they will not do so, the agreement is not only invalid right now, it could be completely dead in the water unless the Cougar administration makes an announcement to go independent in football and place their other 18 sports in the WAC. The actual agreement wording is below.

“In the event that no written agreement is executed by BYU on or before September 1, 2010, which agreement will include the obligations contained in paragraphs 3-6 of this Resolution and any additional provisions agreed to by this Board, then this Resolution is terminated.”

The only legal position the WAC can be standing on is the premise that if Nevada and Fresno State would have followed through on the agreement, then BYU would have followed, which therefore could mean that the agreement was broken by both schools and thus subjects them to the penalty.

“The other six WAC board members were under the belief that the action taken by the eight schools last Friday indicated a willingness and desire and an intent to move this forward, knowing that the potential outcome would have included a BYU and would have stabilized the WAC and solidified a WAC into, I think, a very good position for the future,” Benson said. “I think the unfortunate part here is that on Friday there was solidarity, and expressed solidarity, and four days later there was a departure and the defection.”

That’s the thin board that Benson is obviously standing on, and the main reason he sent out the letter he did clarifying the WAC’s stance on the $5 million.

How will this all end?

When the 16-team WAC split in 1999, with eight teams leaving to form the MWC, the WAC did retain a law firm based in Colorado.  However, they never ended up taking any action.  This time, we expect the WAC to take action against Nevada and Fresno State.  We believe they’ll argue that the actions of Nevada and Fresno State leaving the conference are the single reason why the resolution was voided, and why BYU did not join the conference.

Nevada and Fresno State will argue that BYU never joined the conference, thus as the resolution states, it is void.

“Schools are always going to have to do what’s in their best interests,” Benson also said. “Boise State made that decision, Fresno State made that decision and Nevada made that decision. BYU is making that decision. The best that I can do is create an environment and a business model that will allow these six members to prosper and succeed.”

I’d be real surprised if the group based in SLC is going to win the legal argument based on what could have happened. Benson’s own words are forthright enough on the subject.  Nevada has a solid legal argument for not even being involved in any potential proceedings, since they never voted during the original count and never actually signed the document, like all other members did.  They could argue that if the vote was so binding, why did each member have to sign it as well?

As a writer, I don’t mind the controversy.  It stirs the pot and people always seem to pay attention when something is boiling. But I think it is silly to base an entire legal argument on something that “could have happened” when the document that the conference actually wrote says so clearly that it is void if it “doesn’t happen.”

“I recommended it to the board,” Benson said later on during his presser, referring to the $5 million exit clause. “I wish I would have made it $20 million.”

I agree. He should have. He should also have taken out the part that says if BYU doesn’t join the WAC in the capacity the resolution specifies that it would be void. But he didn’t. He could have added a few other things too, like what happens in the case that if a program leaves the conference and BYU doesn’t join the WAC that the school is then subject to the same exit fee.

But again, he didn’t.

This situation is really no different than when you go to lease a car.  Even if you sign a contract it really doesn’t matter if the car that you attempted to lease doesn’t show up in the time frame given, or is different on the day of arrival and not to your liking. The dealer can’t hold you to anything.

Just picture Clark Griswold (Vacation) for a minute when he showed up with Rusty looking for his Antarctic blue super-sports wagon with the CB radio and the optional rally fun pack.  You can see it below in German, which somehow makes the scene even more funny.

That’s pretty much what happened here between Nevada and Fresno State, plus the WAC, and in particular Utah State. The latter two wanted everyone to swallow their pride and accept the pea-green Wagon Queen.

Again, BYU hasn’t shown up in the WAC and they likely won’t here in 2010, especially by September 1.  Even if the WAC feels it is Nevada and Fresno State’s fault that BYU didn’t show up, the agreement states that BYU has to join or the contract is void. Additionally, the resolution doesn’t state that if a school were to leave, forcing BYU to then pull out, that the schools would be subject for an exit fee.

Had that been written down in the resolution than the WAC may have something.

Furthermore, I doubt Nevada is held in the WAC conference through the 2011-12 athletic calendar based on some unpublished and obscure WAC Handbook update that changes the exit clause from September 1 to some time in July.  The Wolf Pack administration clearly believe that they have every right to move forward in the MWC next year since they met the handbook guidelines.

Lastly, we also believe that at some point the WAC will move on too.  They are going to search high and low in order to find a new Boise State and a new Nevada.  Benson seems committed to that.  If they can find a school with the funding to grow, whether those institutions are currently at the FBS level (the WAC’s preference) or the FCS level, they are likely to pursue it.

But for now, his focus is on figuring out how to legally separate Nevada and Fresno State from the WAC.

“We are assuming we are a nine-team league in 2010 and then an eight-team league in 2011,” Benson said.  “There’s no sense of urgency to make any decisions on future membership. The most important thing is to manage the legal separation of Fresno State and Nevada.”