Was BYU Dishonest?

[YNot]

I don't know that BYU did anything dishonest necessarily but I found this post in the reader comments in the Trib interesting-

The WAC (and to a lesser extent BYU) better be watching its back. If they pursue the buyouts from the two schools they may well be looking at a tortious interference lawsuit. If you look at the facts believed to be known at this point you have the WAC colluding with BYU, requesting a buyout clause from its member schools on BYU's behalf. Mind you BYU is not a member of the WAC. It seems pretty obvious that the WAC owes a greater duty to protect the interests of its member schools than it does the interests of BYU. It should be fun to see where this goes.

What do our attorney friends on the board think of this take?

The first question would be: Which contract or economic relationship was interfered with? At best, I would say the MWC interfered with Fresno State's and Nevada's contract with the WAC. But, if they pay the buyout, who cares? The contract would be followed.

Requesting that the WAC and its members enter into a contract is not interference and it is not unlawful...it is a request.

Plus, where's the indication (let alone evidence) that BYU had anything to do with the WAC buyout agreement? If anything, it would have been ESPN, but it was more likely Karl Benson ensuring the future of the conference.

What you have here is a school that was looking for options (BYU) and a conference that was looking for security (WAC) and a second conference that was trying to improve its situation (MWC). Please explain where there is even a contract in this scenario? The WAC contract is irrelevant, other than the fact that the WAC has a contract with Fresno State and Nevada that it can and should enforce.

Even if BYU did strongly suggest that the WAC enter into the buyout agreement, it was the WAC and its members that signed. Unless BYU coerced Fresno State into signing the buyout agreement (ie, held a gun to their heads), this is just smoke! Just because you have alleged "colluding" and a contract, does not mean that there was any kind of interference, let alone tortious interference.

[CougarPeasant]

I don't know that BYU did anything dishonest necessarily but I found this post in the reader comments in the Trib interesting-

The WAC (and to a lesser extent BYU) better be watching its back. If they pursue the buyouts from the two schools they may well be looking at a tortious interference lawsuit. If you look at the facts believed to be known at this point you have the WAC colluding with BYU, requesting a buyout clause from its member schools on BYU's behalf. Mind you BYU is not a member of the WAC. It seems pretty obvious that the WAC owes a greater duty to protect the interests of its member schools than it does the interests of BYU. It should be fun to see where this goes.

What do our attorney friends on the board think of this take?

The first question would be: Which contract or economic relationship was interfered with? At best, I would say the MWC interfered with Fresno State's and Nevada's contract with the WAC. But, if they pay the buyout, who cares? The contract would be followed.

Requesting that the WAC and its members enter into a contract is not interference and it is not unlawful...it is a request.

Plus, where's the indication (let alone evidence) that BYU had anything to do with the WAC buyout agreement? If anything, it would have been ESPN, but it was more likely Karl Benson ensuring the future of the conference.

What you have here is a school that was looking for options (BYU) and a conference that was looking for security (WAC) and a second conference that was trying to improve its situation (MWC). Please explain where there is even a contract in this scenario? The WAC contract is irrelevant, other than the fact that the WAC has a contract with Fresno State and Nevada that it can and should enforce.

Even if BYU did strongly suggest that the WAC enter into the buyout agreement, it was the WAC and its members that signed. Unless BYU coerced Fresno State into signing the buyout agreement (ie, held a gun to their heads), this is just smoke! Just because you have alleged "colluding" and a contract, does not mean that there was any kind of interference, let alone tortious interference.

You nailed. Great analysis.

[CannonCougar85]

BYU could come out and announce that every dime they make in athletics will be donated to charity and people would still find a way to be mad about it. People would say it's just a PR move or that BYU is self-righteous. People are just hyper-critical of BYU for some reason. Even people within our own fanbase.

Some kid on the football team gets in trouble and the media jumps all over it and is highly critical of BYU. People in our own fanbase say that it reflects poorly on the church and that BYU should just do away with athletics.

There are even Utah State fans who are blaming BYU for destroying the WAC.

Fact is that no matter what BYU does there will be somebody somewhere that is mad about it.

[northerncougar]

Scenario:

I make an offer to buy a business for $XX mm. The deal requires that all current assets are part of the transaction and we agree in principle. Two days before sale, the business is approached by someone else with a better offer. The business decides that they will decline and go with my original offer. They don't approach me with the information and continue with our agreement

The morning that I am meeting with the business owner, I find out that the two largest customers have bailed, which comprise 80% of the business. I call the business owner and say that since his business does not include the original assets, the deal is no longer valid. It would be crazy to buy a business that is now 20% of what it was two days before. The business owner then goes to all his friends claiming that I am the reason that his business failed.

I "honestly" couldn't care less if USU, BSU, or Utah fans (or any other) think BYU was dishonest. My experience has been that the the thoughts and arguments of the insanely stupid really don't matter.

USU got screwed over by FSU and Reno, but it is more fun going after BYU. Whatever makes you feel better.

[Isola]

Had BYU left the MWC it would have been left with 8 schools, still a viable conference.

Had any school left the WAC they would not have been a viable conference. The $5 million buyout seems to have been in the best interest of the WAC, regardless of whether or not BYU might join them. Most conferences have a buyout clause and I don't think BYU made them do it.

I have a hard time imagining a WAC board meeting going like this "BYU is toying with the idea of joining us in non-football sports, and they proposed a $5 million buyout so they know we are viable." But even if it did go down like that, why on earth would Fresno State and Nevada agree to it, knowing that a spot would be opening up in the MWC. If it was BYU's idea then Benson must have brought it up prior to telling the rest of the board that BYU was considering a move.

Also, I swear that shortly after Boise State joined the MWC an article came out with Benson saying BYU would be more than welcome to join the WAC in non-football sports. I remember talking to my wife about it and hour ludicrous it was. Plus there was tons of talk about BYU going independent, with Holmoe saying BYU was going to explore all their options.

And now people think BYU is stabbing the MWC in the back?! BYU wasn't scuttling the MWC. The MWC with Fresno State and Nevada scuttled the WAC and BYU's plan.

It would be like talking to your boss about not getting paid enough. Then your co-worker gets a new job getting paid tons more money so you tell everyone that you are going to explore your options. You find another job that will pay you significantly more and when your boss finds out he poaches the best workers from the other company to force that company out of business. And you are the dishonest one. Oh and by the way, your boss still won't give you a raise.

[MJCOUGAR]

You can't exactly be dishonest about something unless you have done or said something. There has been no press release from BYU about any of this - to answer the question, NO!

[Gunk]

Nope.

BYU never said, "We'll do XYZ," and then proceeded to do ABC. That, would be dishonest. Doing what you think is best for school and fans is the right thing to do. Who cares if it upsets the peanut gallery.

Am I the only one that gets annoyed by these threads suggesting that because we're Mormon BYU is somehow held to a different standard when taking care of business. Nothing shady happened! Just because we didn't get up on the roof tops and shout for the whole conference to hear what we were planning/considering doesn't mean we're dishonest. Said it in another thread, that kind of thought is exactly why people think Mormons are stuck up.

[YBrit]

It would be nice to be on the dishonest side for once.

[westidahocougar]

If we have to ask ourselves that question, arent we leaning towards being dishonest?

BYU obviously hasnt stated anything, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support that we were less than forthright in our dealings.

Business decision or not, I am embarrassed by the fact that we have to ask ourselves and justify our "dishonesty".

I think Holmoe may be in a little too deep here.

[hawkwing]

If we have to ask ourselves that question, arent we leaning towards being dishonest?

BYU obviously hasnt stated anything, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support that we were less than forthright in our dealings.

Business decision or not, I am embarrassed by the fact that we have to ask ourselves and justify our "dishonesty".

I think Holmoe may be in a little too deep here.

Haha

The only reason we have to ask ourselves this is because of you and other Boise fans who got their panties in a wad at the thought of joining a BYUless MWC. Anyone with any sort of intellectual honesty recognizes that BYU has done absolutely nothing dishonest in this case.