Were Nevada's and Fresno's Actions Unethical?

[beefytee]

It doesn't make sense that Fresno and Reno would bolt to the MWC.

The money isn't going to be much more split more ways. The mtn. isn't making any money and no one has access to it. Add on top of that the $5 million buy out.

Seemed like this would have been a good time for more teams to bolt from the MWC for the WAC and its greener ESPN/BYU pastures, even if the money isn't better in the WAC.

Something just doesn't add up. I guess they figured BYU wasn't really going to stick around in the WAC.

[DapperDan]

It doesn't make sense that Fresno and Reno would bolt to the MWC.

The money isn't going to be much more split more ways. The mtn. isn't making any money and no one has access to it. Add on top of that the $5 million buy out.

Seemed like this would have been a good time for more teams to bolt from the MWC for the WAC and its greener ESPN/BYU pastures, even if the money isn't better in the WAC.

Something just doesn't add up. I guess they figured BYU wasn't really going to stick around in the WAC.

Well, they're making more money, and it appears that the $5 million buy out didn't go into effect until after BYU joined the WAC. So they're free and clear on that.

[Green Monstah]

I'm not even sure how this can be considered unethical? It's no less ethical than BYU looking to leave the MWC. If they only signed an LOI that did not bind them to follow through with Indy BYU in WAC, how is this unethical?

BYU got played by Hair...that's what all of you who vote yes are really saying.

[U-Ute]

Ethical or not, what I want to know is why would Nevada and Fresno rather play with BYU in the MWC on The Mtn instead of play with BYU in the WAC on ESPN?

[Green Monstah]

Ethical or not, what I want to know is why would Nevada and Fresno rather play with BYU in the MWC on The Mtn instead of play with BYU in the WAC on ESPN?

I think once BSU left the conference, they felt like they were being left behind. BSU/TCU in MWC is better than BYU in WAC.

[pellegrino]

I'm not even sure how this can be considered unethical? It's no less ethical than BYU looking to leave the MWC. If they only signed an LOI that did not bind them to follow through with Indy BYU in WAC, how is this unethical?

BYU got played by Hair...that's what all of you who vote yes are really saying.

you can't compare it to BYU's actions. They're completely different things.

Here are two analogies:

What BYU did:
You are an executive for Company A, who, in your opinion, has not valued what you bring to the company and refuses or is unable to compensate you accordingly. A deadline for your current contract is coming up and as you weigh your options you decide you want to seek employment elsewhere. You begin looking for another job with Company A's competitors, but you don't want to ruin the possibility of losing your job or having Company A force you to sign a non compete clause, so you don't tell them about your job search or any possible negotiations.

What Fresno/UNR did:
You are an executive for a competitor of Company A. One of its top executives approaches you about possible employment. You put together a contract and it is all but finalized when the CEO of Company A approaches you about taking a new position with his company that would in effect merge the two. He knows that his best executive is negotiating with you and, not wanting to lose that employee to a competitor he offers a merger knowing full well that with no viable competitors remaining, the executive will be forced to stay with Company A. You abandon all good faith contracts and merge with Company A.

Whether or not you think that Fresno's and UNR's actions were unethical is your decision, but it's not at all in the same realm as what BYU did. No matter what SU says, there really was nothing questionable or unethical about BYU's actions. It's clear that Fresno played an active role in putting the deal together and then as soon as something more appealing came down the road they jumped ship. In my view, that is unethical and were they businesses, I would have nothing more to do with them.

[Jacob]

I agree with pellegrino.

But several of you are missing the point by claiming that Fresno and NV weren't bound unless BYU entered the WAC. That's just not right. BYU was joining the WAC. It was going to happen.

It is true that the $5m fee was contingent upon BYU's joining. But that doesn't mean they can prevent the contingency from occurring.

Example: If you and I enter a contract for your purchase of my house, contingent upon the sale of your own home, then we have a binding contract with a contingency. But that contingency doesn't allow me torpedo the sale of your home because I decided I didn't want to go through with our deal.

[Green Monstah]

Pellegrino: Key words: "all but finalized." Nothing was final. They were free to do as they pleased and they did it. If BYU or the WAC wanted to make any agreements iron-clad, they should have done so. What UNR and FSU did was find a loophole, and ethically slip through it.

I think this comes down to hurt feelings, not ethics. BTW, there was nothing about your second example that was unethical either....so your words were wasted. That was good business. Damn good business.

[pellegrino]

Pellegrino: Key words: "all but finalized." Nothing was final. They were free to do as they pleased and they did it. If BYU or the WAC wanted to make any agreements iron-clad, they should have done so. What UNR and FSU did was find a loophole, and ethically slip through it.

I think this comes down to hurt feelings, not ethics. BTW, there was nothing about your second example that was unethical either....so your words were wasted. That was good business. Damn good business.

"all but finalized" should have been "signed a contract, but not gone public yet," because that's what happened in the case of Fresno/UNR. If that's good business then it's no wonder our nation is in the financial troubles it's in. Nobody's word (or contract) means anything.

Were feelings hurt? Damn straight they were, but not because BYU didn't get it's way, but because two institutions went back on their word to frustrate plans they had a large part in making. If that isn't unethical then I don't know what is. Remember, that unethical does not mean illegal. There are many of things that are unethical that are perfectly legal, but I guess "good business" trumps honesty and integrity in the real world. Fuck your competitors at any cost short of doing anything illegal and you'll still be ethical. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me, so long as I'm the one relying on other people to be ethical and act in good faith.

[creekster]

"all but finalized" should have been "signed a contract, but not gone public yet," because that's what happened in the case of Fresno/UNR. If that's good business then it's no wonder our nation is in the financial troubles it's in. Nobody's word (or contract) means anything.

Were feelings hurt? Damn straight they were, but not because BYU didn't get it's way, but because two institutions went back on their word to frustrate plans they had a large part in making. If that isn't unethical then I don't know what is. Remember, that unethical does not mean illegal. There are many of things that are unethical that are perfectly legal, but I guess "good business" trumps honesty and integrity in the real world. Fuck your competitors at any cost short of doing anything illegal and you'll still be ethical. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me, so long as I'm the one relying on other people to be ethical and act in good faith.

While I am surrpised to see usually mild-mannered Pellgrino get this worked up over this topic, I think he has nailed it.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It doesn't make sense that Fresno and Reno would bolt to the MWC.

The money isn't going to be much more split more ways. The mtn. isn't making any money and no one has access to it. Add on top of that the $5 million buy out.

Seemed like this would have been a good time for more teams to bolt from the MWC for the WAC and its greener ESPN/BYU pastures, even if the money isn't better in the WAC.

Something just doesn't add up. I guess they figured BYU wasn't really going to stick around in the WAC.

My initial thought when the news broke last week was that Boise was going to stick around in the WAC because of BYU's affiliation and the fact that an MWC without BYU isn't worth very much. It also wouldn't be difficult to see SDSU and UNLV leaving the MWC for the WAC if Boise decided to stay put.

Nevada and Fresno must feel like the dead weight in the WAC is worse than the dead weight in the MWC. Nevada and Fresno's moves made it so Boise would never stay put in the WAC.

The thing that probably stunk to these teams was the fact that BYU could have moved on whenever it wanted.

I still believe BYU has made these moves in an effort to position itself to be readily available for the Big 12 in 2011. But it wanted a backup plan and it wanted a ready-made schedule in 2011 should it have to wait an additional year for the Big 12 or have the plan in place in the event it never receives a Big 12 invite.

As it stands, it appears as if CU may very well still be in the Big 12 in 2011 and the Big 12 may want to add a team for that year to maintain the conference championship game. It will then have another year to pry away another team for 2012.

[pellegrino]

While I am surrpised to see usually mild-mannered Pellgrino get this worked up over this topic, I think he has nailed it.

I'd apologize for the profanity if it weren't the perfect word for the tone of the situation. I think it is the most accurate descriptor available.

What get's me about this is that people are either willfully naive or stupid enough to think that there is nothing unethical about what Fresno/UNR did and that what BYU did was equally shady. We expect SU to come out and call BYU names, that's part of his shtick, and it's hard to take him seriously about anything that involves BYU. But when otherwise intelligent people rationalize that hedonistic consequentialism is not only ethically fine, but should be applied to all situations, something is amiss. After all, it's "good business." What is even more frustrating is that these same people are businessmen and lawyers, in short the backbone of our society. I had always laughed at the conservative pundits who decried the moral bankruptcy of our nation, now I'm beginning to think that maybe they're on to something.

[Jacob]

I'd apologize for the profanity if it weren't the perfect word for the tone of the situation. I think it is the most accurate descriptor available.

What get's me about this is that people are either willfully naive or stupid enough to think that there is nothing unethical about what Fresno/UNR did and that what BYU did was equally shady. We expect SU to come out and call BYU names, that's part of his shtick, and it's hard to take him seriously about anything that involves BYU. But when otherwise intelligent people rationalize that hedonistic consequentialism is not only ethically fine, but should be applied to all situations. After all, it's "good business." What is even more frustrating is that these same people are businessmen and lawyers, in short the backbone of our society. I had always laughed at the conservative pundits who decried the moral bankruptcy of our nation, now I'm beginning to think that maybe they're on to something.

[ERCougar]

"all but finalized" should have been "signed a contract, but not gone public yet," because that's what happened in the case of Fresno/UNR. If that's good business then it's no wonder our nation is in the financial troubles it's in. Nobody's word (or contract) means anything.

Were feelings hurt? Damn straight they were, but not because BYU didn't get it's way, but because two institutions went back on their word to frustrate plans they had a large part in making. If that isn't unethical then I don't know what is. Remember, that unethical does not mean illegal. There are many of things that are unethical that are perfectly legal, but I guess "good business" trumps honesty and integrity in the real world. Fuck your competitors at any cost short of doing anything illegal and you'll still be ethical. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me, so long as I'm the one relying on other people to be ethical and act in good faith.

As I read over the account of events that came out, I've changed my mind regarding Fresno, but not UNR. Fresno participated in setting up the deal, let everyone believe they were in on it, then backed out. That's shady, at best. It looks like UNR didn't even vote in support of the deal, so I don't see how they breached any ethical code.

[Coach McGuirk]