Are buyouts a good thing for college football?

[BisonBacker]

Just a curious question and would be interested to see how this breaks down. With all the talk lately about buyouts on the back end of a home and home contract I'd be interested to see what the AGS posters think. If I missed this poll or its been posted before I apologize.
Your vote will be public so keep that in mind. Feel free to state your opinion as to why you voted the way you did. Also this isn't a sour grapes poll, just interested to see how this breaks down based on conferences & such. I know buyouts are not likely to go away either this is just more for fun and curiosity then anything else.

[89Hen]

I think buyouts are fine, assuming that both teams agree to the terms. It would be a problem if a third party decided what was fair and both had to abide by it.

[spelunker64]

I think they are fine, if they are reasonable. $10,000 to let Montana State back out was too low. A mistake on our AD's part. :twocents:

[89rabbit]

I voted that "Yes I have no problem with them" and I will tell you why. Like a brick, buyouts are amoral; they are neither good nor bad. It is how they are used that matters.

What do I mean? Well let’s look at a brick. It can be used to smash a window and that is bad or it can be used to build a hospital to help those in need and that of course would be good. The difference is how they were used.

I think buyouts are necessary part of contract negotiations. Both parties need an out if some extraordinary opportunity or circumstance presents itself.

I will give you a real world example. SDSU had the front half of a home and home set up with Idaho State last year ('06 football season). With only 4 home games this was going to be probably our second highest draw of the year. However after the contract was signed ISU had a chance to play Idaho and so they exercised their right to buyout the contract.

While that put us in a bind and forced us to replace them with a NAIA school (William Penn) it was understandable. Were we unhappy? Sure, did it ruin our relationship with ISU? I don't think so because the buyout was exercised in a way, that most would agree, it was designed for.

Why then do schools take issue with Montana exercising its right to use the buyout? Simply put it appears that Montana is using the buyout not for extraordinary circumstances but simply because they want more home games. The fact that they have done it to Hofstra, Cal-Poly (twice), and SDSU (on a two for one deal) in a very short time period (buying out all of their OOC return trips since '05) speaks to the fact that this may be an abuse of the buyout principal.

At this point many Montana faithful will be tempted to give us a myriad of reasons why they have extraordinary circumstances, but please save it. We have heard them all before.

I know I have quoted this site before but Jeff Kolpack does a great job of explaining how many of us feel.



http://www.areavoices.com/bisonmedia/

Don't feed the bears



Interesting article from The Missoulian's Fritz Neighbor on the adventures of the University of Montana football schedule. Put it this way: if you schedule the Grizzlies for a home-and-home, make sure they come to your place first.

Because, they probably won't return the game.

The Griz just hosed South Dakota State on a home-and-home deal. They hosed California Poly this year. The Missoulian article says the Griz stiffed Hofstra.

Now, I realize the Griz did this legally by buying out the contracts. But that just doesn't seem to be bargaining in good faith. SDSU was counting on more than a big crowd for the Grizzly game. It was to be a marquee game; another reason why going Division I was a good idea.

I'm not sure how much these buyouts are, but I would guess the reason the Griz do it is because they can make much more money with a home game. Still, at this rate of leaving teams in the dust on the back end of a home-and-home, Montana's buyout philosophy could come back to hurt it.

So with all that said I still see a valid reason for buyouts and again remind everyone of the brick. It is not the bricks fault if it is thrown through a window and the brick should not be praised if it is used to build a hospital. So buyouts are neither good nor bad.

Montana has done what they have done and now they will live with it. It does appear that their reputation is out there and they are having trouble finding folks that want to do home and homes with them. It also appears that other schools know this and are asking for BIG money to do guarantees (reported that teams are now asking for $125,000 to come to Missoula). Best of luck to the Montana faithful, you are great fans and you deserve better then to pay big bucks (by FCS standards) to watch the Griz pound D-II schools.

[nevadagriz]

:deadhorse:

[BigApp]

how is a brick "amoral"?

[lizrdgizrd]

how is a brick "amoral"?
Um, they pay strippers to have sex with them after stealing that money from blind guys?

[putter]

Lets give it a rest with the Montana thing. I think 99% of Griz posters here do not like the fact that we have made a habit of buying out the back halves of home-and-home contracts and scheduling a D-II to get another home game and the other 1% have simply referenced the deficit as the reason for wanting the existing reveue. You can take it like you want to but have a buy-out clause of $100k + to force the issue regarding any buyout.

[89rabbit]

how is a brick "amoral"?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amoral%20

a·mor·al [ey-mawr-uhl, a-mawr-, ey-mor-, a-mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-mawr-uhl, a-mawr-, ey-mor-, a-mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

[GRZZ]

89Rabbit, seriously. We understand you are upset. Just about every Griz fan on this board has said that they personally don't like the buyouts Montana has done recently. We all read that when you posted it in one of the other threads on this subject. I think this thread was started to have a conversation that didn't turn into bash Montana like all the others. Please...let it die.

:deadhorse:

[89rabbit]

89Rabbit, seriously. We understand you are upset. Just about every Griz fan on this board has said that they personally don't like the buyouts Montana has done recently. We all read that when you posted it in one of the other threads on this subject. I think this thread was started to have a conversation that didn't turn into bash Montana like all the others. Please...let it die.

:deadhorse:

GRZZ,

It is clear that BisonBacker started this thread with you guys in mind. He stated so on another thread, started by a Griz fan I might add.



Proud Griz Man I understand what your saying and I applaud your president for his stance. You also have to understand that every school has it's financial issues to deal with and when these contracts are put together the other schools are relying on the BSC schools to honor their end of the contract. Supporters of this policy can say all they want to about buyout clauses and how it's being honored but if put to a vote by the fans I think you would see that the majority don't approve. I will even start a poll on this topic and see where people stand on it but I for one think its stinks. . . .

With that said the majority of my post deals with the question that BisonBacker asked which is "Are buyouts a good thing for college football?". And my answer is that they are a necessary part of the contract process. I go on to explains my point and use both Idaho State and Montana as real world examples.

If you Griz fans want these threads to die, and I can understand why you do, stop posting to them. :twocents:




Here are the three threads dealing with Montana's schedule

It's Official: Montana St Opts Out

Started by TexasTerror - Sam Houston State Fan

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18676



Article: Griz need to fill sked, dump SDSU

Started by griz37 - Montana Fan

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18794



Are buyouts a good thing for college football?

Started by BisonBacker - North Dakota State Fan


Just to make sure I wasn't being too hard on you Griz fans I took a quick count and of the nearly 300 posts made on those three threads I account for 28 total.

[BisonBacker]

89rabbit, you are absolutely correct regarding the reason for this thread but I went out of my way to not mention anyone specific university. I am truly just interested in where people/fans stand on this issue and that was the only intent of this thread. I hope people will keep any bashing out of this thread as there are plenty of those already started. Just want to see the reasoning behind peoples choice outside of the obvious financial aspect of it.
Carry on.

[89rabbit]

89rabbit, you are absolutely correct regarding the reason for this thread but I went out of my way to not mention anyone specific university. I am truly just interested in where people/fans stand on this issue and that was the only intent of this thread. I hope people will keep any bashing out of this thread as there are plenty of those already started. Just want to see the reasoning behind peoples choice outside of the obvious financial aspect of it.
Carry on.

Fair enough, I too was trying to stay on topic and again used Idaho State and Montana as recent real world examples that were juxtapose to help make my point.

My point again isn't that Montana is evil or anything. It is that buyouts like bricks are amoral - neither good nor bad by their very nature.

[ngineer]

As long as the contract allows for them, then so be it. People are 'big boys' and can make their own bed..

[JohnStOnge]

I voted no but what I mean is that the teams entering the contracts should be very restrictive in what they agree to. Buyouts ought only to be agreed to under very unpredictable circumstances. No program should agree to a situation in which they go to one team's home field then that team gets out of the return match just because it gets a big money offer and buys the first team out.

Nobody can force that but I do think it's time for more programs to start driving much harder bargains when they agree to go to some other team's home field for the first game of a home and home.

My only comment on the Montana thing...since I know this is related...is that it's ridiculous to have a program that has that kind of support have a financial situation demanding that the AD "has" to do this sort of thing. I think I'd start asking questions about the AD and wondering if the school couldn't get a more competent person for the position. I realize there's a lot I don't know but that would be my initial impression.

[JohnStOnge]

Remember, the actual question is "Are buyouts a good thing for college football?"

I don't disagree with the idea that a buyout should be allowed if it's allowed by the contract. But I don't think it's good for college football.

[McNeese75]

Buyouts are fine as long as they are punitive for the team pulling out. If it hurts the pocketbook enough, you won't pull out unless the alternative is a really big payday and in that case the team getting dropped has the financial restitution to schedule another team and improve their take or get into a home and away with another team less likely to buy out. (is that run on enough???? :eyebrow: )

[MR. CHICKEN]

GETTIN' PAID....TA NOT GET....WHOOPED............CHA-CHING....$$$$$

[Mountaineer]

GETTIN' PAID....TA NOT GET....WHOOPED............CHA-CHING....$$$$$

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

:bow:

[GRZZ]

As long as the contract allows for them, then so be it. People are 'big boys' and can make their own bed..
:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:



I voted no but what I mean is that the teams entering the contracts should be very restrictive in what they agree to. Buyouts ought only to be agreed to under very unpredictable circumstances. No program should agree to a situation in which they go to one team's home field then that team gets out of the return match just because it gets a big money offer and buys the first team out.

Nobody can force that but I do think it's time for more programs to start driving much harder bargains when they agree to go to some other team's home field for the first game of a home and home.

My only comment on the Montana thing...since I know this is related...is that it's ridiculous to have a program that has that kind of support have a financial situation demanding that the AD "has" to do this sort of thing. I think I'd start asking questions about the AD and wondering if the school couldn't get a more competent person for the position. I realize there's a lot I don't know but that would be my initial impression.

Yeah, it came up few years back and the AD was pretty much forced to resign. They set a schedule to pay down the debt and we are ahead of it, so the Athletic Department since then has done alright, however they know more than I do.

[RabidRabbit]

Buyouts are fine as long as they are punitive for the team pulling out. If it hurts the pocketbook enough, you won't pull out unless the alternative is a really big payday and in that case the team getting dropped has the financial restitution to schedule another team and improve their take or get into a home and away with another team less likely to buy out. (is that run on enough???? :eyebrow: )

With this proviso, buyouts are part of the contract. But, please schools, don't use the buyout to reduce obligation of a 1 & done, complete your commitments, even if you don't get 6 games a season.

Was reading that Sac St. is backing out of renewing a home & home with Cal Poly because Sac St. was ending up 0-3 in their OOC's (Davis/Poly/& BS team). THIS IS A GOOD example of why to stop playing or start a new contract. But don't stop in the middle. :smiley_wi

[McNeese75]

GETTIN' PAID....TA NOT GET....WHOOPED............CHA-CHING....$$$$$

Beats the hell out of the alternative :D :thumbsup:

[BisonBacker]

I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that the numbers at this point in the poll are the way they are. I have to think that some of those who have voted that buyouts are ok would change their mind if the team being bought out was their team. I'm also surprised that as many fans of teams who have experienced the buyout trend have voted the way they did. Either way its interesting to see.

[lizrdgizrd]

I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that the numbers at this point in the poll are the way they are. I have to think that some of those who have voted that buyouts are ok would change their mind if the team being bought out was their team. I'm also surprised that as many fans of teams who have experienced the buyout trend have voted the way they did. Either way its interesting to see.
I think a lot of folks see it for the contract it is. If there's an escape clause that gets exercised, then that's fair game as both sides agreed to it before hand.

[GRZZ]

I think a lot of folks see it for the contract it is. If there's an escape clause that gets exercised, then that's fair game as both sides agreed to it before hand.

Exactly. I don't like the buy outs that we have done though sometimes buyouts make sense. Make the buyouts more punitive and it wont happen as much. Contracts are negotiated by both sides.

[GannonFan]

Buyouts are fine - they are part of a contract that both parties signed onto. If you don't like them, don't include them in the contracts. Seems silly to say "yeah, sure" when it's time to sign, and then moan and groan when that part of the contract is exercised.:nod:

[AZGrizFan]

Buyouts are fine - they are part of a contract that both parties signed onto. If you don't like them, don't include them in the contracts. Seems silly to say "yeah, sure" when it's time to sign, and then moan and groan when that part of the contract is exercised.:nod:

What's funny about that is, apparently Cal Poly and Hofstra understand that. You hear LITTLE to NO bitching from their fans. The only one's that don't understand are SDSU and NDSU. :cool: :cool: :cool: :eyebrow:

[89rabbit]

What's funny about that is, apparently Cal Poly and Hofstra understand that. You hear LITTLE to NO bitching from their fans. The only one's that don't understand are SDSU and NDSU. :cool: :cool: :cool: :eyebrow:


Now why did you go and do that? Post something that you know is blatantly untrue. Now I have to respond again. . . :nonono2:

I know that you have seen these threads because you have posted to them many times.

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18676


http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18794


Lots of unhappy folks from many schools in these threads. You guys want these threads to die, quite posting to them. xidiotx

[RabidRabbit]

Hey '89! As long as dem Bars xlolx xlolx keep risin to da bait, let's feed em!:nod: :nod: :nod:

Lord knows after only 4 home games last year, including 0 that weren't transitional or DIII/NAIA because couldn't book anybody to come to beautiful Brookings, why should Rabbits be upset that da Bears would would rather insist upon buying us out rather than actually play a game they scheduled 3 or 4 years ago? JUST SO THEY CAN ENJOY 6 HOME GAMES? FOR HOW MANY YEARS IN A ROW?

Sorry guys, as long as keep fighting back, this Rabbit will continue to assist ALL FCS SCHOOLS in knowing the practices that are occurring in the Big SKY. I've yet to see evidence that ANY BIG SKY school is GOING TO ANY GWFC school to play in '07.

Buy outs have occurred to:

SDSU by U Montana.
NDSU by Montana St.
UC - Davis by EWU
Poly not renewed by Sac St.
SUU goes to both Montana & Montana St. - are these one and dones? Or are the Montana's going to continue the trend? OR <GASP> could they actually go to Cedar City?

No the track record this year of the Big SKY is absurb. And UM/MSU are the prime targets, and it's catching up to them with increased buy-out or one and done fees. Treat your guests well, return a visit as promised, and we're all eager to play. :hurray: :hurray:

[FargoBison]

What's funny about that is, apparently Cal Poly and Hofstra understand that. You hear LITTLE to NO bitching from their fans. The only one's that don't understand are SDSU and NDSU. :cool: :cool: :cool: :eyebrow:

You might want to do a little research on that one because from what I have seen both schools are unhappy and have said so.

As for the whining, complaing, etc...What Montana is doing is wrong and I am glad people are bitching. They are taking advantage of schools and honestly seem to careless about what they are doing. Montana's AD buys-out a 2 for 1 with SDSU and then calls them up again and asks them to start a home and home with the first game in Missoula. In case you haven't noticed I bitch very little about what Montana State did because they are trying to make it up to NDSU by rescheduling the game or if all else fails compensating NDSU fairly for making the trip out to Bozeman. Their AD understands what he did was wrong and I honestly I hope your AD can grap that concept some day as well.

[FargoBison]

As for buy-outs they are fine when used rarely because sometimes cicumstances can come up. But using them as a means to get quality home games is wrong, some teams have a ton of trouble getting home games and will do about anything to get one with a school like Montana.

[RabidRabbit]

As for buy-outs they are fine when used rarely because sometimes cicumstances can come up. But using them as a means to get quality home games is wrong, some teams have a ton of trouble getting home games and will do about anything to get one with a school like Montana.

Ah, but Fargo, the Montana schools are choosing to play the Ft. Lewis's and Montana Techs rather than have ONLY 5 HOME Games. They will SACRIFICE returning a game to a QUALITY FCS SCHOOL, even if they have PLAYED THEM for 3 STRAIGHT TIMES AT THEIR HOME and have a contract to play home/home or even 2 home/1 away.

With an 11 game season, one would expect the logical assumption of 6 home one year, 5 home the next. But NOT apparently in BIG SKY COUNTRY! :nono: :nono:

Come on Down to the lower elevations, and share some good tailgating and friendly banter about the merits of each team, and go away after hopefully an exciting game enthused about a growing OOC rivalry. :nod: :nod: We'd LOVE to spread the WORD about HOW DECENT You are, rather than be WARNING how UNSCRUPULOUS it appears have become.

:dizzy:

[GOKATS]

Ah, but Fargo, the Montana schools are choosing to play the Ft. Lewis's and Montana Techs rather than have ONLY 5 HOME Games. They will SACRIFICE returning a game to a QUALITY FCS SCHOOL, even if they have PLAYED THEM for 3 STRAIGHT TIMES AT THEIR HOME and have a contract to play home/home or even 2 home/1 away.

With an 11 game season, one would expect the logical assumption of 6 home one year, 5 home the next. But NOT apparently in BIG SKY COUNTRY! :nono: :nono:

Come on Down to the lower elevations, and share some good tailgating and friendly banter about the merits of each team, and go away after hopefully an exciting game enthused about a growing OOC rivalry. :nod: :nod: We'd LOVE to spread the WORD about HOW DECENT You are, rather than be WARNING how UNSCRUPULOUS it appears have become.

:dizzy:

:deadhorse:

I will never again buy an EnerGizer battery- damn wabbit won't die. :bang: :bang:

[AZGrizFan]

:deadhorse:

I will never again buy an EnerGizer battery- damn wabbit won't die. :bang: :bang:

Most toys take two----89rabbit and rabidrabbit. :cool: :eyebrow: ;)

[BisonBacker]

What I do find interesting is that College football up until a few years ago seemed to get along just fine without buyouts in contracts. Does anyone honestly know when they were first started?

[RabidRabbit]

Most toys take two----89rabbit and rabidrabbit. :cool: :eyebrow: ;)

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx Come on down to the plains, and I'll even toss in DURACELLS xlolx xlolx :p

[GRZZ]

Ah, but Fargo, the Montana schools are choosing to play the Ft. Lewis's and Montana Techs rather than have ONLY 5 HOME Games. They will SACRIFICE returning a game to a QUALITY FCS SCHOOL, even if they have PLAYED THEM for 3 STRAIGHT TIMES AT THEIR HOME and have a contract to play home/home or even 2 home/1 away.

With an 11 game season, one would expect the logical assumption of 6 home one year, 5 home the next. But NOT apparently in BIG SKY COUNTRY! :nono: :nono:

Come on Down to the lower elevations, and share some good tailgating and friendly banter about the merits of each team, and go away after hopefully an exciting game enthused about a growing OOC rivalry. :nod: :nod: We'd LOVE to spread the WORD about HOW DECENT You are, rather than be WARNING how UNSCRUPULOUS it appears have become.

:dizzy:


We're not playing Montana Tech. It has not even been mentioned. Lets keep it to facts atleast.

[RabidRabbit]

We're not playing Montana Tech. It has not even been mentioned. Lets keep it to facts atleast.

OK, the OOC looking to achieve is SUU to Start, a BS team (away), then anybody that will play you at Wash/Griz stadium, OR YOU could honor the Home/Home and actually play away, like the AD's signed up to do so 3 or 4 years ago.

So, right now, Griz choices are: play at Brookings. Pay a good chunk of $$$ to bring in a FCS team, or play a D-II or lower.

Maybe the smart move would have been to not buy out the SDSU return game? At this time I suspect that SDSU's ready to tell you, thanks, but we aren't so ugly, and we'll dance with a better suiter (Gateway teams). :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I think that MSU is trying to work up something with NDSU for playing in Fargo in '08, a year when there are 12 games. Maybe a nice VERY PUBLIC announcement from the GRIZ AD about playing in BROOKINGS in '08 can be worked out? :smiley_wi Then actually playing the game IN BROOKINGS (oh will such miracles OCCUR????) :rolleyes:

[FargoBison]

Bob Huggins on buying out games, even ones he never scheduled in the first place.

“My first reaction (when he saw North Dakota State on the slate) was they’re good,” said Huggins, whose 5-3 Wildcats have lost three straight on the road. “I don’t think you do that (buy out of the game). Your school signs a contract, you go play. You don’t buy it out because they’re good or you don’t feel like going.”

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/16199836.htm

[RabidRabbit]

Bob Huggins on buying out games, even ones he never scheduled in the first place.

“My first reaction (when he saw North Dakota State on the slate) was they’re good,” said Huggins, whose 5-3 Wildcats have lost three straight on the road. “I don’t think you do that (buy out of the game). Your school signs a contract, you go play. You don’t buy it out because they’re good or you don’t feel like going.”

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/16199836.htm

But I don't think this is Kansas, TOTO! xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

Nope, Montana, BIG SKY Country!!!! :hurray: :hurray: They operate differently in them thar hills! : smh : : smh :