LFN Exposes Hypocrisy of O'Day and Boston Globe

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2010/10/sundays-word-fragile.html

Starting with the "Sunday Word."

Later today: Part One: Exposing the arguments of the O'Day Letter. Look for it.

[blukeys]

Well LFN I do look forward to reading it when it comes up but I think we have exposed some of the hyopocrisy here already.

My favorite O'day hypocrisy is his complaint about how badly the playoffs are financially for the NCAA and the schools. Yet he votes to expand the playoffs.

It reminds me of the watermelon farmer for whom it cost him a dollar to raise each watermelon. He sold the watermelons at market for a dollar and couldn't figure out why he was losing money. He finally figured out he needed a bigger truck.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Here it is. Enjoy. Warning - it's extremely long.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2010/10/fragile-college-football-montana-and.html

You forgot the fact that Missoula was supposed to host the championship game instead of Frisco, too. But point extremely well taken.

[DFW HOYA]

Well done.

The problem with the title game is not the location but the date. Extending it to early January puts it in competition with bowl games and with NCAA basketball. The game could very well fall down to ESPN2 or ESPNU as a result. I wasn't a fan of a Friday night game, but even a Saturday in mid-December provides visibility before the onmipresent bowl situation takes over.

And going forward, ESPN will soon have broadcast rights for 32 of 34 bowls going forward (all but the Sun Bowl and Jerry Bowl....er, "The Cotton Bowl That Isn't In The Cotton Bowl.") Where will the Worldwide Leader find room for the I-AA game? Probably at the back of the pack.

[TokyoGriz]

The author of your article certainly has no agenda does he.



Overall, though, it causes the lies - on both extremes - that people spit out about FCS football to be repeated and swallowed as fact.

In a "fragile" world, it's up to people like me to set the record straight. In a world of lunacy, I see that it's up to one person - me - to tell the truth and to expose all the idiocy surrounding me. Fox won't do it. ESPN won't do it. So I will have to.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2010/10/sundays-word-fragile.html


Sorry but this entire statement pretty much invalidates whatever he is about to spew out IMO. He is not presenting himself as a neutral party interested in exposing the truth here. Rather amatuer news writer who wants to get others to share his views.

[youwouldno]

Very good article. One thing I disagree with partially-- the problems at the mid-major FBS level are not necessarily good news for FCS. While it is not technically a business, the fact is that NCAA football is a business. So the NCAA's decisions in this regard should be evaluated as if it were the NFL or a professional league. So the question is- what kind of structural changes would be best for business?

Clearly, FCS is a not a money-maker. But the NCAA can't justify canning the FCS post-season and having the subdivision play for nothing. Meanwhile the weaker FBS programs are hurting financially. The easiest move from the NCAA's perspective would be to merge all scholarship football into FBS and reduce the requirements (maybe maintaining a middle ground level for bowl eligibility- say 70-75 schollies).

Thus, the UL-M's of the world can cut costs without any punitive measures being taken. The NCAA gets out of any money-losing in the post-season, as that burden is shifted to programs who accept bids to crappy bowl games. It also increases the appearance of parity (as with NCAA basketball) though of course this is an illusion.

[aceinthehole]

Sorry but this entire statement pretty much invalidates whatever he is about to spew out IMO. He is not presenting himself as a neutral party interested in exposing the truth here. Rather amatuer news writer who wants to get others to share his views.

xnodx xthumbsupx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Sorry but this entire statement pretty much invalidates whatever he is about to spew out IMO. He is not presenting himself as a neutral party interested in exposing the truth here. Rather amatuer news writer who wants to get others to share his views.


xnodx xthumbsupx

What are you guys, then, doing on here?

[grizfan86]

Well, the writer of this certainly has his own biases, just like O'Day does. Thats alright, but he opened himself up to the same scrutiny O'Day did, and believe me he opened up a can of worms. Griz fans are numerous and vocal. He better get ready. I'm just going to have my little say once and then watch the show. Please note that I personally am opposed to moving up unless the opportunity came for a move to a much better conference then the WAC, and that opportunity may never come.

I'm not interested in the stated finances of the WAC and all the info on the Humanitarian bowl. It seems pretty well researched and presented on the surface, and I don't care enough to check myself. But a few things I do know and would like to comment on. How can the author poo poo our ADs info on the financing of the FCS playoffs, and get on a high horse about how the NCAA isn't in this for profit, but at the same time tell us how bad of a deal the Humanitarian bowl is. Whether it is the NCAA losing money or the Bowls trying to make money makes no difference to the schools paying for it. A raw deal is a raw deal in either situation.

The authors solution for fixing our money crunch is laughable and simplistic. Just raise ticket prices $2 and raise student fees!! Sounds like what our Government does to us. Think about it, you would have to keep raising that ticket price every year. People will be priced out of it pretty quickly. Students vote on athletic fees, and they aren't going to vote for an increase every year. That was stupid and simplistic.

Here is my favorite: "But they could get an away game vs. Boise tomorow - and get a guarantee to balance the books - should Montana choose." That shows a lack of knowledge of our situation. There is no way Boise can give us a guarantee that would match what we make for a home game, even if it is a DII school that we pay a guarantee to. The Griz are playing at Tennessee next year and will make less money than if we had a home game. That is also assuming Boise would make the offer. There is a lot of history between Montana and Boise that the author doesn't understand. O'Day isn't exagerating when he says the UM has a hard time scheduling money games. Teams don't want to play us, and they can't guarantee us enough to make it worth it.

"But O'Day's move seems more driven out of spite than anything else: Missoula was in the bidding to be the site of the FCS National Championship game this Spring, when it was announced they lost the bid to Frisco." Now there is a pure op-ed statement. We will leave because we lost the bid to host the NC game? Come on!! O'day isn't a tempermental guy, and he knew all along they would never grant the game to us.

Like I said, they guy has every right to have his say, but it was just as biased and deserving of criticism as O'days personal email to an aquaintance. This guy knew people were going to read it.

[grizfan86]

Oh yeah, forgot to mention. Anyone who is interested in info on Boise's days in the Big Sky and the history they have with UM and Idaho should google the legendary coach Pokey Allens name. Has nothing to do with this whole discussion, but this is an interesting guy. I think there is a book about him too, not sure if it's an autobiography or not.

[TokyoGriz]

What are you guys, then, doing on here?

Because your article is about our Football program.

Pokey Allen was the stuff of legend. Montana has a great history with Idaho. I look forward to watching us play them again. Idaho does need to upgrade their stadium still however.

[aceinthehole]

What are you guys, then, doing on here?

Sorry LFN. You have a nice blog and make many interesting posts, but the entire tone and summary wouldn't get past an editor at any 'mainstream' sports publisher. Your counterarguments make fine personal opinion, but let's not call it journalism backed by in-depth research - that's all. You didn't 'expose' anything. xtwocentsx

My entries here and there are just that - a fan with some insight and opinions, nothing more.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Sorry LFN. You have a nice blog and make many interesting posts, but the entire tone and summary wouldn't get past an editor at any 'mainstream' sports publisher. Your counterarguments make fine personal opinion, but let's not call it journalism backed by in-depth research - that's all. You didn't 'expose' anything. xtwocentsx

My entries here and there are just that - a fan with some insight and opinions, nothing more.

That's fair. It's my opinion, backed by facts (and better ones, IMNSHO, than Mr. O'Day's). But perhaps the fact that this wouldn't get past any "mainstream" sports publisher is the point.

[Green26]

The article is terrific. Well-written and well-researched. The article hits the nail on the head time and time again. You provided specifics as to why the ncaa, FCS conferences and the Big Sky are so irked irked with what O'Day so inartfully said. One very minor comment. I can't imagine O'Day said or did any of this because Missoula didn't get the championship game bid.

[TokyoGriz]

He did it out of spite according to the "well written and well reasearched article".




"But O'Day's move seems more driven out of spite than anything else: Missoula was in the bidding to be the site of the FCS National Championship game this Spring, when it was announced they lost the bid to Frisco."

The article is really belongs in the opinion section of a newspaper. Everyones entitled to a view, just dont try to present this as actual newsworthy material. He stated he is trying to trump FOX news with his insightful take on things. Guess hes showed them. lol.

[aceinthehole]

The article is terrific. Well-written and well-researched. The article hits the nail on the head time and time again. You provided specifics as to why the ncaa, FCS conferences and the Big Sky are so irked irked with what O'Day so inartfully said. One very minor comment. I can't imagine O'Day said or did any of this because Missoula didn't get the championship game bid.

That's my point. LFN wrote a long winded piece without an overall theme or conclusion. He uses random 'facts' to support his own opinion and is trying to assign some reasoning to Mr. O'Day's comments. He is crossing the line of 'reporting' and is presenting his view as a finding.

For the record, LFN's blog is just that - opinion. I agree with him often, and disagree with him just as much. My point was he (and his readers) shouldn't present this as anything more than a personal opinion supported by circumstantial facts.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Three things:

1) The facts may be "circumstantial", but I think they are pretty compelling. I stand by them all.

2) Until Missoula lost the bid to host the championship game, all of Mr. O'Day's press clippings were "pro-playoffs" - and even pro-expansion of the playoffs. Now he's changed his tune in the last nine months, and this means nothing? This shouldn't be reported? Perhaps that's what's wrong with some newspapers today. They're unwilling - or afraid to - connect the dots.

3) I love eGriz. That's a quote.

[aceinthehole]

Three things:

1) The facts may be "circumstantial", but I think they are pretty compelling. I stand by them all.

2) Until Missoula lost the bid to host the championship game, all of Mr. O'Day's press clippings were "pro-playoffs" - and even pro-expansion of the playoffs. Now he's changed his tune in the last nine months, and this means nothing? This shouldn't be reported? Perhaps that's what's wrong with some newspapers today. They're unwilling - or afraid to - connect the dots.

3) I love eGriz. That's a quote.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

How did you "prove" this causation between the playoff bid and Mr. O'Day's "change of tune?" Can it just be a coincidence or just an unrelated observation?

Remember, correlation alone does not imply causation. I would be very careful before making 'factual' assumptions about the motives of any individual. You are very presumptive in your posting and seem to imply that your observations and assumptions are ‘facts.’

IMO, you presented an alternative perspective on the issue, based on your own predispositions. It is a legitimate, albiet long-winded, opinion piece.

[Green26]

That's my point. LFN wrote a long winded piece without an overall theme or conclusion. He uses random 'facts' to support his own opinion and is trying to assign some reasoning to Mr. O'Day's comments. He is crossing the line of 'reporting' and is presenting his view as a finding.

For the record, LFN's blog is just that - opinion. I agree with him often, and disagree with him just as much. My point was he (and his readers) shouldn't present this as anything more than a personal opinion supported by circumstantial facts.

I follow the issue and UM athletics closely. I found the LFN article to be very accurate and very information, with that one exception. It counters the information in O'Day's article very well, specifically and point by point.
s

[nwFL Griz]

Also, the WAC is not suing Nevada and Fresno St for $5 million to keep them in the conference in 2011. You are confusing two seperate issues.

The WAC is suing Nevada, Fresno St and the MWC to prevent Nevada and Fresno from leaving until 2012, based on not meeting the June 30 date the the WAC by-laws state is the date required in order to be effective the following July 1.

The $5 million is a seperate issue, brought about by the "agreement" made by the WAC schools and BYU, that none of them would enter a different conference within 5 years of signing the deal, enforced by a $5 million penalty. Both schools were given notice that payment is due with 60 days of Aug 18 (or so), which still has a couple of weeks to go. Expect to see a settlement of some sort, or another (seperate) lawsuit.

[Green26]

Three things:

1) The facts may be "circumstantial", but I think they are pretty compelling. I stand by them all.

2) Until Missoula lost the bid to host the championship game, all of Mr. O'Day's press clippings were "pro-playoffs" - and even pro-expansion of the playoffs. Now he's changed his tune in the last nine months, and this means nothing? This shouldn't be reported? Perhaps that's what's wrong with some newspapers today. They're unwilling - or afraid to - connect the dots.

3) I love eGriz. That's a quote.

Again, it's fine to point out O'Day's supposed change in view and timing, but I don't think you should overemphasize it. I don't think O'Day cared much about the championship bid or expected to get it. I always wondered if he was using it to rally support to finance the new locker and weight rooms for UM football. New locker rooms, for home and visitor, would have been required to fulfill the bid. Again, outstanding article. I was impressed, and impressed that you could get it done so quickly. Must have taken considerable work.

[Green26]

Also, the WAC is not suing Nevada and Fresno St for $5 million to keep them in the conference in 2011. You are confusing two seperate issues.

The WAC is suing Nevada, Fresno St and the MWC to prevent Nevada and Fresno from leaving until 2012, based on not meeting the June 30 date the the WAC by-laws state is the date required in order to be effective the following July 1.

The $5 million is a seperate issue, brought about by the "agreement" made by the WAC schools and BYU, that none of them would enter a different conference within 5 years of signing the deal, enforced by a $5 million penalty. Both schools were given notice that payment is due with 60 days of Aug 18 (or so), which still has a couple of weeks to go.

Correct. However, if the first lawsuit is won by the WAC, or gets settled, then the exit fee issue pretty much goes away. I believe there are strong defenses to both claims, but I also think the matter will be settle. It's in the interest of both sides to do so. The exit fee "agreement" was only in place a number days, literally, before Nevada and Fresno decided to depart. It was apparently an oral "agreement" followed up by a MOU, which neither Nevada or La Tech signed. The obviously defense to the exit fee is that it was fraudulently induced (legal term, but doesn't have to be true fraud; more like the conference told the teams X, we agreed to the exit fee, and what the conference told us turned out not to be true). Another defense is that it was intended to be effective when all conference schools signed it, and 2 didn't. Regarding the suit about the timing of the notice, I'm not sure giving notice 6 weeks too late is what will cause the damage to the conference. It's Boise's departure and the fact that two more schools are departing. Giving slightly late notice isn't what caused or will cause the damage.

[Green26]

That's fair. It's my opinion, backed by facts (and better ones, IMNSHO, than Mr. O'Day's). But perhaps the fact that this wouldn't get past any "mainstream" sports publisher is the point.

O'Day's email is similar. Opinion, backed by only some facts. Some, like you, think much of what he said or alluded to is not accurate. I assume the ncaa and various FCS conferences agree more with you.

[WestCoastAggie]

I don't know if any of you looked at this but this is the Financial Analysis of the Division 1 Championships for the 2008-2009 year:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/3c9398804e0d53f99debfd1ad6fc8b25/Copy+of+Copy+of+Div1_2009_MotherSummarySS+%282%29. pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=3c9398804e0d53f99debfd1ad6fc8b25

According to that document, the D-1 Football Playoffs lost $307,929. It is very plausible that the Playoffs lost $500,000 during the 2009-2010 and as a grand total amount for the 2008-2009 year, the NCAA lost $5,459,321 on their D-1 Championships.

As LFN said, the playoffs aren't here to turn a profit but with the way the current economy is and the fact that there will be future economic turmoil, the NCAA must look into ways to fix its system. only 3 sports championships were in the black on the balance sheet.

I have to ask this again: why hasn't the NCAA figured out a TV package to sell to the networks to finance the playoffs and schools can keep more money in their Athletic Budgets? Schools in the NEC, Big South and especially the MEAC need money in their budgets and yes teams are reimbursed for their travel but there is really no other incentive to even create an adequate football environment to fund football so it can compete with the other Conferences in FCS without losing even more money and requiring even more direct institutional assistance.

xtwocentsx

[nwFL Griz]

Correct. However, if the first lawsuit is won by the WAC, or gets settled, then the exit fee issue pretty much goes away. I believe there are strong defenses to both claims, but I also think the matter will be settle. It's in the interest of both sides to do so. The exit fee "agreement" was only in place a number days, literally, before Nevada and Fresno decided to depart. It was apparently an oral "agreement" followed up by a MOU, which neither Nevada or La Tech signed. The obviously defense to the exit fee is that it was fraudulently induced (legal term, but doesn't have to be true fraud; more like the conference told the teams X, we agreed to the exit fee, and what the conference told us turned out not to be true). Another defense is that it was intended to be effective when all conference schools signed it, and 2 didn't. Regarding the suit about the timing of the notice, I'm not sure giving notice 6 weeks too late is what will cause the damage to the conference. It's Boise's departure and the fact that two more schools are departing. Giving slightly late notice isn't what caused or will cause the damage.

I also believe the matter will settle, like you say because it is in everyone's issue to do so. As far as the defense of the exit fee, there are several paths, including a provision that reads to me like the whole thing is null if BYU doesn't enter into an agreement by Sep 1 (they didn't). However LaTech didn't sign because they were specifically excluded, because they have stated for years their desire to join a more regional conference. Nevada not signing could be an issue, since there are several witnesses claiming they agreed verbally.

I disagree that the late notice isn't what could cause the damage (at least as far as the WAC is concerned), however there are ways around the "damages" they claim. First, Boise departing is irrelevant. While the marquee team of the WAC, Boise departing doesn't really matter, they gave proper notice and are no longer a voting member. Fresno and Nevada leaving for 2011 causes a couple of problems.

First, the WAC would no longer have the minimum number of members to count as an FBS conference (8). Pushing their departure off to 2012 gives the WAC time to get new members, which is the reason for the rush to add UM, TxSt, UTSA. I think this could be waived by the NCAA, but I don't know for sure if they would. The survival of a western conference would be in everyone's best interest, so I would think this waiver would be approved.

Second, the departure of UNR and FSU, at this late hour, would make it very difficult for the remaining WAC members to fill a schedule for 2011. This can be easily overcome with a little cooperation between the remaining WAC and MWC members. But there are a lot of hurt feelings and bruised egos, so cooler heads may not prevail here. But this is the premise of the lawsuit, anyhow.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Part 2 (of 2) is out: Northeastern Engaging in some revisionist history, too:

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2010/10/fragile-college-football-life-after.html

Enjoy.

[Green26]

I also believe the matter will settle, like you say because it is in everyone's issue to do so. As far as the defense of the exit fee, there are several paths, including a provision that reads to me like the whole thing is null if BYU doesn't enter into an agreement by Sep 1 (they didn't). However LaTech didn't sign because they were specifically excluded, because they have stated for years their desire to join a more regional conference. Nevada not signing could be an issue, since there are several witnesses claiming they agreed verbally.

I disagree that the late notice isn't what could cause the damage (at least as far as the WAC is concerned), however there are ways around the "damages" they claim. First, Boise departing is irrelevant. While the marquee team of the WAC, Boise departing doesn't really matter, they gave proper notice and are no longer a voting member. Fresno and Nevada leaving for 2011 causes a couple of problems.

First, the WAC would no longer have the minimum number of members to count as an FBS conference (8). Pushing their departure off to 2012 gives the WAC time to get new members, which is the reason for the rush to add UM, TxSt, UTSA. I think this could be waived by the NCAA, but I don't know for sure if they would. The survival of a western conference would be in everyone's best interest, so I would think this waiver would be approved.

Second, the departure of UNR and FSU, at this late hour, would make it very difficult for the remaining WAC members to fill a schedule for 2011. This can be easily overcome with a little cooperation between the remaining WAC and MWC members. But there are a lot of hurt feelings and bruised egos, so cooler heads may not prevail here. But this is the premise of the lawsuit, anyhow.

Do you have a copy of the provision? I have not seen it.

How could 6 weeks have caused much damage? The main damage would be caused by the teams leaving.

On the 6 team thing, the WAC is going to replace teams, even if they're with bad teams, and have 6.

It's tough to prove a verbal agreement. Also, I believe the allegation is that the Nevada president agreed. His testimony in court would like be well-received. Are others going to call him a liar?

Boise's leaving is what will cause the most damage to the WAC. I think it would be hard to sort out which damage was caused by what.

MOU's are not necessarily easy to enforce, because many people treat the like they are not a real contract. I can argue this issue both ways.

I'm not so sure that a liquidation clause in effect for less than a week is something that a good trial lawyer can't a jury to ignore.

I don't agree that 6 weeks less notice is what will cause teams to have a hard time filling their schedule. Are they mitigating their damages now? They are probably sitting around, because the WAC lawsuit makes it difficult to be believed that they want to fill their schedule.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So Aoun now is holding himself up as a president to be admired after dropping football? Looks like Aoun was as much of a weasel as Rabinowitz if true. He was just a lot, lot quieter about it.

[UAalum72]

Today's Globe has a story on the benefits of (re)starting football at New Haven and Anna Maria
http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/football/articles/2010/10/06/football_playing_schools_cite_image_revenue/

[Lehigh Football Nation]

With significantly less money invested, the financial risk-reward calculation favors new Division 2 and 3 programs more than it does new teams in the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly 1-AA).

New Haven studied the feasibility of moving up to FCS play, but Chin determined the school was too small with its 3,700 students to make the jump to the bigger, costlier business model. While FCS teams spend $3 million to $5 million annually on football, Division 2 schools pay approximately $1 million to $1.5 million, according to data gathered from multiple reports and school administrators. Without scholarships, Division 3 expenses run roughly $200,000 to $400,000. Anna Maria paid $350,000 in start-up costs, not including facilities. Annual operating costs are now $250,000.

“Football is one of our highest profit centers as a program,’’ said Calareso.

Same fuzzy math. Same incorrect accounting of scholarship money. Same idiotic accounting of making football a "risk/reward" calculation. Complete ignorance over financial guarantees and how they can help balance the books. Same moronic idea that football has to "make money" to be worthwhile.

Same old ****.


Prior to dropping football, as an independent Division 2 team, New Haven was flying all over — Oregon, California, and Texas every fall for away games. Travel costs and scheduling difficulties forced the university to find a conference close to home before it could resurrect football. But its determination to have football never wavered.

“Nothing against soccer, but when you had homecoming around football games for your whole history, then you try to have homecoming at a soccer game, it’s just not the same,’’ said Chin. “Our students were supportive of bringing football back and our alums were clamoring for it.’’

Chin added that New Haven saw a dramatic drop in alumni support after the school discontinued football and a big boost when it returned, including a roughly $1 million gift for improvements to 3,500-seat Ralph F. DellaCamera Stadium. Home games typically attract 2,500 to 3,000 fans, a mix of students, alumni, and unaffiliated New Haven residents.

The real dope: New Haven dropped D-II football because it was too much of a loss leader when they had to travel all over the country to play and had a rough time scheduling. Now, in the NE-10, they play more locally. It has nothing to do with scholarships, FCS football or anything else.

The other two highlighted paragraphs, buried below the financial bull****, are actually much more pertinent.

[nwFL Griz]

Do you have a copy of the provision? I have not seen it.

How could 6 weeks have caused much damage? The main damage would be caused by the teams leaving.

On the 6 team thing, the WAC is going to replace teams, even if they're with bad teams, and have 6.

It's tough to prove a verbal agreement. Also, I believe the allegation is that the Nevada president agreed. His testimony in court would like be well-received. Are others going to call him a liar?

Boise's leaving is what will cause the most damage to the WAC. I think it would be hard to sort out which damage was caused by what.

MOU's are not necessarily easy to enforce, because many people treat the like they are not a real contract. I can argue this issue both ways.

I'm not so sure that a liquidation clause in effect for less than a week is something that a good trial lawyer can't a jury to ignore.

I don't agree that 6 weeks less notice is what will cause teams to have a hard time filling their schedule. Are they mitigating their damages now? They are probably sitting around, because the WAC lawsuit makes it difficult to be believed that they want to fill their schedule.

Here's a link to the WAC-BYU agreement: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/50160538-77/wac-resolution-byu-state.html.csp

The damage caused by leaving late is purely about 2011 schedules (as per Benson). I don't agree with him, as I said, this could easily be solved. While most FBS teams have filled schedules for 2011, there are some who have cancelled games due to the Big12 going to 9 games, and whatever happens with the MWC schedule.

The WAC having 6 teams is not the issue. To be an FBS conference, you must have 8 teams. 6 for all other sports, including b-ball (to keep the auto bid, is the 5/6/7 rule).

Again, Boise leaving is not an issue. Yes it would cause the most damage, but the WAC agreed to let them go and are not pursuing anything against Boise.

I'm with you on the "agreement"...i'm no lawyer, but seems to me, a good one could shoot holes in that thing.

[Dane96]

Out of curiousity, I am wondering how many practicing contract and complex commerical litigation attorneys are in this thread; from what I have seen...the application of legal principles as they would be used in the realworld are mindblowingly broad (and to my office mate laughable...especially regarding liquidated damage provisions, verbal agreements, the mechanics of settlement negotiations, MOU's, fraud in the inducement and damages).xeyebrowx