Difficult to Validate West Virginia's Allegations Against Big East

Since Wednesday evening, the West Virginia University Mountaineers have been the sweethearts of college football, and rightfully so.  They went into the Orange Bowl game against Clemson as a three-point underdog, and three hours later emerged with a 70-33 win.

With their high-flying style of play, they proved they're one of the best teams in the country and are set to attract more of the country's fastest and best football talents.

But this historic win, any other favorable publicity, and as many times AD Oliver Luck tells the press the Mountaineers are playing in the Big 12 in 2012, will not make it any easier to validate what clearly appear to be bogus allegations they have leveled against the Big East Conference, and especially its commissioner John Marinatto.

In what appears to be a power play to enable the Mountaineers to leave the Big East for the Big 12 for next football season, WVU has filed a suit in which they claim the following:

The conference stood by and allowed Pitt, Syracuse and TCU to leave and failed to maintain the quality of competition. 

They claim the conference was going to lose its automatic BCS bid, and they pointed toward TCU not being held to the 27-month waiting period, as a reason they should get out of their contract with the Big East. 

And WVU also claims the Big East's acceptance of $2.5 million (half the exit fee) from WVU officially ended the contract they had with the Big East.

Some WVU fans don't get it.

A lot of the WVU fanbase has pointed to the allegations listed above and have used them as reason for WVU to be able to join the Big 12 in time for the 2012 football season without repercussion.

Marinatto has made it clear he will not let the Mountaineers out of their contract, and he has filed suit in a Rhode Island court to ensure they remain in the conference until 2014.

Marinatto reminds us that Pitt and Syracuse, two other schools planning on leaving the Big East, will honor their contracts and remain until the 27-month waiting period is over.

Maybe the following will help Mountaineer fans understand the situation better:

Imagine, there was a group of eight partners that owned equal shares in a race horse. 

Whenever a partner left the group in the past it caused financial havoc for the remaining partners.  Thus, the eight partners agreed that in the future, if a partner wanted to leave, it had to pay an exit fee and give the group a 27-month notice, so the group would have time to replace it.

Seven years after the agreement was signed, the group added a ninth partner.  This partner would participate in the racing the following year.

Five months after the ninth partner joined the group, two of the partners who signed the exit agreement announced they would be leaving after they paid their exit fees, and honored the 27-month waiting period.

When the ninth partner heard about the two partners leaving, it feared that other partners might leave and it felt it was in its best interest to petition the group to leave immediately.

The six remaining partners, through their elected leader, felt it was only fair to honor the ninth partner's request, and they graciously accepted the ninth partner's offer to pay the exit fee.

One month later, one of the six remaining partners decided it wanted to leave and agreed to pay the exit fee, but announced it would not wait 27 months---it wanted to leave immediately.

This departing partner addressed the remaining five partners and said "you let the ninth partner leave early, why can't I?"

The remaining five partners, through their elected leader, told the departing partner they would not let it leave early.

To the departing partner, the five remaining partners said, "we let the ninth partner leave because it was the honorable thing to do.  You've been a partner for a long time and have seen over 200 races, and have profited from them.  The ninth member has not witnessed one race."

They continued to the departing member, "with two members leaving in 27 months, we failed to represent what we promised the ninth member.  This new member can't be expected to be held to the same standards as you and the rest of us.

The departing member then told the group, "but you didn't honor the contract; you haven't treated me fairly."

The five remaining members said to the departing member, "why can't you honor the agreement like the other two long-term partners plan on doing?"

They went on to ask the departing member, "is it because you have an offer to join another syndicate and they said they'd only let you join if you joined immediately?"

The departing member said, "no, that's not it at all, I feel you haven't been fair to me.  I believe I have the right to leave now, even though I signed the exit agreement."

WVU's hypocrisy

While West Virginia claims the Big East stood by and let Pitt, Syracuse, and TCU leave, we all know that is not the case.

The conference had taken steps to increase its membership with the addition of a ninth team, TCU. While Marinatto made it clear he was looking to add more teams, Pitt and Syracuse secretly accepted offers to join the ACC.

TCU became concerned and paid the $5 million exit fee and petitioned to leave immediately.  The conference agreed.

So what does WVU do?  They announce they had accepted an offer to join the Big 12 and would not be honoring the Big East's 27 month waiting period.

They decide to join the Big 12, and what are they saying about this conference?  Are they saying they stood by and allowed Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A & M, and Missouri to leave for the PAC 12, Big Ten and SEC?

Of course they aren't!

The allegation that the Big East stood by and allowed three of its members to leave, and the other allegations WVU has claimed, seem to nothing more than cooked-up reasons WVU plans on using to pressure the Big East into letting them break their contract, which they help to author and signed with seven other Big East members in 2004.

Wednesday night's win over Clemson sure put WVU in a good light with fans around the country, but it's not going to help them get out of a legal contract unless the court rules in their favor.

And we all know that is not about to happen.