I still think that's an overreaction. By all means, if you want to root against them because of it, I think that's totally fair. I never really cared one way or another about Nevada until they injured EC and then decided not to play us. I 100% root against them all the time now. But I think that's about as far as it should go. I'm not really sure what RF1 means with things like "Not enough bad things can happen to Musselman and Nevada for me" or calling this post game incident "karma" or "reaping what you sow". I also suspect he/she will never explain any further because its kind of their move to whine about everything with no actual reasoning provided other then wanting to be angry about everything.TruePoint wrote: ↑5 years agoI think precisely because it is so unheard of. We didn’t worry a lot about the buyout because there was no expectation that it would ever be used. It’s like not signing a prenup in a marriage and then getting your clock cleaned. Even then, a divorce is a much more foreseeable outcome. The reason why it’s so bad is because it is a flagrant violation of trust. It’s the equivalent of a friend blowing up a handshake agreement and telling the other guy he should have had it reduced to writing. To me, it’s as dishonorable a thing as I can imagine.adam914 wrote: ↑5 years ago If it’s so disgraceful why did we allow it in the contract in the first place? It’s a silly thing to be so angry about anyway, but if the anger is justified then I still think it is misplaced here. You can’t willfully give someone an out and then stomp your feet when they take it.
I also think that saying its a "flagrant violation of trust" or the analogy to a handshake agreement with a friend is an overreaction. There are no friends in this business unless you are talking about guys who have some kind of legit connection like they used to coach together or something like that. The prenup analogy also makes no sense to me. We did sign a prenup, it was a $50k buyout to protect ourselves if they didn't want to play. So when they did "divorce" us (sticking with the prenup theme here), we at least got something out of it. Nevada agreed to a contract and so did we, and nothing in the contract was broken.
The general reaction about this whole deal is what I would expect if Nevada backed out and then refused to pay the money. Then this would all make total sense to me. But the contract had two options. Play the game or pay the money. They paid the money, therefore they fulfilled their end of the obligation. Not in the way we as fans would have liked, but they still fulfilled the obligation.
