- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,578
- Reaction Score
- 16,671
Not exactly.So… no ascertainable damages.
Not exactly.So… no ascertainable damages.
Yeah pretty much.Not exactly.
Nope. There are wrongful acts which are grounded in legally recognizable causes of action and damages are intended to compensate for loss or injury which arises from it. Your question was whether damages are ascertainable ( i.e., whether damages are quantifiable or calculable). If the harm is calculable on a reasonable economic basis, as has been done in many tortious interference and unfair trade practices cases, then it is a ascertainable. Provable is a different animal. Provable means whether it can be established by a preponderance of the evidence that the loss or harm as alleged was proximately caused by the wrongful act. You can’t conflate the two. Also, in cases where damages are difficult to calculate equitable relief is available in the form of injunctions.Yeah pretty much.
You are missing the point. Bowlsby said he had evidence of one more attempts by ESPN to get members schools to leave after OU and Texas. No schools left. How was the Big 12 damaged by the alleged tampering? You still haven't answered that question.Nope. There are wrongful acts which are grounded in legally recognizable causes of action and damages are intended to compensate for loss or injury which arises from it. Your question was whether damages are ascertainable ( i.e., whether damages are quantifiable or calculable). If the harm is calculable on a reasonable economic basis, as has been done in many tortious interference and unfair trade practices cases, then it is a ascertainable. Provable is a different animal. Provable means whether it can be established by a preponderance of the evidence that the loss or harm as alleged was proximately caused by the wrongful act. You can’t conflate the two. Also, in cases where damages are difficult to calculate equitable relief is available in the form of injunctions.
i give.You are missing the point. Bowlsby said he had evidence of one more attempts by ESPN to get members schools to leave after OU and Texas. No schools left. How was the Big 12 damaged by the alleged tampering? You still haven't answered that question.
I don't, at least for the B1G, but do for the ACC.If Clemson and FSU or ND join the SEC, that pretty much forces the B1G to expand. I like our chances if that happens.
End of the day, if ACC schools could move, would they move? In 15 years, will the ACC teams be the same as we see today? How long can the top ACC schools afford to get paid less than peer schools?I don't, at least for the B1G, but do for the ACC.
Personally, I'd like to see FSU and Clemson leave, not only because it creates a potential opening for UConn but because I'd like to see the efficacy of GORs established. That litigation would be a popcorn moment of a sort since it is underpinning the stability of conferences right now.
Let's say both conference came calling, B1G moves the arrow for more fan interest. Outside of UNC and Duke they're a pretty lackluster basketball conference as of late. B1G is better across the board in all sports. PLus it's significantly more money. I'd rather see UConn play Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana, Illinois and Purdue every year than Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, Pitt and tobacco road.I don't, at least for the B1G, but do for the ACC.
Personally, I'd like to see FSU and Clemson leave, not only because it creates a potential opening for UConn but because I'd like to see the efficacy of GORs established. That litigation would be a popcorn moment of a sort since it is underpinning the stability of conferences right now.
I would rather be in the Big 10 both for money, but mostly for the stability, since I think they will be one the last conferences standing. I do, however, think that the fact that we are not AAU makes it unlikely that we would get an invite from the B1G.Let's say both conference came calling, B1G moves the arrow for more fan interest. Outside of UNC and Duke they're a pretty lackluster basketball conference as of late. B1G is better across the board in all sports. PLus it's significantly more money. I'd rather see UConn play Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana, Illinois and Purdue every year than Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, Pitt and tobacco road.
Big10, no question.Let's say both conference came calling, B1G moves the arrow for more fan interest. Outside of UNC and Duke they're a pretty lackluster basketball conference as of late. B1G is better across the board in all sports. PLus it's significantly more money. I'd rather see UConn play Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana, Illinois and Purdue every year than Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, Pitt and tobacco road.
The SEC moves (UT, OU, FSU, Clemson) make sense geographically with mostly contiguous states. It doesn't seem to make sense from a geography perspective that the BIG 10 add PAC 12 teams. It would seem that they would potentially look to UVa, UNC, if the ACC loses FSU and Clemson. Maybe even UConn to lock up the full NE quadrant.BiG has to go PAC next. I would think 2 or 4 with USC being one of them.
Agreed. Thinking back to all the marketing that was done by BXII candidates 5 years ago, it definitely does not feel like it.They certainly aren’t acting like a school imminently getting invited. Especially with that Twitter post trying to advertise themselves.
Agreed. Thinking back to all the marketing that was done by BXII candidates 5 years ago, it definitely does not feel like it.
To be honest, I question Vernon's credibility since he seems to have crossed over from journalist to fan on this topic.
You aren't sending tweets out like this if you are speaking with sources that can confirm something is happening. It reads like a Boneyard post.
I could be wrong and he does have something on this but it feels off.
Thanks for the refresher. Conjecture is not proof.Well, you asked how to calculate damages, and I told you. Tortious interference is not hard to prove. The elements are: (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract between plaintiff and another (yes); (2) defendant’s awareness of the contractual relationship )yes); (3) defendant’s intentional and unjustified inducement of a breach of the contract (alleged by Big12 ); (4) a breach by the other party caused by defendant’s wrongful conduct (not yet ripe), but ; and (5) damages ( seems eminently provable). ESPN would want to hang their hat on No. 4, which is why Texas and OU have publicly said they are sticking around through end of term. The OSU situation appears to another case, which in concert with the Texas and OU situation, raise the question whether there is a potential RICO case. Beyond tortuous interference, claims based upon unfair trade practices and fraud in the inducement (possibly going back to ESPN paying up to dissuade the Big12 from expanding ) might also be in play. Obviously, until more info is known, it is difficult to say ESPN did something wrongful, though the optics do not look great.
True. The optics don’t look great, but ESPN has done nothing wrong unless it can be proven. I find it hard to believe they were not disciplined enough to stay within their right to commence negotiations about matters outside the term of the contract in effect. Their lawyers are too good to let that happen.Thanks for the refresher. Conjecture is not proof.
True. The optics don’t look great, but ESPN has done nothing wrong unless it can be proven. I find it hard to believe they were not disciplined enough to stay within their right to commence negotiations about matters outside the term of the contract in effect. Their lawyers are too good to let that happen.