It all comes down to Oklahoma

[brasssbonanzaa]

Does any of this B12 noise really matter? To me, this is merely background noise. Regardless of what the B12 does together or individually, seismic change is coming. Sometime in the very near future we will be left w/4 superconferences, each consisting of 16 teams. The facts point to certain BCS schools utimately finding themselves on the outside looking in. Baylor knows it, the entire dialog is simply a way for them to TRY and create leverage to find themselves among the final 64. They will likely fall short.

To me, the question is what is the BE or UConn planning to do to protect themsleves. Of course, if a school like KU refuses to sign off on A&M leaving, it makes it hard for them to engage in a dialog w/any conference, including the BE. Regardless, the B12 is likely done - the fact they stayed together last year was a minor miracle. But no conference can persist as a collective when one member has its own set of rules. Ignore the smokescreen that is Baylor and focus on the critical issue - how does UConn guarnatee itself a seat at the adult's table. Our day of reckoning will soon be here.

Everyone is looking out for themselves, so while KU may not be signing off on this waiver - no school would be wise to sign something so ridiculous as that - it does not at all mean they're not having off the record hypothetical discussions with other conferences. You can bet that just about every school in the Big 12 is having these conversations elsewhere.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It is certainly possible the SEC knows facts that I don't. I'm only commenting on the law based on the facts as they are being reported.

If, e.g., the issue is that the schools individually (as opposed to the conference) signed a TV contract that didn't let them walk by fulfilling their obligations under the conference documents, that would be such a fact. Although it would be a duck* up by the lawyers of mammoth proportions (and one I'm hard pressed to believe happened because everyone knew future departures was a possibility). We will see.

If everyone knew future departures were a possibility, then it made sense for ESPN to demand that clause. Why would the schools that were likely to be left behind allow for an easy withdrawal? This was simply belt and suspenders to the pledge of the schools to be BFFs last summer.

BYU is rumored to be joining the Big 12 as soon as Oklahoma recommits. Given that the SEC only got Texas A&M with a 10-2 vote, the Big 10 has come out publicly against expansion, and the Pac 12 presidents are rumored to only be willing to expand defensively, I don't think Oklahoma has a home. If the Pac 12 presidents are already against expansion, the threat of lawsuits from the Big 12 leftovers should be the final nail in that coffin.

 

[businesslawyer]

If everyone knew future departures were a possibility, then it made sense for ESPN to demand that clause. Why would the schools that were likely to be left behind allow for an easy withdrawal? This was simply belt and suspenders to the pledge of the schools to be BFFs last summer.

BYU is rumored to be joining the Big 12 as soon as Oklahoma recommits. Given that the SEC only got Texas A&M with a 10-2 vote, the Big 10 has come out publicly against expansion, and the Pac 12 presidents are rumored to only be willing to expand defensively, I don't think Oklahoma has a home. If the Pac 12 presidents are already against expansion, the threat of lawsuits from the Big 12 leftovers should be the final nail in that coffin.

Why wouldn't you coordinate your contracts within and without the league?

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I just read a post on a Rivals site that claims ND and Texas are in talks with the "Big Ten-leve-12?" and they have supposedly issued a list of terms and conditions to joining the conference. It was on both the ND site and the Norwestern Site. Probably more wild speculation, but who knows.

 

[businesslawyer]

It may or may not be wild speculation. But it made a lot more sense than many of the other rumors flying around.

 

[rich1122]

One for all and all for one, and every man for himself.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Why wouldn't you coordinate your contracts within and without the league?

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1913071&forum_id=5

Interesting thread discussing the lawsuit, with some lawyers who appear to have seen some of the details chiming in. They didn't coordinate the contracts because why bother? The TV contract was the operative agreement in everyone's mind, probably including A&M. It appears that withdrawal from the conference could constitute a breach of the TV agreement, based on the Aggie posters in that thread.

A year later, when A&M decides they want out, they look to the conference departure rules as the exit mechanism, despite being party to the TV agreement. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Missouri was leaving for the Big 10 or OU/OSU/Tex/TT were leaving for the Pac 12, A&M would do the same thing. The leftover schools stand to lose a ton of money because of this departure.

If I am ESPN, I want nothing to do with this move, and I would tell the SEC as much, because the TI claim is probably strongest against ESPN, since they would technically be rewarding the SEC for damaging the Big 12. ESPN has probably told the SEC that they will not provide a nickel of additional revenue without a full indemnification of any claims by the Big 12 or its members.

If that breach clause in the TV agreement is true, this is absolutely NOT a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[freescooter]

nelson/waylon
That sort of squares with something I heard last night...that the tv deal, not the conference deal would be the basis of any lawsuit. That the deal was based on all the schools, or comparable ones, being there. Basically, if you leave you need to find a comparable replacemnt. It also would make sense with the effort to bring BYU, who is clearly committed to test its independence, into the fold as a "comparable replacement."

 

[uc1974]

Lock all of the Big 12 reps in a room, give them snacks and water and don't let them out until some type of accommodation is reached.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

It is quite difficult to follow the conversations in that link as two opposing (apparantly legal) opinions have been deleted and evidently each side appears (from the fragments of the discussions) to believe they are correct. That thread appears to be little more than (extremel;y edited) speculation, something that happens on message boards everywhere. One poster did nail it when he suggested A&M spend time as an independent (and settle any and all legal actions from the B-12) and then apply for SEC admission. This would place any and all legal actions on A&M, not the SEC.

The manner in which Beebe kept the B-12(10) together last summer could easily have led the few who knew they could be left behind (Baylor, ISU, KU, KSU) to agree to almost any terms merely to remain in a BCS conference. I personally find it difficult to believe that OU (and to a lesser extent A&M, who absolutely wanted out a year ago) would be careless (and foolish) enough to leave themselves in a position where a departure would be materially different than what had been basically standard when Nebraska, Colorado or any other school that changed conferences. When settling contracts disputes, if one party can demonstrate that they acted in accordance to industry standards, there would need to be specific language against that action for it not to be viewed as acceptable. If OU, A&M, et al were this foolish (and careless), they deserve to be stuck as UT'minions.

 

[Adios]

How about UT gets sent off to Mexico?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It is quite difficult to follow the conversations in that link as two opposing (apparantly legal) opinions have been deleted and evidently each side appears (from the fragments of the discussions) to believe they are correct. That thread appears to be little more than (extremel;y edited) speculation, something that happens on message boards everywhere. One poster did nail it when he suggested A&M spend time as an independent (and settle any and all legal actions from the B-12) and then apply for SEC admission. This would place any and all legal actions on A&M, not the SEC.

The manner in which Beebe kept the B-12(10) together last summer could easily have led the few who knew they could be left behind (Baylor, ISU, KU, KSU) to agree to almost any terms merely to remain in a BCS conference. I personally find it difficult to believe that OU (and to a lesser extent A&M, who absolutely wanted out a year ago) would be careless (and foolish) enough to leave themselves in a position where a departure would be materially different than what had been basically standard when Nebraska, Colorado or any other school that changed conferences. When settling contracts disputes, if one party can demonstrate that they acted in accordance to industry standards, there would need to be specific language against that action for it not to be viewed as acceptable. If OU, A&M, et al were this foolish (and careless), they deserve to be stuck as UT'minions.

They did it because ESPN offered them a ton of money and demanded they do it. At the time of the agreement, it was portrayed as a 10 year commitment. Then A&M has a temper tantrum and goes storming off to the SEC.

 

[businesslawyer]

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1913071&forum_id=5

Interesting thread discussing the lawsuit, with some lawyers who appear to have seen some of the details chiming in. They didn't coordinate the contracts because why bother? The TV contract was the operative agreement in everyone's mind, probably including A&M. It appears that withdrawal from the conference could constitute a breach of the TV agreement, based on the Aggie posters in that thread.

A year later, when A&M decides they want out, they look to the conference departure rules as the exit mechanism, despite being party to the TV agreement. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Missouri was leaving for the Big 10 or OU/OSU/Tex/TT were leaving for the Pac 12, A&M would do the same thing. The leftover schools stand to lose a ton of money because of this departure.

If I am ESPN, I want nothing to do with this move, and I would tell the SEC as much, because the TI claim is probably strongest against ESPN, since they would technically be rewarding the SEC for damaging the Big 12. ESPN has probably told the SEC that they will not provide a nickel of additional revenue without a full indemnification of any claims by the Big 12 or its members.

If that breach clause in the TV agreement is true, this is absolutely NOT a frivolous lawsuit.

"Because why bother." I haven't read the link yet, and will, but Waylon -- that is exactly the point. The most important thing a business lawyer is taught from day one is you bother about everything, and assume any detail, no matter how small, will bight you in the rump and ruin your career if you don't deal with it. I have trouble accepting the premise (although it doesn't mean the premise isn't correct -- there seems to be more and more I don't accept these days).

 

[buckley503]

"Because why bother." I haven't read the link yet, and will, but Waylon -- that is exactly the point. The most important thing a business lawyer is taught from day one is you bother about everything, and assume any detail, no matter how small, will bight you in the rump and ruin your career if you don't deal with it. I have trouble accepting the premise (although it doesn't mean the premise isn't correct -- there seems to be more and more I don't accept these days).

And BL I say this with the utmost respect: That is why you legal guys drive us sales/business development guys crazy!!

 

[uc1974]

Talk about poisoned relationships. This mess will make the whole BC/ACC thing pale in comparison. Some have "forgiven" BCU and want an athletic relationship again. Baylor may be like Strontium 90, with a half life of 33,000 years.

 

[businesslawyer]

Having now read Waylon's linked thread, which says very little, a few thoughts.

1. I still don't see what Baylor's claim is. I find it hard to believe that the TV deal constituted an agreement by any particular school not to leave. And harder to believe that any one school would be a third party beneficiary of such an agreement, if it existed, when they were all free to leave the conference at any time by following the conditions. So I still don't get it.

2. Lawyers talk about an old gypsy curse -- may you one day be sued in a matter in which you are totally in the right. Litigation sucks, and you never know for sure that the correct party will win. If I have to guess, the SEC, having heard rumor of a Baylor suit, simply doesn't want a part of it. The message to Aggies may be "you guys just leave on your own and then come to ask and ask again for admission." That way, the Aggies still have to deal with the suit but the SEC itself is less of a target.

3. At some point, does the Governor of Texas show any balls? Doesn't he at some point tell Ken Starr "if Baylor goes forward making these frivolous claims against a state institution you will never again see a dime from the State in support of anything?"

 

[FfldCntyFan]

They did it because ESPN offered them a ton of money and demanded they do it. At the time of the agreement, it was portrayed as a 10 year commitment. Then A&M has a temper tantrum and goes storming off to the SEC.

Evidently more than merely A&M is less than happy with the arrangement (although they are the most vocal) as the only members who aren't openly discussing the possibilty of a new conference are UT (who wants this conference to build the LHN) and those who know they may not find another conference.

The issue appears to be solely between individuasl members of the B-12 and whoever may want to leave and then it would come down to what responsibility any individual member has and how replaceable that member may be. Due to the size of this contract, aggrieved parties may have a bit more resolve in standing firm (leadfing to more time before this does get settled) and departure fees may be higher (again, based on the size of the contract) than it was in prior departures but this should be the only difference.

ESPN's stake in this is how this will effect the value of the LHN (in which they are a partner). I'm curious as to how forthcoming ESPN was about their interest in partnering with UT for the LHN when the B-12's television deal was negotiated as this could easily be a conflict of interest. If I were A&M, I would be looking into this, as the problem with the current B-12 is the money and exposure UT will receive from the LHN and evidently all other B-12 members (along with most of the collegiate sports world) was blindsided by the size of the deal ESPN agreed to). If the B-12 was misled by ESPB as to their interest in the LHN and what the size of their offer to UT would be (while keeping UT fully abreast), there could easily be a lawsuit here.

 

[businesslawyer]

And BL I say this with the utmost respect: That is why you legal guys drive us sales/business development guys crazy!!

Agreed and understood. It's because people in those two areas are given fundamentally different training as to how to make decisions. (That having been said, the good business lawyers understand that and work to understand that their client's way of proceeding may, in many instances, be worth the risk and thus better).

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Having now read Waylon's linked thread, which says very little, a few thoughts.

1. I still don't see what Baylor's claim is. I find it hard to believe that the TV deal constituted an agreement by any particular school not to leave. And harder to believe that any one school would be a third party beneficiary of such an agreement, if it existed, when they were all free to leave the conference at any time by following the conditions. So I still don't get it.

The only claim could be from within a partnership, that the actions of one partner damaged another's (or the partnership as a whole) ability complete a contract. This would be solely between Baylor (or any other B-12 member) and A&M and should be easily settled.

2. Lawyers talk about an old gypsy curse -- may you one day be sued in a matter in which you are totally in the right. Litigation sucks, and you never know for sure that the correct party will win. If I have to guess, the SEC, having heard rumor of a Baylor suit, simply doesn't want a part of it. The message to Aggies may be "you guys just leave on your own and then come to ask and ask again for admission." That way, the Aggies still have to deal with the suit but the SEC itself is less of a target.

This is it exactly. Once in front of a judge (and possibly a jury) all absolutes are out the window and decisions will be subjective.

3. At some point, does the Governor of Texas show any balls? Doesn't he at some point tell Ken Starr "if Baylor goes forward making these frivolous claims against a state institution you will never again see a dime from the State in support of anything?"

The governor is more worried about UT than anything else. As far as Ken Starr, I am still stunned that he ignored the fact that someone committed perjury (in a state where he once held the title of attorney general no less), used as a defense "the way I interpreted the question, my answer wasn't really a lie" and instead focused entirely on what he did with a cigar.