Texas & OK ask to join SEC?

[Eavesdrop]

I guess. One would like to think that this return on investment stuff is not the reason one selects a college, but hey, to each his own I guess. Not everything can be monetized though. Nor should it be.

I don't want to derail the thread so this will be my last comment on the subject.

Tuition inflation is no joke. What is it, like 8% per year? Private school and out-of-state public school tuition routinely cost $35 to $50 thousand per year (not including fees and housing). Meanwhile, this country has a $1.6 billion student debt problem. Average student loan debt is about $35,000 and rising.

I don't believe expected net return should be "the" reason for choosing a college. But I feel it prudent to know those numbers and include them as "a" metric to consider.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Contracts are really never expected to last forever or even to their specified end dates - there are ways to terminate them with remedies and that's what is going on here (and would be what we'd expect if/when UConn were to leave the Big East).

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Unless there is a provision, in writing, in the GOR, regarding contact with other conferences without notifying the Big 12, there is no legal provision.

When the Big 12 uses language like "traditionally", "integrity", etc...and not quote a a provision in a signed agreement...well, that that signifies that "good will" means nothing in terms of the current contract obligation.

Your characterization of how partnership agreements work is simply not accurate.

 

[bendm]

Your characterization of how partnership agreements work is simply not accurate.

are you actually an attorney? common law claims of tortious interference etc are hollow. it's not stopping UT and OU from joining the SEC not by a long shot.

 

[WestHartHusk]

ESPN would make the liability worse if they were at all involved in this, but they don't NEED to be in the middle.

While you are in a contractual relationship, and especially in a partnership, you do have a good faith obligation to those partners. If one partner is acting in a manner to deliberately undermine a partnership, while still representing that it is a committed member of the partnership, there is liability. You can't do that. This is not a ground breaking premise.

UT and OU also have some problems in that the Houston Chronicle reporter almost certainly got the story from Texas A&M. UT and OU never notified the Big 12 that they were looking to leave.

None of this is going to stop OU or UT from leaving, most likely, but it gives the Big 12 a little leverage for whatever comes next. Just like the Big East had after the 2002 raid. The Big East remained a BCS conference because there was enough liability for all the parties involved that it was not worth fighting it out in court, so the Big East got to remain at the adult table for a few more years.

You started talking about tortious interference (where it is very unlikely there is enough to actually establish a claim) but ended up talking about OU's/UT's obligations to its partners, which is a different matter.

In this case, they owe their partners no duty after the contract is up. It would be like you leasing a car from Honda and telling everyone 2 years before the lease is up your aren't renewing and are buying a Tesla. Honda would hardly have a claim, and here the Big12 doesn't either. That is why their announcement is vanilla.

 

[billybud]

Your characterization of how partnership agreements work is simply not accurate.

Well, in the decisions that I have issued as an administrative law judge...the evidence (contracts, testimony) is weighed in as facts found and decisions are based on those found facts versus points of law.

Undocumented understandings, hearsay, etc do not have the weight of evidence. If undocumented promises were made, with direct witnesses present who then provide testimony, that is another story.

The SEC is maintaining that they did not contact Texas/OU and that they wait until someone contacts them (to avoid the interference claim)...they did the same when Baylor threatened suit when A&M left.

And conferences and the ESPN can be very cagey. To circumvent Florida's public information law which defines two or more board members meeting together as a meeting subject to public information law...the ACC and ESPN met individually with FSU board members re the GOR....no records, no witnesses, no FOIA...and importantly, no avenue for dissenting discussion.

 

[Skiblets]

Would they still be liable for the 'punitive damages you're giving me'?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Well, in the decisions that I have issued as an administrative law judge...the evidence (contracts, testimony) is weighed in as facts found and decisions are based on those found facts versus points of law.

Undocumented understandings, hearsay, etc do not have the weight of evidence. If undocumented promises were made, with direct witnesses present who then provide testimony, that is another story.

The SEC is maintaining that they did not contact Texas/OU and that they wait until someone contacts them (to avoid the interference claim)...they did the same when Baylor threatened suit when A&M left.

And conferences and the ESPN can be very cagey. To circumvent Florida's public information law which defines two or more board members meeting together as a meeting subject to public information law...the ACC and ESPN met individually with FSU board members re the GOR....no records, no witnesses, no FOIA...and importantly, no avenue for dissenting discussion.

Remind me to never do business in whatever state you operate. Apparently in your jurisdiction partners are allowed to do whatever they want to each other, but in civilization, there are expectations of good faith in partnerships. And before you make up a bunch of facts about what the SEC, OU and UT did that you have no idea about, let's just assume that they have been talking for a while since the first leak about the story came from A&M. If A&M knew, then this had gotten around. Also, a technical dodge of what appear to be fairly clear restrictions on seeking alternative conference membership would not look good in a trial. That would make it a conspiracy to defraud the Big 12.

The SEC is not maintaining anything, and this is not Omerta, so it is safe to assume that anyone with knowledge of these discussions would cave pretty quickly under questioning if they were under oath. Would you want that process to start if you were the SEC?

The Big 12 probably doesn't want to sue, but they are making a few public jabs just to let people know that they have options if they are not taken care of. It appears they are using the Big East actions as their game plan. Smart move on their part.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You started talking about tortious interference (where it is very unlikely there is enough to actually establish a claim) but ended up talking about OU's/UT's obligations to its partners, which is a different matter.

In this case, they owe their partners no duty after the contract is up. It would be like you leasing a car from Honda and telling everyone 2 years before the lease is up your aren't renewing and are buying a Tesla. Honda would hardly have a claim, and here the Big12 doesn't either. That is why their announcement is vanilla.

The fact that the leak about the story came from an A&M source is not a good look for the SEC.

I am not interested in proving on a message board that the SEC was involved. It defies logic to think that OU and UT did this without KNOWING they would be accepted to the SEC. There is a lot of smoke, and as I said in the post above, the SEC does not want people deposed.

The contract is not up, for FOUR years. AND, there appear to be specific bylaws that OU and UT skirted around, which is evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the Big 12.

I want the Big 12 to fail as much as the next guy, but making up stuff about their legal situation is pointless. The Big 12 is not unarmed here.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

are you actually an attorney? common law claims of tortious interference etc are hollow. it's not stopping UT and OU from joining the SEC not by a long shot.

I never said it would stop UT or OU from joining the SEC, so stop making up things I said to try to win an argument.

Why don't you entice someone to break a contract and then see how you feel about tortuous interference? It is easy to do. Get one of your friends to download his company's customer list and send it to you. Then see what happens. You may learn that tortuous interference is an actual thing.

 

[Drew]

 

[Drew]

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Contracts are really never expected to last forever or even to their specified end dates - there are ways to terminate them with remedies and that's what is going on here (and would be what we'd expect if/when UConn were to leave the Big East).

are you actually an attorney? common law claims of tortious interference etc are hollow. it's not stopping UT and OU from joining the SEC not by a long shot.

You started talking about tortious interference (where it is very unlikely there is enough to actually establish a claim) but ended up talking about OU's/UT's obligations to its partners, which is a different matter.

In this case, they owe their partners no duty after the contract is up. It would be like you leasing a car from Honda and telling everyone 2 years before the lease is up your aren't renewing and are buying a Tesla. Honda would hardly have a claim, and here the Big12 doesn't either. That is why their announcement is vanilla.

Well, in the decisions that I have issued as an administrative law judge...the evidence (contracts, testimony) is weighed in as facts found and decisions are based on those found facts versus points of law.

Undocumented understandings, hearsay, etc do not have the weight of evidence. If undocumented promises were made, with direct witnesses present who then provide testimony, that is another story.

The SEC is maintaining that they did not contact Texas/OU and that they wait until someone contacts them (to avoid the interference claim)...they did the same when Baylor threatened suit when A&M left.

And conferences and the ESPN can be very cagey. To circumvent Florida's public information law which defines two or more board members meeting together as a meeting subject to public information law...the ACC and ESPN met individually with FSU board members re the GOR....no records, no witnesses, no FOIA...and importantly, no avenue for dissenting discussion.

Some of these posts have not aged well.

 

[billybud]

We'll see, Nelson.

A lot of sturm and drang was predictable...like Baylor's threatening, like Maryland's anti-trust and other multudinous complaints against the ACC and ESPN...

A minor shower that passes.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

We'll see, Nelson.

A lot of sturm and drang was predictable...like Baylor's threatening, like Maryland's anti-trust and other multudinous complaints against the ACC and ESPN...

A minor shower that passes.

You got nuked within 2 hours of posting that there was no case, and you are a judge.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

On the Leaching Field we are discussing whether this action validates Blumenthal's lawsuit in 2002. All are welcome to join us, especially if you have ever written some version of "Sue-menthal" in a post in the last 19 years.

I am stretching my hamstrings, because I don't want to pull anything. I am going to be doing some dunking.

 

[billybud]

Nelson...I think that you are a nice but naive guy.

We all knew this move was coming...it was so predictable....a letter is a no cost bluster and I don't think that the ESPN is hyperventilating.

They have had the State of Maryland file suit against them and the ACC when Maryland was hit with the withholding od their ACC proceeds...

They have beaten Maryland's anti-trust charges.

This will amount to naught...ESPN has laid out the groundwork..."We did not call your members, they called us." We haven't invited them...but we well may.

 

[billybud]

You got nuked within 2 hours of posting that there was no case, and you are a judge.

ahh...Gawd...someone wrote a letter...give me a break..LOL

Did you really think the Big 12 would go quietly into the night.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Nelson...I think that you are a nice but naive guy.

We all knew this move was coming...it was so predictable....a letter is a no cost bluster and I don't think that the ESPN is hyperventilating.

They have had the State of Maryland file suit against them and the ACC when Maryland was hit with the withholding od their ACC proceeds...

They have beaten Maryland's anti-trust charges.

This will amount to naught...ESPN has laid out the groundwork..."We did not call your members, they called us." We haven't invited them...but we well may.

Getting blown up this quickly on something so fundamental to your knowledge base when you are a judge would be like me forgetting how to count.

There is a lot of goodness in that Thamel tweet. To recap:

1) I was right and a lot of others were wrong about the Big 12 having no legal options,
2) It is a really desperate move by the Big 12. It seems a little early for scorched earth, and sending a C&D to The Worldwide Leader is about as scorched earth as it gets.
3) I wonder if the Big 12 has something concrete about ESPN's role in this. They must have something to go after ESPN. This is also the first step in a tortuous interference lawsuit.
4) It would be hilarious if A&M was feeding the Big 12 information to blow this move up.
5) If there was a way that OU, UT, ESPN, the Big 12 and SEC could all get cornholed as a result of this, I would be a very happy sports fan. We can hope.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[billybud]

ESPN doesn't have to say a thing from here on....

Texas and Oklahoma can go....the SEC knows they will accept them....no need to say anything.

 

[billybud]

Getting blown up this quickly on something so fundamental to your knowledge base when you are a judge would be like me forgetting how to count.

There is a lot of goodness in that Thamel tweet. To recap:

1) I was right and a lot of others were wrong about the Big 12 having no legal options,
2) It is a really desperate move by the Big 12. It seems a little early for scorched earth, and sending a C&D to The Worldwide Leader is about as scorched earth as it gets.
3) I wonder if the Big 12 has something concrete about ESPN's role in this. They must have something to go after ESPN. This is also the first step in a tortuous interference lawsuit.
4) It would be hilarious if A&M was feeding the Big 12 information to blow this move up.
5) If there was a way that OU, UT, ESPN, the Big 12 and SEC could all get cornholed as a result of this, I would be a very happy sports fan. We can hope.

Oh jeez...a letter to desist has in no way "blown me up"...I'll eat crow if the court decision does not allow Texas and Oklahoma to leave for the SEC...that ain't happening.

I think that you have a limited understanding of a complete post...or what is being said.

 

[billybud]

There always is a lot of posturing....part of that is prelude to negotiations...the other part, the Big 12 is in an absolute fight for it's life...given up on Oklahoma and Texas but doesn't want to lose another.

And, "they understand that ESPN has been in talks with another conference" re Big 12 teams....oh snap.

I'll bet the ACC has contacted ESPN and asked..."How will adding WVU in the future help us in our contract"....Legit question that ESPN did not solicit.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Some of these posts have not aged well.

Are you really dunking over a press release that is a transparent attempt by Bowlsby to look tough after losing his prized possessions?

There is nothing in there to support an actual claim of tortious interference (elements of which you have never addressed). In fact, if this is tortious interference then the AAC has a slam dunk on the Big12 and the Big East on the ACC (which they don’t).

 

[bendm]

@nelsonmuntz