Wvu Suing Big East: "lack Of Leadership", Etc.

[businesslawyer]

I would love to see the other football schools join WVU and make it a class action lawsuit. However although I think WVU's claims have some merit I do not think they can prove their claims. It is clear over the years that the Big East leadership viewed their league primarily as a basketball league, at the expense of the football schools, and thus leading to the mess we are in now.

1. The other football schools joining would not make it a class action suit.

2. I get that you think (without any real reason to believe it) that M was a puppet of the basketball schools, but the solution to that was to demand a new Commissioner and if you can't get one leave in 27 months. It's not an excuse for breaking the 27 month requirement, legally or morally.

By the way -- on the off chance that someone in the CT government is reading this, I'm not sure Marinatto as a matter of law had a fiduciary duty to WVU. Directors have fiduciary duties, but there is a lot of discussion as to whether officers have a fiduciary duty at all, as opposed to being governed by the laws of agency. Please check it out.

 

[HuskyHawk]

1. The other football schools joining would not make it a class action suit.

2. I get that you think (without any real reason to believe it) that M was a puppet of the basketball schools, but the solution to that was to demand a new Commissioner and if you can't get one leave in 27 months. It's not an excuse for breaking the 27 month requirement, legally or morally.

By the way -- on the off chance that someone in the CT government is reading this, I'm not sure Marinatto as a matter of law had a fiduciary duty to WVU. Directors have fiduciary duties, but there is a lot of discussion as to whether officers have a fiduciary duty at all, as opposed to being governed by the laws of agency. Please check it out.

The one thing I've said before and I think may still be true, is that it may be difficult for the BE to obtain specific performance of the contract, rather than merely money damages. This could all be a ploy to force the issue as quickly as possible. I think it is also designed to ensure the break-up of the BE as a football conference.

 

[businesslawyer]

The one thing I've said before and I think may still be true, is that it may be difficult for the BE to obtain specific performance of the contract, rather than merely money damages. This could all be a ploy to force the issue as quickly as possible. I think it is also designed to ensure the break-up of the BE as a football conference.

The latter is a possibility, althought I don't really see how it gets the XII there.

As I said earlier, it is always difficult to get an injunction or specific performance, and you never count on equitable relief when you are in litigation. That having been said, the case for equitable relief here, based on likelihood of success on the merits and irreperable harm, is extremely, extremely high.

 

[pepband99]

I tend to think this could just be settlement shopping. The question is - what would the BE's price be? I would have to think the B12 could back up the $$$ end of it pretty well.

 

[businesslawyer]

What size check is the Big East going to take to lose its BCS bid years before it would otherwise be an issue?

 

[pepband99]

Assumption not in fact, though - Who is to say we can't get one of the supposed invitees in for next year? Especially if one of them is an independent, it's not impossible to think it could happen (Navy?)

...and yes, I'm assuming too, but it's not impossible either way

 

[businesslawyer]

Assumption not in fact, though - Who is to say we can't get one of the supposed invitees in for next year? Especially if one of them is an independent, it's not impossible to think it could happen (Navy?)

...and yes, I'm assuming too, but it's not impossible either way

Let's try this again. To be BCS eligible under the current rules, you need 8 schools in your conference who have played football together for at least two prior seasons. So to keep eligibility for 2014, we need for departing schools to play in 2012 and 2013 while at least an equal number of replacements are brought in for 2012 and 2013. Losing three schools for next season and replacing them with three new schools does not keep us BCS eligible.

Make sense?

 

[upstater]

Unbelievable. As to #2, Kansas et al wanted a plan if the XII fell apart. They weren't looking to leave the Big XII for the Big East. And by all reports the conference was going to offer them if the XII fell apart.

As to #1, either explain to me why the Big East having invited UCF five months ago if we eliminated Nova would have kept us out of this mess or explain why you mention it as being relevant.

Logic, people, please.

I'm talking about the mere idea of Villanova in the football conference, not whether they blocked anyone.

The report I read was that the basketball schools foreclosed on the Big12 stragglers before the B12 reformed.

And jeez, stay calm please.

 

[Excalibur]

Let's try this again. To be BCS eligible under the current rules, you need 8 schools in your conference who have played football together for at least two prior seasons. So to keep eligibility for 2014, we need for departing schools to play in 2012 and 2013 while at least an equal number of replacements are brought in for 2012 and 2013. Losing three schools for next season and replacing them with three new schools does not keep us BCS eligible.

Make sense?

OK, but can't one put a price on that? If so, doesn't that decrease the likelihood of successfully enforcing a remedy of specific performance? Granted, it makes the monetary penalty for departing prematurely enormous . . .

 

[pepband99]

Exactly. The B12 has a very very big skin in this game, too - I don't consider anything closed here until they're settled, one way or other.

 

[businesslawyer]

OK, but can't one put a price on that? If so, doesn't that decrease the likelihood of successfully enforcing a remedy of specific performance? Granted, it makes the monetary penalty for departing prematurely enormous . . .

I think you can make a very strong case that the lose of AQ status can not be measured in dollars because of the number of interrelated direct and indirect effects it would have on recruiting players, recruiting students, etc.

Again, the standards to get specific performance are high, but this case really seems to provide as easy a path to it as I've seen at the beginning of a case.

 

[Excalibur]

I think you can make a very strong case that the lose of AQ status can not be measured in dollars because of the number of interrelated direct and indirect effects it would have on recruiting players, recruiting students, etc.

Again, the standards to get specific performance are high, but this case really seems to provide as easy a path to it as I've seen at the beginning of a case.

I want to be clear on one thing. Are we talking about the bid in 2012 and 2013, or after that, or both? For the last two, would you not have to show that the conference would have been an AQ conference in 2014 and beyond if WVU stayed on?

 

[businesslawyer]

Both, but in different ways. You have a direct causation case that WVU's actions will cause a bid that was locked in for 12 and 13 to go away. That alone should be enough for equitable relief.

Beyond that, however, you have the fact that if you give the Big East time to react without having the bid removed, time to let the ESPN exclusivity window run out, negotiate with other broadcasters and then have discussions with other BCS conferences, the chances of having a long term plan that works are certainly greater than if the Big East has to do something in 20 minutes.

 

[kingdobbs]

An interesting note that goes to the heart of their claim about the basketball schools having power over football matters.

Their claim in Paragraph 18 specifically quotes the bylaws on who may vote on football actions...using the term "Division I-A school directors". That does include Notre Dame, but it does NOT include the other seven basketball schools. Villanova and Georgetown are I-AA (FCS), while the others are "Division I-AAA", which is the classification used by the NCAA for schools in Division I that do not have any football at all.

If WVU is going to claim that the basketball schools had voting power over football affairs, they picked the wrong by law to quote.

 

[Excalibur]

Both, but in different ways. You have a direct causation case that WVU's actions will cause a bid that was locked in for 12 and 13 to go away. That alone should be enough for equitable relief.

Beyond that, however, you have the fact that if you give the Big East time to react without having the bid removed, time to let the ESPN exclusivity window run out, negotiate with other broadcasters and then have discussions with other BCS conferences, the chances of having a long term plan that works are certainly greater than if the Big East has to do something in 20 minutes.

Fair enough. From WVU's standpoint, I would argue that the bid for 2012 and 13 has an obvious price (the amount of the payout to the conference -- $18MM per year for 2 years), and whether they are present during those years is irrelevant to the status of a BCS bid beyond that.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Both, but in different ways. You have a direct causation case that WVU's actions will cause a bid that was locked in for 12 and 13 to go away. That alone should be enough for equitable relief.

Beyond that, however, you have the fact that if you give the Big East time to react without having the bid removed, time to let the ESPN exclusivity window run out, negotiate with other broadcasters and then have discussions with other BCS conferences, the chances of having a long term plan that works are certainly greater than if the Big East has to do something in 20 minutes.

But the only way we can lose the bid in 2012 and 2013 is if we fail to field 6 teams. WVU's action cannot trigger that by itself, only in concert with others leaving early. I think it's highly speculative whether we could retain the bid in 2014 anyway, as the formula and criteria for that do not exist today. We can't really fault WVU for 2014, as they'd be entitled to go by then. I agree there is a reasonable argument for specific performance here, but I don't think it's a slam dunk. No better than 50-50, and that's if the BE can remove this case.

 

[Heston]

Weren't you Mr. "Lawsuits are Bad"? Now you are saying this nonsense has merit?

Troll.

You seem to have a hard time keeping it about the topic and not making it personal. Not to mention that you seem to respond to things that no one actually posts.

In my post I simply said no judge is going to enforce the 27 month provision. Because it is true. Nowhere do I say that the WV suit has any merit or not. You seem to miss that entirely.

Yes, I believe WV will get what they want (I never said it would be via a lawsuit or even via a ruling). What they want is to be out of the Big East before the 27th month period. And, yes, I believe it will all come down to some form of compensation that will be settled and agreed upon. Again, this is because both the Big East and WV's lawyers realize that no judge is going to enforce specific performance and order WV to stay for 27 months!

Yes, I think the lawsuit approach for Uconn is not the best approach. I absolutely believe most of the legal action available to the Big East and Uconn has little ability to ultimately help Uconn with what it wants. Which is to be in a stable conference that has a BCS bid locked up.

No where do I say that I think legal action is good. So, again, it is completely puzzling to try and figure out what you are even talking about. It is your choice to be that way. Ironically, you are the one who posts like a troll, meaning you are the one who posts without a thoughtful response and you don't even address what is actually posted. Which is great if you are running for office, but kind of pointless on a message board.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Fascinating stuff.

My take on the whole thing is similar to business lawyer's. West Virginia seems to be making the argument that their higher level boss in the offices of their business organzatiion is a dingbat and is driving the overall business of the organizationinto the ground, and because of that, they shouldn't be held to any of the rules of the organization they want to quit.

I don't see how that argument can win anything, if it gets to court. But it sure seems like it can do a lot of stuff out of court. I'm not sure what kind of rules there are about filing frivolous (sp?) lawsuits but I think they exist, and I think that if so, this one might fit.

I am still curious about TCU and their exit from the conference without paying a fee. It's in there in the document, and it has bothered me all along. I don't understand how TCU got out so easy quickly. Anybody know why the big east didn't at least force the exit fee/27 months? If there is a rule somehwere in big east bylaws by whcih explicity states that TCU was NOT subject to the exit fee/time penatlity for any program withdrawing, then the WVU lawsuit, IMO - is completely frivolous. But if there is no rule anywhere, and the big east was simply making a choice of enforcing or not, then I think WVU has a big gripe, as do all the other football schools.

It also has bearing on the Cuse and Pitt situation as well. Does the ACC have rules in place, such that now that they've accepted, but were to pull out prior to 2014, would they have to pay the ACC exit fee?

 

[Heston]

Both, but in different ways. You have a direct causation case that WVU's actions will cause a bid that was locked in for 12 and 13 to go away.

You have given it a lot of thought and are a practicing lawyer. So I appreciate all your posts. But my question is, is your statement above true? How is it that WV leaving costing the Big East the auto bid in 2012 and 2013?

I am not sure I read that the Big East will lose its bid in 2012 and 2013 if WV leaves.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

I am still curious about TCU and their exit from the conference without paying a fee. It's in there in the document, and it has bothered me all along. I don't understand how TCU got out so easy quickly. Anybody know why the big east didn't at least force the exit fee/27 months? If there is a rule somehwere in big east bylaws by whcih explicity states that TCU was NOT subject to the exit fee/time penatlity for any program withdrawing, then the WVU lawsuit, IMO - is completely frivolous. But if there is no rule anywhere, and the big east was simply making a choice of enforcing or not, then I think WVU has a big gripe, as do all the other football schools.

TCU did pay an exit fee. They paid the $5MM exit fee as they were required to. They were not subject to the 27 month wait because they were not officially a member of the conference yet and had not yet been an active member of the conference (they were set to become an official member on July 1, 2012). So TCU did what they were legally required to do...paid the $5MM exit fee and left.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

You have given it a lot of thought and are a practicing lawyer. So I appreciate all your posts. But my question is, is your statement above true? How is it that WV leaving will cost the Big East the big in 2012 and 2013?

For the 1,000th time on this board.....you must have a league of at least 8 schools that have been in the same league for at least 2 consecutive years. So even if WVU leaves and are immediately replaced by another team...it would not satisfy the requirement to remain a BCS league. While we would have the minimum amount of teams, they would not have been together for the required 2 years.

That is exactly why the 27 month requirement was put in place. It gives the conference 2 years to add a replacement school and establish them as a member with at least 2 years of service before the other team leaves the conference.

I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. It has been said thousands of times and people just ignore it.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Ok - I've got time now, so I just checked and verified. TCU was absolutely going to be required to pay the $5m exit fee. The 27 month holding time is in question. I'm not sure if the money was actually received by the big east, but I'm asssuming it was.

Anybody got a good explanation as to why TCU wasn't held to the 27 month waiting period even though they paid the $5million?

TO me, that's the most important thing in this document.

 

[Carl Spackler]

TCU did pay an exit fee. They paid the $5MM exit fee as they were required to. They were not subject to the 27 month wait because they were not officially a member of the conference yet and had not yet been an active member of the conference (they were set to become an official member on July 1, 2012). So TCU did what they were legally required to do...paid the $5MM exit fee and left.

Thanks - I verified the same info. My question is why? Why not the 27 months? Is it written somewhere that only programs that have participated in big east sanctioned events are subject to the 27 month waiting period?

If so - the line of thought is dead. If it's not explicitly written anywhere though? why the $5million and not the 27 months? Why not the 27 months and not the $5million. Why not both? Neither?

If it's not laid out, then I don't see why the big east can't just become a giant d*ck and say they changed their mind on allowing TCU to compete anywhere but teh big east until 2014.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

Thanks - I verified the same info. My question is why? Why not the 27 months? Is it written somewhere that only programs that have participated in big east sanctioned events are subject to the 27 month waiting period?

If so - the line of thought is dead. If it's not explicitly written anywhere though? why the $5million and not the 27 months? Why not the 27 months and not the $5million. Why not both? Neither?

If it's not laid out, then I don't see why the big east can't just become a giant d*ck and say they changed their mind on allowing TCU to compete anywhere but teh big east until 2014.

It is in the BE bylaws. TCU wasn't a full member yet, and thus wasn't required to give 27 months. If they gave their notice on July 1, 2012 or after...then they would have been bound by the 27 month requirement. It is very simple and cut and dry on this.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre, WVU does this.

So, is WVU suing their own President and AD? Weren't they a big decision maker in not accepting the ESPN contract? Would love to see how they voted at every BE meeting. Should be a fun ride.

No, it was Nordberg at Pitt, and Notre Dame.

 

[businesslawyer]

Thanks - I verified the same info. My question is why? Why not the 27 months? Is it written somewhere that only programs that have participated in big east sanctioned events are subject to the 27 month waiting period?

If so - the line of thought is dead. If it's not explicitly written anywhere though? why the $5million and not the 27 months? Why not the 27 months and not the $5million. Why not both? Neither?

If it's not laid out, then I don't see why the big east can't just become a giant d*ck and say they changed their mind on allowing TCU to compete anywhere but teh big east until 2014.

The Big East office has already answered that. TCU never became a member. It would have become a member on 7/1/12. By contract, it agreed to the $5M exit fee when it agreed to become a member, but the 27 month requirement was never made applicable to non-members.

And it was never made applicable for a reason of 100% logic -- since TCU never played in the conference, it would have taken it two years to count towards the 8 teams together for two years requiremnt anyway, and replacing them with Air Force next fall doesn't inpact the Big East's BCS bid.

 

[Carl Spackler]

My gut tells me that there are no rules written, and the $5mill exit fee/ 27 months TCU was subject to both conditions, but TCU leadership and big east leadership negotiated a deal that TCU would pay the $5mill and not be subject to the 27 months.

If that's what actually happened, and hot damn, I hope I'm wrong, but if that did happen, we need to get out this conference ASAP.

That would piss me off royally, to find out that TCU was secured to stabilize the football league, but decided to leave, and the rest of the conference just took the $5mill and didn't see any need to enforce the 27 months as a higher priority than the $5mill.

 

[SAMCRO]

No, it was Nordberg at Pitt, and Notre Dame.

May have been, but I do remember the WVU fans chirping about how Saint Oliver, along with Pitt and RU's AD's saved the BE once again by not allowing Marinetto to accept the low ball ESPN offer, and how smart Luck was because he knew the BE would get a much bigger contract on the open market.

 

[businesslawyer]

My gut tells me that there are no rules written, and the $5mill exit fee/ 27 months TCU was subject to both conditions, but TCU leadership and big east leadership negotiated a deal that TCU would pay the $5mill and not be subject to the 27 months.

If that's what actually happened, and hot damn, I hope I'm wrong, but if that did happen, we need to get out this conference ASAP.

That would piss me off royally, to find out that TCU was secured to stabilize the football league, but decided to leave, and the rest of the conference just took the $5mill and didn't see any need to enforce the 27 months as a higher priority than the $5mill.

And we don't need to get out of the conference fast if TCU didn't have to give 27 months notice? LMAO. Talk about fixating on an unimportant point. Let me repeat -- TCU coming in next year (forgettting that we didn't have the right to make them) did nothing, nothing, towards preserving our BCS status if they were leaving in two years anyway. WVU (and Pitt and Syracuse) staying does. The situations are totally different.

 

[businesslawyer]

Are you absolutely sure about this? I've read the same conclusions. But nothing you know - actually conclusive.

I get that 8 teams, 2 year period thing. But if understand correctly, you are saying that the 27 month requirement is not applicable to any program that agrees to join the conference but does not actually ever suit up for a single big east sanctioned event, but as soon as they participate in one track meet, tennis match, it becomes enforcible? Or is it just for football games? TCU was set to join in all sports, for the Fall of next year.

If you're right - then again, line of thought is dead, and in turn, the fact that WVU would put it in the lawsuit to discredit big east leadership, makes the lawsuit look even less credible than it already its.

But I guess I'd actually have to see the big east rules in print form. I have the strong suspicion that TCU was indeed subject to 27 months of waiting to a participate in any other conference sanctioned events, after agreeing to joing the big east, but managed to negotiate out of it.

O.K. The Big East office, knowing it will file an answer to the complaint under oath, has said the 27 month rule was only applicable to a member. WVU, in its complaint, did not allege that TCU had agreed to be bound by 27 months, but merely (in paragraphs 26) that "the Biog East did not require TCU to honor the twenty-seven moth withdrawal period set forth in the bylaws." Bylaws would only be applicable to members, and TCU was not a member. If TCU had agreed to a 27 month exit, WVU would have quoted to the passage in the document.

But hey, remain skeptical. You probably have a better grip on the facts supporting WVU than their lawyers do.