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

[IthacaMatt]

From a legal perspective, this case is incredibly weak (and the complaint reads like it was written by an upset 6th grader). Despite WV's claims of some fiduciary duty to maintain a balance between football and bball onlies, it's pie in the sky. If they're hinting at a breach of the duty of loyalty, good luck finding evidence of that. No way this overcomes the business judgment rule, even if Marinatto was a disaster.

It's posturing, and screams of desperation by WV, all at the expense of the tuition-paying students and WV taxpayers.

I agree that the complaint is really poorly written, but one thing that they have latched on to that has merit is that the Big East bylaws permitted the basketball schools to essentially negotiate the football expansion because they hold the majority of seats now. That, coupled with how poorly it has gone, is going to give this legs.

 

[businesslawyer]

It was filed in district court, not state court, and they will be successful in getting it heard there, because WVU is an alter-ego for the state itself, and thus jurisdiction will lie there. Home court advantage to WVU.

You shouldn't waste our time if you can't even do enough reading to know what you are talking about. The Circuit Ccourt of Monongalia County, West Virginia, where the suit was filed, is a "state" court. That is as opposed to the U.S. District Court for the relevant area, which would be a "federal" court. Your 8th grade social studies teacher hasn't explained the difference to you yet? Don't worry, probably coming in the spring.

Your second point (which, by the way, is in direct contradiction to your first because if you weren't in state court your point would be irrelevant) you have lifted from the WVU brief. I hate to break it to you, but there are often second sides to arguments made in a brief. If you'd like to wager whether this will ultimately by tried in state or federal court, and you have your mommy's permission ....

 

[businesslawyer]

Don't bet on it. Marinatto not opposing the suit and giving a default judgment to WVU will pave the way for Pitt, Syracuse and any other football school to leave as soon as they can make arrangements. It will effectively void the 27 month rule if they don't fight to protect it.

And your legal theory that a party to an organization should have protection from bylaws that they voted for but now decide they don't like is what exactly? I didn't think your posts could go downhill from where you started, but once again I have been proven wrong.

 

[IthacaMatt]

One example please of how the BB schools were treated better by the commissioner? Just one example with proof. All I'm asking for is one.

8 basketball schools getting to vote on football expansion contrary to the wishes of the 6 football schools, for starters.

 

[CL82]

The complaint has nothing to do with ESPN, but if the Big East is going to defend itself it might as well fire all guns. The DeFilippo quote alone gets you the ability to argue that ESPN, while a contractual partner of the Big EAst, conspired to destroy it, and doing so very well may violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every commercial contract.

I just think it's hard for the Big East to defend the suit on a limited basis (and only ask for the 27 month performance) but we'll see.

As to another post, I think the remaining football schools are absolutely willing, today, to run this out through the '13 season just because it gives them time.

Single controversy doctrine. I think if this thing ends up being litigated you have to name ESPN, especially if you going claim tortious interference with contract.

 

[IthacaMatt]

You shouldn't waste our time if you can't even do enough reading to know what you are talking about. The Circuit Ccourt of Monongalia County, West Virginia, where the suit was filed, is a "state" court. That is as opposed to the U.S. District Court for the relevant area, which would be a "federal" court. Your 8th grade social studies teacher hasn't explained the difference to you yet? Don't worry, probably coming in the spring.

Your second point (which, by the way, is in direct contradiction to your first because if you weren't in state court your point would be irrelevant) you have lifted from the WVU brief. I hate to break it to you, but there are often second sides to arguments made in a brief. If you'd like to wager whether this will ultimately by tried in state or federal court, and you have your mommy's permission ....

Don't be a . You don't usually hear state courts identified as "circuits". I was on my way back to post a correction.

I stand by the rest of my comments - the complaint is poorly written and embarrassing in spots, but WVU latched on to a couple good arguments - allowing a majority of basketball schools to dictate the terms of football expansion plans was against the interest of the football schools, and WVU making its exit payment to the Big East contingent on being able to leave as of July 1, 2012 and the Big East cashing the check is an argument straight out of the UCC.

 

[ctchamps]

I agree that the complaint is really poorly written, but one thing that they have latched on to that has merit is that the Big East bylaws permitted the basketball schools to essentially negotiate the football expansion because they hold the majority of seats now. That, coupled with how poorly it has gone, is going to give this legs.

Not even close even if they announced leaving the conference at the time of the negotiations, which they didn't. Their case will fails and Cuse will just have to stay in the BE for 27 months. Not a big deal for Cuse, but this probably hurts WV's chances to get into the B12.

 

[IthacaMatt]

BE responded to WVU's lawsuit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...rom-big-east/2011/10/31/gIQAEu25ZM_story.html

Basically, WVU wants to screw rest of the remaining BE FB schools by not abiding to the by-laws they agreed to. I don't think this will end well for WVU or the B12. I wonder if the BE will drag ACC and ESPN into this lawsuit as well.

Or you could say that WVU is looking to free all the football schools to cut the best deal that they can without the 27 months hanging over their heads.

 

[businesslawyer]

Don't be a . You don't usually hear state courts identified as "circuits". I was on my way back to post a correction.

I stand by the rest of my comments - the complaint is poorly written and embarrassing in spots, but WVU latched on to a couple good arguments - allowing a majority of basketball schools to dictate the terms of football expansion plans was against the interest of the football schools, and WVU making its exit payment to the Big East contingent on being able to leave as of July 1, 2012 and the Big East cashing the check is an argument straight out of the UCC.

LOL. O.k., you're right. Now will you please turn the computer off and go back to Nick Jr.

 

[IthacaMatt]

"The BE has denigrated into a non-BCS conference."

What?

This documented is not changing anyone's stereotypes about the educational system in the state of West Virginia.

And they mis-used it twice, too. And these lawyers were hired by a university, whose president presumably looked at these papers before they were filed.

 

[IthacaMatt]

The judge isn't going to rule in favor of WVU joining the Big 12 in 2012 and everyone knows that. I would put the odds at 75% that the judge rules that WVU has to stay in the BE through 2014, and a 25% chance that he rules that WVU can leave the BE immediately, but cannot join another league until 2015. I am guessing that WVU would rather be in the BE for 2012-2014 than be an independent with no access to the BCS or bowl games.

Why so certain? Although the complaint was drafted in about 20 minutes, there is merit to the frustration of purpose argument if the Big East loses access to the BCS due to Providence's bungling and all the members looking to jump ship. There are damages to WVU and the other football members if the BCS bid is lost, especially with the basketball schools controlling the voting on football expansion. Talk about conflict of interest ...

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

Never claimed to be a lawyer. Glad you got a laugh I get the reasoning for the 27 month rule, completely. The rule exists, because the conference had no desire to expand beyond 8 teams until eht BCS rankings came into question, and if anybody left, it would give time to get back to 8. The 8 team rule is not flexible by the way anymore after the last big east earthquake several years ago. But the consecutive years with the same 8 teams thing that's bein discussed around here? Not quite set in stone, not sure where people are getting that.

I still don't understand why a school would be on the hook for a financial exit fee the moment they sign on, but not be subject to a timing rule like that until after another specific date, or why any rules at all would be split by dates like that. I would like to see the language there if possible. Seems like it should all happen at once, that's how I'd set up a contract like that anyway. You want in? Ok, you're in, subject to all the rules, on this date. Not some rules now, and some rules other times. That's just me.

As for the BCS, all I can say is that TCU in the big east for 2012/2013 is better for the league than TCU not in the big east for 2012/2013.

 

[ctchamps]

Why so certain? Although the complaint was drafted in about 20 minutes, there is merit to the frustration of purpose argument if the Big East loses access to the BCS due to Providence's bungling and all the members looking to jump ship. There are damages to WVU and the other football members if the BCS bid is lost, especially with the basketball schools controlling the voting on football expansion. Talk about conflict of interest ...

Keep this up and we're going to take the #BegHarder away from nelson and assign it to you.

 

[IthacaMatt]

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.

Discovery in this case would land ESPN in a world of hurt. This case will settle with the Big East letting WVU go. And then letting SU and Pitt go. Especially since they have lined up about 20 replacement schools, and the BCS bid is intact for 2 more seasons, after which it will be rejiggered so that all 3 remaining non-BCS conferences get to play off for the last BCS spot.

 

[IthacaMatt]

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 think it's a lot easier than that - you just go by the BCS payout amounts.

 

[businesslawyer]

I think it's a lot easier than that - you just go by the BCS payout amounts.

Yes. There are no benefits to theing an AQ school besides your share of the one BCS bowl bid. So Syracuse would leave the ACC for $1M to $2M?

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

This is not quite right with respect to 2012 and 2013. We need 6 schools. <http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...-bcs-status-presidential-oversight-committee>
The 27 months is critical, but not for the next two years, but rather beyond that.

NCAA rules state a conference must have at least eight Football Bowl Subdivision members to be recognized for governance purposes. The NCAA gives conferences a two-year grace period to recover if it falls below minimum membership levels. In short, the 8 team rule that affects us now is an NCAA rule, not a BCS rule. Since there is a two year grace period, I'm not sure if the oft-repeated news that we need 8 teams to play together for 2 years is accurate.

 

[IthacaMatt]

And your legal theory that a party to an organization should have protection from bylaws that they voted for but now decide they don't like is what exactly? I didn't think your posts could go downhill from where you started, but once again I have been proven wrong.

Changes in membership had an impact on the respective rights of members under the agreement. We don't have the agreement, but changed circumstances, coupled with actions by the organization that were clearly against the interests of certain members, probably gives them enough to get into court, in my opinion, and that's all they need. ESPN is going to want this to go away quickly.

You act in your posts like the BCS is the Constitution and its conditions can't be waived. The BCS has its own anti-trust issues to be concerned about, and likely would cave in and give the Big East a seat at the table, despite its "8 teams competing against each other for at least 2 years) rule.

I just don't see ESPN permitting this atrocity to go on for another 2 seasons beyond this year. It would make for terrible problems with scheduling and programming, and if you're the Big East, you'll never get another team to join until you clean up this situation, and tell your prospective members who their partners are going to be.

I understand your nasty demeanor in this series of posts, since UConn is in big trouble, but the collapse of the Big East football conference may actually be in UConn's best interests, because that will perhaps accelerate the move to 16 teams by all the major conferences, or in the alternative, a seat at the BCS table will be achieved thru a play-in game or games, like they do with March Madness for teams 65-68.

 

[IthacaMatt]

This is not quite right with respect to 2012 and 2013. We need 6 schools. <http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-06-10/sports/os-college-expansion-faq-0611-20100610-24_1_conference-expansion-bcs-status-presidential-oversight-committee>
The 27 months is critical, but not for the next two years, but rather beyond that.

NCAA rules state a conference must have at least eight Football Bowl Subdivision members to be recognized for governance purposes. The NCAA gives conferences a two-year grace period to recover if it falls below minimum membership levels. In short, the 8 team rule that affects us now is an NCAA rule, not a BCS rule. Since there is a two year grace period, I'm not sure if the oft-repeated news that we need 8 teams to play together for 2 years is accurate.

There you go, BusinessLawyer - problem solved, and your series of 100 posts chastising us on this point now seem to be incorrect. Imagine that !

 

[businesslawyer]

This is not quite right with respect to 2012 and 2013. We need 6 schools. <http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...-bcs-status-presidential-oversight-committee>
The 27 months is critical, but not for the next two years, but rather beyond that.

NCAA rules state a conference must have at least eight Football Bowl Subdivision members to be recognized for governance purposes. The NCAA gives conferences a two-year grace period to recover if it falls below minimum membership levels. In short, the 8 team rule that affects us now is an NCAA rule, not a BCS rule. Since there is a two year grace period, I'm not sure if the oft-repeated news that we need 8 teams to play together for 2 years is accurate.

I am fairly certain that the BCS rules don't provide the two year grace period. But I have no idea where to look

 

[businesslawyer]

Changes in membership had an impact on the respective rights of members under the agreement. We don't have the agreement, but changed circumstances, coupled with actions by the organization that were clearly against the interests of certain members, probably gives them enough to get into court, in my opinion, and that's all they need. ESPN is going to want this to go away quickly.

You act in your posts like the BCS is the Constitution and its conditions can't be waived. The BCS has its own anti-trust issues to be concerned about, and likely would cave in and give the Big East a seat at the table, despite its "8 teams competing against each other for at least 2 years) rule.

I.

The legal theories behind the complaint are beyond silly. Do I think that the case might settle in a way that pleases the remaining Big East teams enough to allow WVU out early? There is always that possibility. In fact, if you read the thread from the beginning, I've mentioned as possibilities that the other BCS conferences or ESPN could make this go away by giving the Big East enough incentives.

But none of that makes WVU's complaint, or your oversimplistic analysis of it, any less dumb.

 

[HuskyHawk]

There you go, BusinessLawyer - problem solved, and your series of 100 posts chastising us on this point now seem to be incorrect. Imagine that !

I can't see support for the 2 years with 8 members anywhere in the BCS rules. The NCAA rule has the two year grace period. Also, for the next BCS contract, 2014-15, the evaluation period is 2008-2011, so what happens in 2012 doesn't even affect that. WVU counts as a BE school for that whole period. Saw this on Cincinnati.com:

"BCS executive director Bill Hancock says the current BCS contract does not mandate how many teams a conference must have. The NCAA says a league needs at least eight but grants a two-year grace period if the number falls below that. After Miami (Fla.) and Virginia Tech joined the ACC, the Big East played the 2004 season with seven teams before expanding to eight the next year."

This seems to be the rule. http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=116303
The requirement of playing together for 2 years is only for NCAA championships (where the conference size is 6+). For FBS football, all you need is 8 members period, and there is a 2 year grace period if you fall below 8. However, FB only members would not count towards the 8. "An institution shall be included as one of the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members only if the institution participates in the conference schedule in at least six men's and eight women's conference-sponsored sports, including men's basketball and football and three women's team sports including women's basketball."

This is so different from everything I have been seeing.

 

[Druken Friar]

Based on your link, the number is 6 schools having played together for 2 years. While WVU could leave and the Big East would be fine in theory, how long would Syracuse and Pitt stay if WVU figured a way out early?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Based on your link, the number is 6 schools having played together for 2 years. While WVU could leave and the Big East would be fine in theory, how long would Syracuse and Pitt stay if WVU figured a way out early?

That is only for NCAA championships. There the BE gets to count all the BB schools or soccer, or whatever sport.

 

[SAMCRO]

Why so certain? Although the complaint was drafted in about 20 minutes, there is merit to the frustration of purpose argument if the Big East loses access to the BCS due to Providence's bungling and all the members looking to jump ship. There are damages to WVU and the other football members if the BCS bid is lost, especially with the basketball schools controlling the voting on football expansion. Talk about conflict of interest ...

But they currently still have AQ status w/ the BCS. It's still viable. How can you bring suit on the grounds that something may or may not happen? How has the BE prevented WVU from pursung other leagues? It hasn't, and that is proven by the fact that they just got an invite to join the B12. It's proven in that SyraPitt are successfully leaving the BE for the ACC. If anything the BE can say that they've given these schools a platform and opportunity to elevate their value and status. The whole suit is ridiculous. I get that we all want out of the BE, but to say that the BE has somehow damaged WVU's image/value is ridiculous. If anything, since the last raid, WVU's value has never been greater than it has in the past few years.