Have you mentioned that UH should be included in a BCS conference? Now, if you have not, I'll take it back immediately. It's just funny to see you get all riled up at the notion of the Big East being our back-up plan. You don't think that we're worthy. Cool beans. Obviously, the conversations have been positive for that to be put out.
I've mentioned how I think UH can get into a BCS conference. But what does that have to do with this? Do I think UH is a better fit for the Big East? Yes. But so what? How is that being a hypocrite? The Big East's choices aren't *just* Baylor and Houston, you know. There's a lot of ways that could unfold. And in the grand scheme of things, I don't think Baylor makes a lot of sense. Mainly because of monetary reasons, which is the #1 factor in all of this. You can think UH isn't worthy, won't bother me. Hell, you probably have a good point or two to make about it.
Actually, I feel that UH has the potential to be worthy. Baylor has spent millions upon millions to upgrade facilities (not just in sports.. the science building cost 300 M alone, new law school, improvements all over campus). I think Baylor is worthy and that UH has the capacity to be more than worthy. Only time will tell if they actually can accomplish their goals.
I appreciate those thoughts, however, I have to disagree. Not hating the player, just hating the game. We all gotta look out for #1, you know?
The Big East is the only conference to make more money off of basketball than football. UH's biggest hurdle is its lousy basketball team. Once the Big East poaches schools like Kansas and Kansas State, their basketball lineup will become even more ridiculous. And to add Baylor to that would just add to the fire. The big thing is that they're negotiating a new contract next year so adding teams that will give them more leverage in negotiations is huge and unfortunately for UH, Baylor just might do that since the Big East's basketball contract has always put them on national tv. A much more relevant Baylor basketball team will draw more eyeballs than a not so hot UH basketball team. If the contract were a few years down the road UH might make more sense since in terms of potential UH has more but this is all about who benefits the Big East in the short term since they want maximum leverage for the upcoming contract. The Big East was really smart when they turned down a deal from ESPN that would have matched the ACC's contract. Instead they're going to make way more with TCU and the Big 12 schools.
okthanks don't mean to be disrespectful but gigantic grain of salt when you're trying to tell me what is and isn't tortious interference and/or a colorable claim without ever reading a contract.
No, no, Max - I humbly invite you to correct me when necessary; I am absolutely out of my element here. I think the dialogue is fascinating and would respectfully love your interpretation and insight. I don't know tortious interference from pass interference. I read up on it (Wiki, beyatches!). I don't see how the SEC or A&M are liable here based on my understanding of it.
Pay attention to quotes from Temple law professor below. Make sure to stop and laugh at reporter's sloppiness in writing detrimental "alliance" when it's called detrimental reliance. Legal expert: Potential Big 12 lawsuits have merit Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...tial-big-12-lawsuits-have-merit#ixzz1XPiiSjQP With the promise of millions in television dollars from a contract signed in April jeopardized because of Texas A&M's threatened departure from the Big 12, several members of the conference saw no choice but to retain their rights to legal action. Sources close to the Big 12 told Sporting News that several conference schools had made plans for expenditures based on the promise of income from the league’s 13-year, $1.2 billion deal with Fox Sports for secondary football rights. One source said Iowa State already had committed to spending $40 million and Kansas State “a significant amount,” with Baylor also exploring the expansion or replacement of Floyd Casey Stadium. “That’s why so many are unwilling to waive their legal claims,” the source said. A prominent authority in sports law told Sporting News on Thursday that those schools acted precisely as they should have. “Absolutely,” said Jeremi Duru, a Temple law professor and author of Advancing The Ball, a book about the NFL’s progress toward equal opportunity for minority coaches. “Were I their adviser, I would do exactly what they’ve obviously been advised to do. "It obviously upsets a lot of people, to the extent that they think we’re an overly litigious society and this is one more example. But if you’re their lawyer, recognizing what the stakes are and having not been able to fully examine what the claims might be, you have to be able to maintain your ability to bring them.” Comparisons to the lawsuits brought by the Big East and member schools against the ACC and departed Big East members Miami and Boston College are inevitable, particularly in light of the fact the settlement that ended those cases was so small -- a reported $5 million total. But the Big East remained in business after three members seceded in '03. If the Big 12 were to collapse in the wake of A&M's departure, there is a greater possibility to demonstrate actual damages. There also is far more money at stake now. The Big 12’s secondary football contract, as it stands, would provide roughly $117 million per school over the full 13-year term. “Everybody looks at the Big East situation several years back, and they were unsuccessful there,” Duru said. “There’s certainly bigger money here. It’s certainly the case that Baylor and some of the other, smaller schools really would be facing some problems.” Duru said it’s unclear whether a lawsuit could be prosecuted successfully until it’s known what claim the plaintiffs would make. He said a suit potentially could take several forms: — Tortious interference with business relations. — Breach of contract. — Detrimental alliance -- that the other schools relied on the understanding A&M was a member of the conference as they conducted business. One Big 12 source said the primary motivation behind retaining legal rights is to stabilize the league. The Big 12 had been moving toward replacing A&M with another school until Oklahoma’s board of regents last week ordered president David Boren to examine OU’s conference options. The league’s remaining members now wait for the Oklahoma administration to complete its process, which Boren said could take between three days and three weeks. As Boren proceeds, the league’s other members are forced to consider other options -- well aware that none likely will be as attractive as an intact Big 12. “Everybody is talking to everybody. That’s basically what’s happening right now,” the source said. “That’s really unfortunate. Everybody is looking at every possible scenario, because it is such a volatile situation.”
and i'm telling you that until you have an understanding of the contracts, there's no way to determine the validity of any claim. i can tell you what the theories are...and in the same way the professor above can rattle off the potential claims i can tell you what potential causes of action are there. but to say they have a great claim or a bad claim without reading those contracts and understanding all the facts is to do nothing but guess. they have a claim at the very least...and one they should not be waiving until they get a handle on where all of this is going. again, there's no lawyer in the world who would suggest a party should release potential claims for nothing without waiting long enough to see what happens and how they're potentially damaged.
Of course this is all about a contract that expressly provides for any of the member institutions to withdraw at any time. This is all so terribly odd.
not the only contract in question here, refman. beyond that, the elements of tortious interference don't call, necessarily, for a party to breach: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE ELEMENTS (SUPREME COURT CASE LAW) The elements of tortious interference with contract are (1) existence of a contract subject to interference, (2) willful and intentional interference, (3) interference that proximately caused damage, and (4) actual damage or loss. Powell Indus., Inc. v. Allen, 985 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1998). In Texas you can have a terminable at-will contract that can still be the subject of a tortious interference claim. There is nothing in the elements that requires breach...just that there be an agreement that gets interfered with, leading to damages. Nothing odd about this at all...none of the schools in the Big 12 have filed a lawsuit. All but 3 are just saying, "we're not signing a release until we understand where all this is going. Particularly when it's being demanded of me with nothing in return." Which is EXACTLY what you would advise them to do if you were representing them.
This is why this isn't about you at this point, A&M. You'll be in the SEC, don't worry. This was about slowing things down enough in an attempt to have the Big 12 put itself back together again in your absence. Still a very strong conference on the field in every sport...needs some additions, but needs stability before it can make additions. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/s...in-realignment-process-gives-big-12-hope.html Stall in Realignment Process Gives Big 12 Hope By PETE THAMEL Published: September 8, 2011 Conference realignment, which once appeared to be an inevitability, has reached a holding pattern. The threat of legal action by Baylor and other Big 12 universities has stymied Texas A&M’s move to the Southeastern Conference, reviving the chance that the Big 12 can save itself. The SEC has adopted a wait-and-see attitude on Texas A&M, as the league has staunchly maintained that it wants to avoid any legal fights during expansion. The SEC will wait for Oklahoma or Texas to make a move or the Big 12 to stabilize before they do anything official with Texas A&M. Texas has recently expressed a desire to save the Big 12, which would allow it to keep the lucrative new network it formed with ESPN. The threat of legal action also indirectly pertains to Oklahoma, which caused massive instability in the league last week when President David Boren said that Oklahoma was exploring its options to leave the Big 12. Those options are now limited with Baylor and others poised to sue for tortious interference. The Big 12 presidents are expected to meet again in the next 10 days, which could lead to some clarity with Oklahoma. “The general feeling right now is we want to do everything that we can to keep the Big 12 together in as close a form as we can to the current configuration,” a high-ranking official at a Big 12 university said. “We need stability and a longer-term commitment from the big guys so we can become 12 again down the road.”
I had not considered what I bolded below...interesting. Let's says this, if you sign a contract again for millions and millions of dollars, you might want to assume people will rely on your word and expect you to perform. A novel concept, I know. Big 12’s 'forgotten five' have clout By BLAIR KERKHOFF The Kansas City Star The silence across the Big 12 landscape on Thursday was the conference collecting its breath from a flurry of statements and legal threats over the previous two days. Oh, there was an occasional burst of rumor. Did you hear that Brigham Young was set to join the conference Saturday? Or that Texas and Notre Dame were in discussions with the Big Ten? Neither story had merit, but one idea seemed to form Thursday that should have every underdog wagging its tail: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri suddenly have leverage. The first four schools haven’t waived their rights to take legal action against the Southeastern Conference and Texas A&M. Missouri is also thought to be part of that group. Oklahoma and Texas have waived those rights. What this means is: Nobody’s going anywhere at the moment. A&M scuttled a SEC invitation party at Kyle Field on Wednesday because of the legal perils. “The five schools are going to retain their legal rights until they understand what our league is going to look like,” said a source with knowledge of the Big 12 discussions. “If nothing else, things have slowed down a little bit. It’s not a snowball going down a mountain.” That’s how it had felt earlier in the week. A&M was in the SEC; Oklahoma wanted in the Pac-12 and would carry Oklahoma State in the sidecar. Maybe Texas could drop its Longhorn Network to go to the Pac-12 and take along Texas Tech. Just to make sure these schools meant business, Sooners coach Bob Stoops offered to sacrifice the Texas game. The Longhorns’ Mack Brown made sure to remind us, “We’ll end up where we want to end up.” Meanwhile, the group not-so-affectionately known last year as the “forgotten five” once again watched and listened and shook their heads in amazement and disgust at the whole thing. Only this time, they wouldn’t be silent partners or victims. Baylor president Ken Starr knows a bit about the law, what with his role as independent counsel that opened the door for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Halting a Big 12 meltdown must have been as easy as Robert Griffin III carving up TCU’s defense. In hindsight, Starr at least should have shared Big 12 player-of-the-week honors with Griffin. Sure, Baylor and the others could be damaged by a reduced Big 12. The schools want protection, legal protection. They also want the Big 12 to survive in some form. Why? The Big 12 has television contracts with ESPN and Fox Sports Net that are valued at more than anything that exists in the Big East, which is the most likely place most of the schools would land if the Big 12 collapsed. According to attorney/sports blogger Clay Travis, the networks would rather continue to pay those rights fees — $65 million annually from ESPN through 2015 and about $90 million a year from Fox through the 2024 season — than risk a lawsuit from Baylor, et al. Fox and ESPN also have deals with the Pac-12. For that conference to grow to 16 teams, it would need to add enough to its media-rights bottom line to feed 16 mouths the same as the 12 this year. More money to the Pac-12 and less to the Big 12 would mean “these network partners would be paying teams that are already under contract with one league more money to play in the new league,” Travis wrote on his blog, outkickthecoverage.com. “They would open up ESPN and Fox to a substantial lawsuit if those teams’ departure killed the Big 12.” It’s easier to just maintain the current deals, no matter who resides in the Big 12. Now, doesn’t the league look more attractive and financially secure for the long haul? It may soon be time to dust off those expansion lists. Of course, we think of the Big 12 as dysfunctional family now. Just think of schools getting after each other for killing athletic ambitions. And that’s just at the presidents’ meetings. But the upshot from the latest development is everybody in the Big 12 has a stake — and now a voice. It’s taken legal threats, bitterness and the postponement of a party — “We are being held hostage right now,” was Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin’s reaction to not getting to wear a party hat — to give the Big 12 something it has never had. A sense of shared responsibility. Just like a conference. Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/08/3129869/the-big-12s-forgotten-five-now.html#ixzz1XS98RSMj
Wait... I thought the signed contract had an out clause? So, if they signed the contract that gives them the ability to leave, shouldn't you expect them to be able to leave? A novel concept, I know.
Not the contract I'm talking about. I'm talking about the media deals and it wasn't necessarily directed at A&M. Read what I bolded. The point is that there's lots more complexity to this than sports reporters are reporting, generally.
