I mean this: 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.
If so, how is that a new revelation to anyone, didn't you already bring up that BYU could cover most of what is lost by A&M's departure. (Or was that someone else's article posted?) Why would ESPN/Fox pay the same, when the contract they signed had already assumed there might be changes in the number of people in the big 12?
i was reading some college football columnist's for cbs picks for this weekend earlier this morning and a good chunk of his introduction was how baylor is suing to force a&m to stay in big xii. these hacks get paid to do this.
They're the worst. ESPN still frames this in terms of a lawsuit. And they employ legal staff to help sort through those issues...apparently those guys are on vacation.
one more time: “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.”
Gotcha. The (2) attorneys I know - armchair attorneys, in this case, I suppose as they're not privy to anything, either - contend that the statement the SEC released shortly after A&M voted to seek new conference alignment - the release that stated the SEC was happy with its current number and would not be seeking expansion, was specifically designed to absolve them of any potential tortuous interference. As they explain it, that was the SEC's declaration that they did not pursue A&M; that A&M acted on their own without any third-party interference. Neither thinks Baylor has any claim, at least against A&M and/or the SEC; that both parties have acted very deliberately and carefully, indicative of people dotting Is and crossing Ts. And from my perspective, as I look at this, I can't see any damage caused. Those contracts (which I'll respond to in a second because those get REALLY fascinating) are still valid. Baylor is not losing any money here. Not because of A&M's departure, at least. Anyway, good stuff - this is really interesting.
i would think that just because the end game was designed to look like the sec and a&m didn't discuss this previously doesn't mean they didn't discuss it.
I've read Travis' many posts (highly recommended, btw) and this is where I bet Baylor will eventually land if there are any lawsuits. According to Travis (and apologies: I skimmed MM's posts and didn't see this specifically mentioned - if it was, I'm sorry for repeating it), ESPN's deal is automatically voided if the Big12 drops below 10 members. Meanwhile, the SEC, which is expanding into Texas, which would almost literally double its potential audience (in terms of states attached to the conference), has a TV contract with... yep: ESPN. So its speculated that the SEC is going to ask ESPN for more cash now that A&M is (presumably) in the fold. In fact, its likely that they already have and that it was a driving force behind their "yes" vote to admit A&M. And boom! Goes the dynamite - *that's* where Baylor (et al) have a legitimate, "Wait a second...." potential suit on their hands. ESPN engineers A&M's departure in order to get out of its $65M deal with the Big12, money that they can then divert to the more lucrative SEC deal............. ESPN has a deal with, I believe, *every* major conference. How is that not repeatedly a MASSIVE conflict of interest as these teams move toward super-conference? This is going to get really, really messy and ESPN might wind up at the center of it before all is said and done. Riveting!
But they would have to prove it, right? If you revisit the path taken throughout this process - that which is obviously available publicly, at least - A&M and the SEC seems to have CYA'ed this effectively, buoyed by the Big12 stupidly sending out their "We won't sue" letter, which more or less confirms A&M acted properly and that Big12 released them from their contract, right? As explained to me, that's an important component because A&M's contract isn't with Baylor or the other schools, it's with the Big12. Who said they were free and clear to go.
well, yeah. that's typically how lawsuits work. my point is that them going by the book at that point in time doesn't mean no wrongdoings went on before. just like a murderer making a homicide look like a suicide means the victim killed themselves (to continue this thread's tradition of dumb analogies).
1. That's exactly what the SEC tried with the statement they released that afternoon. But you can't stuff that genie back in the bottle. That's not how it works. You can't undo interference if it already happened. I have a difficult time believing that if you sent an open records request to A&M, you wouldn't find an email somewhere on their servers from an SEC official talking about their move to the SEC long before that weekend; 2. Of course the SEC and A&M are going to say they didn't. That's the essence of litigation. That's why we seat juries and try cases. It's also a gross misunderstanding of tortious inteference to suggest that the SEC can't still be held liable if A&M contacted them first. I've been involved with this directly in issues dealing with employees jumping ship but still being subject to a covenant not to compete. They've called my clients asking for jobs which would break that covenant...my guys have to do their due diligence and try to get releases or indemnity up front on that -- or be prepared to fight...forced to make a decision if bringing on the guy is worth it or not. But just because the individual called them first doesn't absolve them of anything. 3. You seem to be confused about this whole damages thing....no one is claiming there are damages yet. They're simply saying they aren't interested in releasing claims in the event it all falls apart. That's why you've heard the comments that if OU commits to the Big XII, the SEC will get its releases.
Read above where I responded to Refman telling him that even a terminable at-will contract can be the subject of a tortious interference claim.
Genuine question: What's considered in and out of play, with regards to TI from a timing standpoint? I think we all likely agree that A&M and the SEC talked *last year*... is that admissible if neither party acted then? OK, another genuine question, and I'm not sure I'll articulate this properly... Are we discussing the law itself? Or the ways attorneys would choose to interpret it to bring about and argue a lawsuit? What I mean is, as legally defined, potential lawsuits aside, is party C liable for TI if they do NOT interefere with parties A and B ending a contract? Just a simple, black and white question. Does that make sense? I mean, I get that Baylor can claim TI all day long, and that they can hire powerful attorneys who can argue it all day long... but, at the end of that long day, if the SEC can prove they did not interfere, have they absolved themsevles of TI? I'm futurecasting and assuming that Baylor is not bluffing; that we will have lawsuits. I can't imagine we won't. If we do... and if ESPN (and/or Fox) doesn't break their contracts... what claim can Baylor make? I mean, let's be clear: Baylor doesn't care what A&M does so long as it doesn't impact their money, right? So if the money doesn't go away...
I don't understand how anyone could ever prove that A&M did or did not make the first contact back with the SEC.
What is the legal logic here? If ESPN/FOX aren't acutally involved in encouraging a team to more or stay, what is their legal liability? If Texas & OU decide "hey, I want to go the Pac16" and the Big12 implodes, and then the Pac16 asks ESPN/FOX to renegotiate its TV deals, who would sue who for what, in this scenario?
From a legal standpoint, they (the scorned schools) would sue ESPN for TI, right; for interferring with a contract? According to Travis, the easy answer is ESPN will honor all of its existing contracts; meaning, essentially, multi-million dollar "settlements" (ie Sorry, Baylor - here's the money we owe you through 2015.). But man, they are smack-dab in the middle of this and I would imagine engaging with their lawyers heavily. This s is about to get real, yo.
