Another Chip Brown story - who knows if this has any merit. If so, Baylor is showing their true colors, yet again. My advice to Baylor - is to drop it. Baylor does not want to go up against the Texas A&M network.

(09-07-2011 02:30 AM)Ron7098 Wrote:  

(09-07-2011 02:20 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

Do poster here honestly do understand that retaining the legal right to civil litigation is not the same thing as actually filing a civil suit in court?

The SEC presidents voted to admit Texas A&M as the 13th member of that league so long as each individual member of the Big 12 waives its right to litigation against the SEC.

According to the article, Baylor wouldn't have to file a lawsuit against TAMU or the SEC. They wouldn't even have to threaten to file one. The only thing they would need to do is say "We wish to keep all legal options on the table at this time and will retain our right to future litigation". Just because you refuse to waive your right to litigation does not mean that you will automatically file a suit (or that you even intend to file one).

No **** Sherlock! But just the idea of saying "We wish to keep all legal options on the table at this time and will retain our right to future litigation" shouldn't be allowed. If in this case Texas A&M followed the exit procedures that EVERY school in the Big 12 including BAYLOR agreed to, then the Aggies have every right to leave. Maybe Baylor and Iowa St should have insisted that another clause be put in their contract that if any revenue was lost by a member leaving, then the exiting school must pay so and so amount.

My whole point of this is if your going to write up a contract, don't make it so easy for one to school to leave. If Texas A&M gives up their 90% of revenue or whatever they negotiate with the Big 12 as exit fees, then all should be done and over with.

TAMU still has every right to leave the Big 12 regardless of what Baylor does. The problem for TAMU is that the SEC won't invite them unless Baylor gives up its right to sue. And that condition was set by the SEC presidents, who apparently don't have the guts to tell TAMU "sorry, we changed our minds" but instead want a third party to block TAMU's entry and take the blame.

EDIT: After reading this morning that Baylor had originally consented to waiving its right to sue and is now reversing that decision, I take back everything I said about the SEC presidents. Baylor's behavior, not the SEC's, is blameworthy.

(09-07-2011 02:42 AM)RedEyeCougar Wrote:  Another Chip Brown story - who knows if this has any merit. If so, Baylor is showing their true colors, yet again. My advice to Baylor - is to drop it. Baylor does not want to go up against the Texas A&M network.

As stated above, Chip Brown isn't the only one reporting this.

(09-07-2011 02:30 AM)Ron7098 Wrote:  But just the idea of saying "We wish to keep all legal options on the table at this time and will retain our right to future litigation" shouldn't be allowed.

Every person, whether natural (human beings) or corporate (businesses, associations, governments, agencies, corporations, etc), has the right to petition a court for redress of grievances and get a decision thereon. In other words, you are arguing that Baylor (a corporate person under the law) must give up one of the most basic rights that is guaranteed to it in the Constitution.

Again, as I pointed out, having a right (i.e. retaining the right to litigation) is not the same as exercising the right (i.e. actually petitioning the courts). There is absolutely no legal basis for striping the university of its rights to potentially petition the courts.

(09-07-2011 02:30 AM)Ron7098 Wrote:  If in this case Texas A&M followed the exit procedures that EVERY school in the Big 12 including BAYLOR agreed to, then the Aggies have every right to leave.

You don't understand the argument. I am not arguing that TAMU doesn't have the right to leave the Big 12 (right to freedom of association) or that Baylor would stand a good chance of winning a suit against the SEC if it decided to actually file one (I don't think they'd have much of a shot at all actually). In both cases, Baylor could not legally stop TAMU from leaving the Big 12 and so long as TAMU did not commit a breach of contract during the entire process, no compensatory damages would be awarded other than those outlined in the Big 12 contract. Even if TAMU broken every clause in its contract, they could still legally leave the Big 12 conference for the SEC (they'd just have to pay massive financial damages). Legally, there is no way for Baylor to stop TAMU from leaving if TAMU decides to leave.

The actually argument was that it was the SEC that created the stipulation of waiving litigation. Thus, if Baylor decided to retain the right to litigation (again, making it clear that we are talking about maintaining a right, not exercising that right), then the SEC would have to decide whether it wanted to hault the move or press on. TAMU would still have the right to leave...it is just that the SEC might not decide to formally invite them into the conference. Thus, retaining the right to litigation (even if Baylor didn't want or intend to exercise it) is smart because it forces the ball back into the SEC's court.

(09-07-2011 02:30 AM)Ron7098 Wrote:  Maybe Baylor and Iowa St should have insisted that another clause be put in their contract that if any revenue was lost by a member leaving, then the exiting school must pay so and so amount.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I was arguing. Baylor retaining its right to litigation is not the same as Baylor actively seeking compensatory damages in civil court. They aren't the same thing.

(09-07-2011 02:30 AM)Ron7098 Wrote:  My whole point of this is if your going to write up a contract, don't make it so easy for one to school to leave. If Texas A&M gives up their 90% of revenue or whatever they negotiate with the Big 12 as exit fees, then all should be done and over with.

And my point is that

a) TAMU is free to leave whenever it wants (provided it abides by its contractual obligations and pays whatever monies it owes)

b) The SEC was the one which add the waiver of litigation stipulation onto TAMU's invite. If Baylor decided to play the card the SEC gave them (refusing to waive their right to sue), then TAMU should fault the SEC for putting in the stipulation in the first place.

c) Baylor is in a very precarious position. If the waive their right to litigate, then odds are that they will be left out of the BCS and lose tens of millions of dollars per year in revenues. If they retain the right to litigate (even if they don't intend to use it), they force the SEC to make the decision on whether they want TAMU. By retaining the right to litigation, they may piss off TAMU but they'd at least have the chance of protecting themselves financially for the short term.

d) Retaining the right to litigation is not the same as exercising the right to litigation. If all it takes to potentially save yourself from financial ruin is to say "We'll keep all our legal options on the table", then why not do so? IF the SEC decided to press on anyway, Baylor would likely lose any suit they brought unless TAMU committed some major breach of contract (which I don't think they did).

(09-07-2011 01:20 AM)Ron7098 Wrote:  

(09-07-2011 01:13 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  We have heard for a month-

"So what if it doesn't benefit Baylor as much, why shouldn't A&M do what is in it's best interest?"

IF this is true... (and that is a very big if) we will see that phrase flipped around.

"So what if it doesn't benefit A&M as much, why shouldn't Baylor do what is in it's best interest?"

I'm just throwing this out there, I know it won't happen, but what if every SEC school threatens to sue Baylor if they don't sign.....

"So what if it doesn't benefit Baylor as much, why shouldn't us SEC schools do what's in our best interests?"

Disclaimer: I have nothing against Baylor, just bringing up the idea.

Because thats not how the legal system works. You can't sue someone for not relinquishing a legal right. There isn't a judge in the country who would even agree to hear such a case.

(09-07-2011 01:43 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(09-07-2011 01:40 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(09-07-2011 01:32 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  Same situation for the BE. If SEC does invite WVU from the BE when there are more suitable candidates available from the B12 and the ACC, then there could be a huge lawsuit involved from the remaining BE schools. I find it extremely puzzling for the SEC to all suddenly be interested in WVU before they go after UNC, VATECH, NCST, Missouri etc. If ESPN is even slightly involved with the SEC to damage the BE right before BE is about to negotiate the biggest TV deal in its history, there could be a huge huge lawsuit against the ESPN and the SEC. Since BE will most likely be signing with NBC/COMCAST, this could be ESPN's way of damaging its competition since ESPN is basically in bed with the SEC.

ESPN being in state of CT would not help them either. CT state attorney would not hesitate to protect the state's flagship university if ESPN is involved trying to damage the BE to screw up BE's future TV negotiation.

I'm sorry, but you can't break a future contract.

Since ESPN already made an initial offer, there is a base to work from. BE will get somewhere between what ESPN offered ($1.4B) to what PAC-12 got ($3B to $4B). There is a huge range of potential damages especially if BE is unable to get similar TV deal without WVU.

lol, thats not how contract law works. You can't pass on a deal and then claim that it matters in a court of law.

We understand perfectly. The obvious point is that the SEC doesn't want that potential problem hanging over their heads.

You can pass on a deal and say it matters in court if you're under contract with the entity that offered you and they attempt to damage your worth.

This smells like Baylor, Texas and Ok have together made the perfect storm to force AM to stay. Brilliant and evil.

This is a rather large monkey wrench. Bill Liucci makes this sound like Baylor is really hurting itself here, but I don't buy that. Baylor has little leverage in all of this and if the SEC is willing to gift wrap it some (in the form of a way to halt expansion at least for awhile, maybe getting more money or some cohersed help), the Bears would be stupid to ignore it.

Also interesting that despite all the blaim against UT and their desire to hold together the Big 12, they are not an obstacle here.

After the mess Bayor is causing with their threats of litigation, what league would ever willingly give Baylor shelter if the Big 12 crumbles?

This sounds like Custer's last stand. It had better work for the Bears. If it doesn't, they become a pariah.

I doubt anyone wanted Baylor BEFORE, so there's no harm in doing whatever it takes to keep the B12 alive.

(09-07-2011 01:34 AM)CatsClaw Wrote:  How can the SEC sue Baylor? The waiver apparently says that each school has the right to agree to waive or not. The difference between A&M and Colorado and Nebraska are two-fold, 1.)A&M is a state school, 2.)Baylor could argue that A&M's move lead directly to the destruction of the conference while Colorado and Nebraska leaving actually lead to a great TV contract. No A&M leaving, in Baylor theory, lead directly to Oklahoma and Texas wanting to leave the conference. Not that I'm agreeing with Baylor or disagreeing with them, just playing devil's advocate.

Agree, the situation is totally different now. An Baylor would have the right to sue Pac as well. last go round the B12 was not in any real danger of being destroyed, and no members were in great danger of having their programs blown up. Any damage done to any B12 school last time was very small, this time some one will quite possibly have their program downgraded to a huge degree.

(09-07-2011 06:16 AM)Chappy Wrote:  I doubt anyone wanted Baylor BEFORE, so there's no harm in doing whatever it takes to keep the B12 alive.

This

(09-07-2011 01:43 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(09-07-2011 01:40 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(09-07-2011 01:32 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

I'm sorry, but you can't break a future contract.

Since ESPN already made an initial offer, there is a base to work from. BE will get somewhere between what ESPN offered ($1.4B) to what PAC-12 got ($3B to $4B). There is a huge range of potential damages especially if BE is unable to get similar TV deal without WVU.

The BE rejected that offer. So it is null and void.

(09-07-2011 01:47 AM)Joey_Niklas Wrote:  Not sure how reliable this source from Oklahoma is but its interesting. Kind of hints that no matter what happens in this BU/A&M mess, OU is out unless the Big XII adds quality programs.

http://twitter.com/#!/LandThieves/status...1036421120

Quote:OU stance has been that quality teams have to be added for the league to remain. Baylor throwing a hissy may affect A&M, it wont OU

That depends on whether the Pac is willing to deal with years of litigation. It isn't only OU's decision.

Using this logic why would anyone want a Big East school since the Big East did the exact same thing Baylor is doing. I dont blame Baylor at all for fighting for their lives.

(09-07-2011 02:11 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(09-07-2011 01:59 AM)Ron7098 Wrote:  

(09-07-2011 01:56 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  p.

The B12 was publicly mentioning names like Arkansas, L'ville, Pitt, Arizona etc. It was fine for them to say they were targeting them since they didn't actually land them? I don't buy the 'innocence by incompetence' excuse.

So whether you are using intermediaries or talking to them yourself, the intent is the same. I think that to sue someone over something you were hoping to do yourself is pretty dishonorable.

The SEC could move if they wanted to deal with the lawsuits, they clearly do not. The B12 could have moved if they were willing. The B12 is not suing in this case, it would be a single school who was greatly harmed in the actions that happened. In the long run a settlement would be done, but the SEC isn't willing to deal with the headache. If I was Baylor, Isu, or for that matter one of the Kansas schools, I wouldn't be in a hurry to sign a waiver.

The Big East should be talking to TAMU right now. They have already filed an intent to leave. Baylor would have little legal standing to sue the BE if we invited TAMU after they already announce they were leaving. No court in the country would reasonably find we caused anything.

Good, now TCU can go and sue Texas for years of financial loss after they destroyed the SWC