Actually why don't you stop trying to be a big timer and sounding smarter than you obviously are and actually be smart and refer to it by it's actual name since 1963 Texas A&M. That's all I have to say on that now don't make daddy have to come back in here.
The state of Connecticut (iirc), on behalf of the then-remaining 4 Big East schools, sued the ACC when Miami and Boston College announced their intentions to leave the conference in 2003. So while asking for the claims is indeed unprecedented, it's not without legitimate basis. Exactly. But if the Big12 implodes, officially, it will be when Oklahoma leaves, not Texas A&M. A&M's departure has not caused any known damage to the remaining Big9 schools. (I'm not a lawyer and never claimed to be so I'm open to being set right with any legal opinion I might offer.) If I'm A&M, I feel no more responsible for the conference's (potential) demise than Nebraska and/or Colorado, who left free and clear with no consequences (so far as I recall). I can't see how you can pinpoint one school and not rope them all in. (I mean, I see how; Baylor can sue whoever they want, I imagine. But surely *not* naming NU and/or CU has to in some way invalidate their suit, no? Again, will not pretend to be a lawyer.)
It's wasteful because Baylor has no case, will not win, and will not stop A&M for joining the SEC. Sam, if you want to be cool and use what I'm guessing is your experience as a legal professional to enlighten us as to what is and is not permissible, etc., I would sincerely welcome it. If you're just going to use that experience to sound superior and condescending, let's put an end to this here.
Agreed..the unprecedent part wasn't really my focus though. This is the SEC's condition; not anyone else's. You can certainly make that argument. You can choose to sue whoever you like, provided you have a valid claim against them. Even without a valid claim, you can still sue subject to getting slapped for it. Filing a suit against one party but not another is common...and, in fact, the damages that we're talking about here relate to a FOX contract that came after NU and CU left. And, no...it doesn't invalidate a suit at all. I'll remind everyone again..no one has sued anyone. The SEC has asked for a global release and offered nothing in return. Why anyone would think schools with something to lose would bend over for that is beyond me.
How in the world would you pretend to know this when you're not an attorney or judge and you haven't even read the contracts at issue? Do you have any idea how much the SEC, for example, has likely spent on attorneys' fees asking these very questions? And there's still uncertainty. I have no idea who would win such a suit because I haven't ever read the agreements in question...even then, I'd be giving a best guess because the guy in the black robe and the panel of Wal Mart shoppers often throw curveballs. A wise attorney would never guarantee an outcome...it's a human system full of all the inconsistencies and imperfections that brings. In all likelihood, such a case would be resolved the way about 95% of all commercial litigation is resolved...by settlement. But what you don't do is release the claim for nothing in return when you stand to be damaged big time and you have a colorable claim.
The first two things are not true obviously, as the decisionmakers have decided otherwise and acted accordingly, and as for now, they have very definitely stopped them from joining the SEC, which is why you are being driven insane. It's ended - there's 33 pages of posts with MadMax explaining the concept of tortious interference, among other things. There's no point in repeating them if you didn't read them the first time.
Exactly. I think it's telling that A&M has not asked for such waivers. They obviously believe they've acted in accordance with the Big12's guidelines. Did both TV deals come post-NU/CU? I can't remember. Before all is said and done, and *especially* if the Big12 does implode and leaves Baylor (et al0 out in the cold, they'd be wise to turn their attention to ESPN, who has a TV contract with both conferences. I can't believe there's not a giant conflict of interest there.
i wish. not because i really care about calling into sports shows, but because i'd like to finally fit the title, "law boyz." then i could finally put that on my business cards.
the contract at issue, as i understand it, is not the agreement between Big 12 and A&M, but rather the agreement with FOX. that is the deal in jeopardy that carries the most dollars with it...and until they make a decision (subsequent to OU, obviously) no one who thinks they'll never see that kind of money again in a lesser conference is about to release claims. i don't know about the other deal..but FOX came after they left and after Big 12 "reunited."
ATM could do everything right, but if the SEC encroached, meaning they had anything to do with ATM deciding to leave(breaking their contract), then they can get sued for interference. The most famous example of this is Texaco vs. Pennzoil
THE HORRROOORRRRRRRR http://www.espnmediazone3.com/us/20...tsa-football-games-to-slate-starting-sept-10/ Longhorn Network Adds Five UTSA Football Games to Slate Starting Sept. 10
B-b-b-but I thought Baylor was destined for C USA, WAC, Southland or the MWC at best. Haters gon hate. Pwned http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=jn-king_baylor_plan_b_big_east_090811
The big FOX deal along with payment of exit fees to UT, A&M, and OU was how Beebe got the Big 12 to stay together last year. Also, they tightened up the rules for exiting significantly at the same time. A&M took the money and signed off on that last year, so asking to leave a year later just like NU and CU, even if done properly and politely, is not realistic.
As you said, there doesn't have to be a valid claim for someone to file a suit. But I don't think we should just assume that the SEC's only concern here is losing a case. They don't want to pay for a case; they don't want to divert energy and personnel resources to a case; they don't want this process to be prolonged... and yeah, as you mentioned - Wal-Mart shoppers and people in black robes, etc. Asking for the claim is by no means the indictment many seem to be presuming it is, though. I've seen tortious interference thrown around and I can't see how it's relevent here. Texas A&M and the SEC have been *very* deliberate in their actions, most specifically, A&M very decidedly negotiated their exit from the Big12 *and then* approached the SEC. The SEC did not interfere with A&M's contract with the Big12, which Baylor is very likely not to a party to anyway. Again, not a lawyer (though I know some!) but I can't see any solid ground for Baylor suing the SEC and winning. Prolonging? Angering? Sure. Again, it goes back to there being no damages associated with A&M's departure. What's their claim? Bingo! Baylor wants to get paid. Understandable. I continue to believe they don't have one, though. I don't see it. This exit has, financially, changed nothing. And will not change if the Big9 is salvaged.
