If I were a recruit looking at possibilities in the BE, the first thing I would do would be to limit my choices to those schools leaving; or not consider the BE at all.

(11-03-2011 08:08 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  But there is the Supreme Court and the Big East can file a counter suites in a federal court and 13 other states as well.

Actually, as TerryD suggested, there is probably no way the case will be heard in West Virginia circuit court. As the parties of the case are of complete diversity with regards to residency, and since the case meets the minimum amount in controversy of $75,000, a federal court would likely remove the case to federal court. The law is designed to protect parties from other states from having to argue a major case in front of a "home crowd". Unless, of course, the Big East contract specifies arbitration or a specific venue.

(11-03-2011 10:56 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  I keep hearing that the Big East can't get this suit removed to federal court because of an exception for the states and apparently WVU is claiming that WVU is really an alter ego (or the same person/entity) as the state of West Virginia. I'd have to look into that. I don't remember that exception in 1332 (as TerryD mentioned).

Interesting. Public universities in Texas have successfully used this argument to claim soverign immunity in the past. However, soverign immunity shouldn't apply since WVU is the party bringing the suit. It is irrelevant anyway...I agree 100% that this case is nothing but a tactic. Regardless of what the Big East says, all WVU has to do is start playing Big 12 football next year. Unless the Big East is planning on calling out the Kentucky militia to prevent the team from crossing the border, nobody can stop them. The issue is what damages the Big East would be awarded after the fact. As long as WVU is willing to deal with the certainty of a lawsuit and the possibility of paying damages to the Big East, they can do whatever they want.

Well if WVU just decides to up and play next season in the B12......assume the Big East files a countersuit and an injunction is filed against playing in the B12 until the case is resolved.....what happens then if WVU just ignores the injunction?

Would they be in contempt? Could the judge put the WVU AD in jail or something?

I mean the lawsuit that WVU brings is basically about time and playing in the B12 by 2012....if a judge allows WVU to just up and do whatever it wants.....then WVU essentially have won their case without even taking it to trial even with the damages that would be forthcoming.

That doesn't even address the fact that the BE would forfeit AQ status because they would cease to be an 8 team league.

There is no way the Big 12 lets WV play one down of football in the Big 12 until this is legally resolved. If they do, they are the worst run conference in the country, without doubt.

Scenario 1: Big XII invite is conditioned on WVU joining next year. WVU argues an injunction will cause it harm. Big XII on hook for tortious interference, regardless of what happens between WVU & BE. They knowingly contracted with a party currently under contract with another, inducing said party to breach the existing contract.

Scenario 2: BigXII invite is not conditioned on WVU joining next year. Court finds WVU will therefore not be harmed by enforcing terms of the current contract THAT WVU HAD PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO. , since WVU can comply with the terms of the BE contract and join at its completion. A court may not force WVU to stay in the BE, but it could very easily STOP them from competing in the BigXII.

Apart from the above, any possible settlement between the parties will depend on how they view 27 month/8 member requirement playing out.

It's going to be incredibly difficult (IMO) for a court to determine damages, because there are so many moving parts to this. Harm to BE's future BCS status from WVU leaving early, TV package, reduced gate receipts due to quality of replacement games, etc. If the court allows WVU to leave early and the BE falls short of the 8 member continuity rule, how do you put a $$ figure on that?

IF WVU just up and leaves without the matter being settled, and/or the BigXII allows it, both parties are extremely incomptetent.

Neinas specifically clarified that the bid in not contingent on being available in 2012:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/11/02/...ig-12.html

(11-03-2011 10:05 AM)Capital Pirate Wrote:  

(11-03-2011 09:17 AM)snowycuse Wrote:  WVU is single-handidly destroying the conference with the blessing of the Big 12.

Whew...pretty strong accusation from a fan of a team that hit the door as soon as it was given the opportunity. Could easily be argued that had SU and Pitt not bolted, WVU might not have gone anywhere.......

Syracuse and Pittsburgh are still complying publically with staying until 2014 giving the Big East plenty of time to regroup. Already the Big East has added football markets in Idaho, Houston, Dallas, and Orlando, as well as, a national following with Air Force and Navy. These schools will probably be on board by 2013 and arguably the Big East is in good shape although much different then we are all used to. Syracuse and Pittsburgh have done no damage to the conference except from a traditional standpoint.

West Virginia on the other hand is trying to force a move out during a year in which it is still needed in the Big East, as agreed, in order for the conference to live on without any issues. The 27-month agreement is not intended to hold programs hostage but in place to give the left behind schools an opportunity to recover without the same negative impact the Big East went through in 2003. For all intents and purposes Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and West Virignia should be let go in 2013 though the commisioner must say 2014. We all know the basketball schools will not want these three around taking away bids in the NCAA tournament.

As for saying Syracuse did any damage to the confernce you need to be educated on what has actually happened. Syracuse gave notice in 2003 it wanted to be in an all-sports conference with fellow private schools, notably Miami and Boston College. When Miami left Boston College and Syracuse remained adamant that the football schools split and form an all sports conference with Louisville and Cincinatti getting the nod.

We all know what happened but the main point is that conference leadership had until 2010 to expand and split and that did not happen. It was 2011 and the Big East could still not agree on expansion or TV contracts arguing about Villanova and UCF. While everyone was arguing Cuse applied to rejoin Miami and Boston College.

Egg is on the face of the Big East as they now had no choice but to expand with the teams we all knew they would have to expand with form the very beginning. Poor management cost them Pitt, Cuse, WVu, and TCU and that is a shame.

I think that Pitt and Syracuse are not making such2 a fus since they don't need to and not because they are being more professional or anything like that. They are not on a specific time frame and sure they want to leave earlier but it isn't as important as it is for the Big-12.

(11-03-2011 08:03 AM)dogma Wrote:  

(11-03-2011 07:40 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(11-02-2011 11:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  http://www.wvmetronews.com/hoppy.cfm?fun...ryid=48940

And this is the main reason they will prevail:

"In the Big East case, at some point WVU signed an agreement with a conference that had Virginia Tech, Miami, Boston College, Pitt and Syracuse as members. The departure of those schools, the decision by TCU to leave the league after one year, and the discussions by Connecticut, Louisville, Rutgers and Cincinnati with other conferences, have denigrated the league to the point where existence of the league, as the lawsuit says, “is in serious jeopardy.”

I do tend to disagree with the later part of their statement. I am not sure Louisville and Cincy went looking before WVU though in all honesty...

Okay, here's you you all can shoot at me...

This statement is not accurate. The $5M/27 month provision was formally adopted by the BE AFTER Miami, VT, and BC formally notified the BE that they were leaving. (In BC's case, the courts declared that the provisions did not apply to BC because of this fact.). IMO, if WVU had concerns about the fact that Miami, VT, and BC were leaving, they should not have agreed to the new exit terms.

It seems like USAFMEDIC and WVMETRONEWS spent as much time reading the bylaws/facts as WVU's lawyers.

I was passing along the article for creative discussion which, by all accounts here, has been a smashing sucess...

I actually have read the entire lawsuit and I personally think it's a 50/50 thing. Never know about judges. I do know the BE's court track record though... just threw it out there for comment.

Here's my question: If the BE, after the Friday invitations hoopla, will be a thriving, solvent conference with new exciting AQ level teams, why are they trying to keep the eX-wives in tow? Clear me up on this if I am incorrect, but I thought money was not the issue for the BE. WVU will gladly pay their way out with Big XII money from Mizzou and A&M. Seems to me that moving ahead should not involve dragging the past along with you....There will be an expensive settlement, I believe, and it will be a bit more than 5 mil...

(11-03-2011 12:32 PM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  Well if WVU just decides to up and play next season in the B12......assume the Big East files a countersuit and an injunction is filed against playing in the B12 until the case is resolved.....what happens then if WVU just ignores the injunction?

Would they be in contempt? Could the judge put the WVU AD in jail or something?

I mean the lawsuit that WVU brings is basically about time and playing in the B12 by 2012....if a judge allows WVU to just up and do whatever it wants.....then WVU essentially have won their case without even taking it to trial even with the damages that would be forthcoming.

That doesn't even address the fact that the BE would forfeit AQ status because they would cease to be an 8 team league.

Contempt powers are strong, if the Judge orders the AD and president not to do something and they do it...they're in deep s**t.

(11-03-2011 06:24 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Here's my question: If the BE, after the Friday invitations hoopla, will be a thriving, solvent conference with new exciting AQ level teams, why are they trying to keep the eX-wives in tow? Clear me up on this if I am incorrect, but I thought money was not the issue for the BE. WVU will gladly pay their way out with Big XII money from Mizzou and A&M. Seems to me that moving ahead should not involve dragging the past along with you....There will be an expensive settlement, I believe, and it will be a bit more than 5 mil...

Need 8 members playing together for 24 months...

The problem more than anything is the 8 member requirement....otherwise I think this would be simple.

(11-03-2011 06:36 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-03-2011 06:25 AM)splitstud Wrote:  

(11-03-2011 05:36 AM)CorporateRobot Wrote:  Here's Why WVU Will NOT Win In Court: TIME

There is no way the legal system can move this through before the scheduling needs to be completed for the 2012 season.

So, the only way they "win" with this... is if this frivolous suit scares the Big East into settling faster or for less money. Otherwise, this is just WVU throwing spitballs.

They can leave anytime they want, but every day earlier that they leave will cost them more $$.

Exactly. It isn't going to be possible for WV to prevail in court in time to get the remedy they seek. The Big East doesn't seem to have any ability to just let the 3 teams walk before 2013 - they can't function as a conference without them. Very simply, WV goes nowhere for 2012 unless there are schools joining for 2012 to replace them.

I imagine WVU will go ahead and leave unless the Big East can get an injunction to make them stay, and the resulting lawsuit will end up being about the Big East's counterclaim for increased damages.

Won't this be a civil case? And if so, can a civil court issue an injuction? I have no idea...

(11-03-2011 07:31 PM)mavblues Wrote:  

(11-03-2011 06:24 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Here's my question: If the BE, after the Friday invitations hoopla, will be a thriving, solvent conference with new exciting AQ level teams, why are they trying to keep the eX-wives in tow? Clear me up on this if I am incorrect, but I thought money was not the issue for the BE. WVU will gladly pay their way out with Big XII money from Mizzou and A&M. Seems to me that moving ahead should not involve dragging the past along with you....There will be an expensive settlement, I believe, and it will be a bit more than 5 mil...

Need 8 members playing together for 24 months...

I thought the rule was 5 teams for 24 months... where did you get 8?
(NOTE: I still agree that someone has to join for someone to leave at this point).

(11-03-2011 07:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(11-03-2011 06:36 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-03-2011 06:25 AM)splitstud Wrote:  

(11-03-2011 05:36 AM)CorporateRobot Wrote:  Here's Why WVU Will NOT Win In Court: TIME

There is no way the legal system can move this through before the scheduling needs to be completed for the 2012 season.

So, the only way they "win" with this... is if this frivolous suit scares the Big East into settling faster or for less money. Otherwise, this is just WVU throwing spitballs.

They can leave anytime they want, but every day earlier that they leave will cost them more $$.

Exactly. It isn't going to be possible for WV to prevail in court in time to get the remedy they seek. The Big East doesn't seem to have any ability to just let the 3 teams walk before 2013 - they can't function as a conference without them. Very simply, WV goes nowhere for 2012 unless there are schools joining for 2012 to replace them.

I imagine WVU will go ahead and leave unless the Big East can get an injunction to make them stay, and the resulting lawsuit will end up being about the Big East's counterclaim for increased damages.

Won't this be a civil case? And if so, can a civil court issue an injuction? I have no idea...

Yes, they can.

Technically, yeah - the court could issue an injunction to stop WVU from leaving. A claim has not been filed to make that happen, though, as of right now. This suit from WVU is quirky because it's essentially a preemptive strike. My train of thought was that the Big East would be in the driver's seat on filing the suit because WVU would essentially just say that they were leaving and make the Big East step in and stop them. Because it is WVU who filed the suit the legal analysis is a little different. There are still quite a few issues I am thinking through and truthfully I need to re-read the complaint sometime to get a more full handle on everything.

As for an injunction itself against WVU leaving, I am going to say that is really unlikely but possible. The courts in the US who handle civil matters are setup to compensate parties for the injuries. Damages are the typical award. Courts do have equitable powers as well, though. These are the powers where the court can make someone do or not do something. An injunction falls under these powers. In contracts cases, damages are the usual remedy offered. Specific performance is a remedy whereby the court will order a party to perform their part of the agreement. This is a rarely granted request. The rule is that essentially the item or service must be so rare or special that damages don't cut it. I like to use the example of a one of a kind painting to think about this. If you agree to purchase a one of a kind painting and you pay the money for it just getting your money back isn't enough for you because you can't just use your money to buy another painting just like it. It has to be that specific painting.

WVU's lawsuit is interesting because by acting preemptively they got to file the suit on their own turf. If this were to go to trial, then, they would get a jury of West Virginians to decide the case. That's pretty huge. If the Big East can't get this removed to federal court it's going to be very interesting. I still haven't gone back and re-read the rules on this.

One of their interesting arguments is that they don't think they should be held to the Big East by-laws because the league they contracted to be a part of in 2003 no longer exists. That's not a terrible argument. The major flaw that I see with it, though, is that if everyone adheres to the by-laws they'll all get to leave in 2014. That means, essentially, that unless Pitt and Syracuse leave earlier than WVU can this is kind of unpersuasive. The conference will, theoretically, look the same in 2012 and 2013 as it does now - exactly as it did after the raid in 2003 when the by-laws were agreed to. Keep in mind that this argument is not available to Pitt or Syracuse because nobody has left to alter the complexion of the conference since then. How could they then make the argument that the conference now isn't what they had signed up for? They can't...

Another interesting argument is that the 27 month notice period is an unreasonable restraint on trade. I think this would be a really good argument if the Big East already had their new teams lined up and ready to join for 2012. If the Big East were to hold the departing schools into seasons where the new schools were also participating in Big East sports I think this argument would be really solid. I don't know the elements that need to be proven on it, however, I think it probably would have merit then. At this point I think it's factually difficult to prove regardless of what showing needs to be made. It's easy to see there is a purpose to the requirement - for the Big East to become whole again after suffering losses. Right now it's unfair to say they've had enough time to do that.

I think it's unwise to think about contracts with such a bright line stance as some posters have been doing. The "a contract is a contract" thinking may be noble but it is inaccurate. Contracts are legal devices and there is no such thing as a perfect contract. Just because something is a part of a contract doesn't make it right. Over the course of US history the courts have recognized this time and time again. That's why there are defenses like those mentioned in the WVU complaint (albeit they are kind of presenting defenses as the plaintiff which is strange). I don't mean to say that you shouldn't honor your contracts or that it's wrong to think that a contract should be adhered to morally but legally that's not really the case. There are legitimately recognized reasons for not performing a contract. Because these mechanisms exist the truth of the matter is that a contract isn't a contract and you need to keep that in mind when you analyze this situation and the 27 month notice requirement.