(11-04-2011 10:25 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  West Virginia will be playing football in the Big East in 2012 whether Oliver Luck and their fanbase like it or not. The tortiously interfering conference raider, "OctoCom" Chuck Neinas, better start sending flowers and chocolates to Missouri and informing them that they will be remaining in the Big 12 for the 2012 season. This screwed up process has got to be the sloppiest wave of realignment in the history of the NCAA.

I agree with this. The Big XII will not allow WVU to join until this is settled. If they do, they will be sued for tortious interference and they will lose. There is no way they want to get involved in this. The Big East will drag this out until it reaches a point where the Big XII gives on WVU joining for 2012 and then a settlement will be reached. Missouri will be in the Big XII one more year, then everyone will move.

Ok, Melky, so I'm not sure if you read my post or just missed the point. Either way, let me see if we can get on the same page.

So you mentioned that there was a provision in the Big East Constitution that said that the Big East is entitled to injunctive relief to keep WVU in the conference (aka force them to abide by the agreement). I asked you if you had a link to the agreement which you graciously provided for me. You said that I was using a straw man argument because I summarized your position as "a contract's a contract" - meaning by virtue of being written there the provisions should be enforced/enforceable and because WVU agreed to it they should be held to it.

I provided my insight into 11.02 (b) - the provision you mentioned. Interestingly, when I look back at the original comments you made that I responded to I notice that you phrased the Big East's right to seek injunctive relief exactly as I would have. You said: "states that the conference is entitled to seek injunctive relief."

That's exactly what I just wrote in my last post. The Big East is entitled to seek injunctive relief. They're not entitled to be granted injunctive relief. Don't get me wrong, though - that could happen. The point is that it's not in their hands whether it happens or not. Just because this paragraph exists doesn't make it so. And as I also mentioned this paragraph is really redundant because they have the right to seek injunctive relief regardless of if this is written into the Conference's Constitution.

And in response to my post you wrote a very long post of your own which is mostly unresponsive to my previous post. I mean, do you think that 11.02 (b) says that the Big East is entitled to injunctive relief without having to make a showing of all the necessary elements to the court that they would have to make if it didn't exist? Obviously I have argued that it does not. I'm curious to see, though, if you are reading it differently than I am and what language there makes you think that way if there is a disagreement.

I kind of feel that we are back to arguing about whether WVU should honor the contract. It seems like you feel quite strongly that they should. Essentially we're back to what you referred to as straw man. It seems like your point is that because WVU had a hand in creating the agreement and agreed to it at the time of its completion that they should honor it.

Maybe WVU should honor the agreement. Arguing about that, though, doesn't address the real question - will they/do they have to? To me that is a far more interesting question. I've mentioned numerous times that specific performance is a rare remedy to breach of contract disputes. That's what the Big East is going to have to argue and is arguing against WVU. And you were correct to point out that it's not an easy question to answer. The Big East has the agreement on their side but may still not have the remedies they prefer available to them. Maybe they'll get a huge sum of damages...I don't know.

What would you have preferred I used instead of "they" to refer to the Big East?

(11-05-2011 12:32 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  Maybe WVU should honor the agreement. Arguing about that, though, doesn't address the real question - will they/do they have to? To me that is a far more interesting question. I've mentioned numerous times that specific performance is a rare remedy to breach of contract disputes. That's what the Big East is going to have to argue and is arguing against WVU. And you were correct to point out that it's not an easy question to answer. The Big East has the agreement on their side but may still not have the remedies they prefer available to them. Maybe they'll get a huge sum of damages...I don't know.

When can the CUSA schools start competing in the Big East? If SMU, Houston, and UCF are available to start in fall 2012, then any damage to the Big East can be settled with money. Judges don't need to, and shouldn't, force WVU or Pitt or Syracuse to continue in the Big East after the CUSA schools have started in the Big East.

OTOH, if SMU, Houston, and UCF absolutely cannot get out of CUSA until fall 2013, then WVU, Pitt, and Cuse shouldn't be allowed to make the Big East play football with five teams in 2012.

And, the key part of that last sentence is "football". The Big East has more than enough teams to go around in every sport except football. So, even if SMU, Houston, and UCF cannot escape CUSA until fall 2013, WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse should only be forced to play football in the Big East in the 2012-2013 school year, and should be allowed to move all of their other sports to their new leagues in fall 2012 if that's what the conferences and the schools want.

(11-04-2011 07:39 PM)wvfan27 Wrote:  it has been explained to you and others many times on this very board, I'm not doing it again. 99% chance we are gone for 2012 and a 100% chance we are gone by 2013.

What the WVU fans refuse to acknowledge is that the BE doesn't need an injunction to make them stay.

BigXII would be extremely reckless to allow WVU in until the matter is settled one way or the other.

SEC didn't want a lawsuit in the Texas A&M matter, so why would BigXII want one in this matter. This case is much stronger than the Texas A&M situation.

The WVU fans are the same people who were quoting anonymous Twitter posts (eernation, etc.) that WVU was a lock for the SEC.

Others have posted it here, and I agree, that the most likely scenario is that WVU is here for next year, and they pay a lump of money to get out for the following year.

If WVU leaves and joins the Big 12, even without an injunction, there could be major lawsuits against the Big 12. That would bring problems that the Big 12 would not work. Plus Im not quite sure, but I believe there might be anterior ways to keep WVU away from Big 12 without an injunction.

And the Big East's argument is not flimsy at all. They are using actual facts and laws that WVU agreed to against them. WVU is using the argument that Big East might lose the AQ status (cant prove it) and is doing nothing to improve itself (which is false since the teams they would be bringing in bring more points, markets, etc.). Flimsy argument at best.

(11-04-2011 04:26 PM)WVUMounties Wrote:  No WV judge is going to force an injunction on WVU and I'm fairly confident in saying that the BE won't be able to get this case out of WV.

I think you are right here. WVU has just filed suit to have the contract terminated on various grounds. It's up to The BE to try to get an injunction to prevent WVU from packing up the moving vans...

I also do not think the State Superior Court Of Rhode Island has any jurisidiction over a WV State University. They can sue for damages I guess.. which is the end game here.

I just wish the BE commish would have worked as hard to make the BE work, as he has trying to make the departing teams stay.

(11-05-2011 10:35 AM)mavblues Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 07:39 PM)wvfan27 Wrote:  it has been explained to you and others many times on this very board, I'm not doing it again. 99% chance we are gone for 2012 and a 100% chance we are gone by 2013.

What the WVU fans refuse to acknowledge is that the BE doesn't need an injunction to make them stay.

BigXII would be extremely reckless to allow WVU in until the matter is settled one way or the other.

SEC didn't want a lawsuit in the Texas A&M matter, so why would BigXII want one in this matter. This case is much stronger than the Texas A&M situation.

The WVU fans are the same people who were quoting anonymous Twitter posts (eernation, etc.) that WVU was a lock for the SEC.

Others have posted it here, and I agree, that the most likely scenario is that WVU is here for next year, and they pay a lump of money to get out for the following year.

The SEC has put the Aggies on their 2012 schedule and the Big XII won't even discuss exit fees right now... that is not settled at all yet.

(11-05-2011 11:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  The SEC has put the Aggies on their 2012 schedule and the Big XII won't even discuss exit fees right now... that is not settled at all yet.

And that decision was made only after SEC was told OK was staying in BigXII, keeping that league at 9 teams. That was to be followed by the supposed assignment of TV rights (still not completed). Had the 4 schools decided to bolt for the west coast, A&M would not be in for next year due to litigation fears.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...3th-member

(11-04-2011 07:58 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 07:47 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 07:36 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 07:30 PM)wvfan27 Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 07:28 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  You really need to read the Big East bylaws. By accepting the bylaws, West Virginia is already on record as having agreed to every single point in the Big East's case against them. I simply don't see how they wriggle out of this one.

But I guess you feel that by simply repeating that they will be gone in 2012 ad infinitum, it will magically happen.

rarely can you really force someone to honor a contract, you can only sue for the appropriate damages if they don't. Which is what will happen here, WVU will pay their dues and be gone...everyone will claim victory. I know you seem to be upset about all of this, I understand..I probably would be too if I was left behind. But that is what will happen.

You're a lawyer?

The fact is that in the bylaws it specifically states that the conference is entitled to seek injunctive relief if a withdrawing member fails to honor any one of the conditions - including the 27 month rule and that the departing member will be responsible for legal fees and any other expenses connected with obtaining the injunction. West Virginia has already agreed to these bylaws

So, do you want to explain to me how West Virginia not only gets out of a contract which they've already agreed to honor, contests the fact that their actions have caused the conference irreparable harm when that language is already specifically in the bylaws to which they've agreed, & fights an injunction which they've previously agreed to?

This is a lot more complicated than you're conceding. You really need to read the bylaws.

Do you have a link to the Big East Constitution? If not, where are you getting your info from?

And again - just because something is in a contract doesn't make it magic. If anything your argument that "a contract is a contract" is an oversimplification of the issues at hand.

You're setting up a straw man argument. When you argue against "a contract is a contract", you're not dealing with me because that's not what I said.

And yes, I do have a link to the Big East Bylaws. They're part of the brief that the Big East submitted in its filing against West Virginia. You can get to the bylaws simply be scrolling down to page 12.

http://news.providencejournal.com/breaki...110411.pdf

I had a contract I signed with a builder ...right up until he put a window on the house upside down. I broke it. He can sue me, but I am still not a client. Sounds funny, right? Well call me WVU and the builder the BE. He/they are the ones who did not provide the requested services they advertised...in writing. The issue is not just that WVU signed a contract for 27 months...it's the fact that maybe they have decided that the vendor here, the BE, has not lived up to the stipulations of the contract.

I am not a lawyer, but I do not see how a Rhode Island State Court has one ounce of jurisdiction in the State of WV. This will be a civil matter. WVU may pay damages, but no state court outside WV is going to stop WVU from moving. Maybe there is a Federal remedy here, I dont know about that. Seems like if the BE could have used the Federal Courts they would have filed there...

Once again:

Please explain why a court has to "stop WVU from moving" as the sole means for the BE to retain WVU for the 2012 season.

i.e. the injunction (or lack thereof) is not the be all, end all like you make it out to be.

WVU can decide it wants to take the risk and leave the BE early, it still needs BigXII to agree to allow it to play. You (and others) seem to want to ignore that all important second part.

Unless the matter is settled one way or the other, BigXII would be foolish to allow WVU to play in its conference. Can it happen? Sure, but it's not logical.

Seems to me that the way the BE wrote its complaint, it would be very easy to amend it and add BigXII. BE's complaint even quoted the BigXII's press release (stating WVU would join for 2012 season) as a shot across the bow.

Suggest you read the BE's complaint. Love the part about WVU's then President and counsel being the ones that drafted the tougher exit language.

BTW, you do realize that when BC announced it was leaving (also in October, if memory is correct), they had to stay one extra season beyond the other schools (Miami & VT) because they missed the deadline, right? (BC left in 2005, Miami & VT left in 2004)

Unless there were previous backroom offers to WVU, Pitt, Louisville, and/or 'Cuse that we don't know about (and none are alleged in WVU's complaint), then WVU will be here next year unless BE decides to settle.

After that, I agree all parties probably move on in exchange for $$.

(11-05-2011 03:19 PM)mavblues Wrote:  Once again:

Please explain why a court has to "stop WVU from moving" as the sole means for the BE to retain WVU for the 2012 season.

i.e. the injunction (or lack thereof) is not the be all, end all like you make it out to be.

WVU can decide it wants to take the risk and leave the BE early, it still needs BigXII to agree to allow it to play. You (and others) seem to want to ignore that all important second part.

Unless the matter is settled one way or the other, BigXII would be foolish to allow WVU to play in its conference. Can it happen? Sure, but it's not logical.

Seems to me that the way the BE wrote its complaint, it would be very easy to amend it and add BigXII. BE's complaint even quoted the BigXII's press release (stating WVU would join for 2012 season) as a shot across the bow.

Suggest you read the BE's complaint. Love the part about WVU's then President and counsel being the ones that drafted the tougher exit language.

BTW, you do realize that when BC announced it was leaving (also in October, if memory is correct), they had to stay one extra season beyond the other schools (Miami & VT) because they missed the deadline, right? (BC left in 2005, Miami & VT left in 2004)

Unless there were previous backroom offers to WVU, Pitt, Louisville, and/or 'Cuse that we don't know about (and none are alleged in WVU's complaint), then WVU will be here next year unless BE decides to settle.

After that, I agree all parties probably move on in exchange for $$.

So who says the Big XII is worried about the BE? . It's not their problem. They didn't sign the agreement. You saw their presser. Don't think they are afraid. Didn't WVU sign that agreement before the Cuse and Pitt bailed and gutted the conference's future? Have to provide a good product to your customers. The Be has resigned itself to asking teams 3 time zones away to please come and play. Thats my point here. Total desperation. I do hope UCONN gets an ACC nod though. I am in your corner there...

(11-05-2011 04:42 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 03:19 PM)mavblues Wrote:  Once again:

Please explain why a court has to "stop WVU from moving" as the sole means for the BE to retain WVU for the 2012 season.

i.e. the injunction (or lack thereof) is not the be all, end all like you make it out to be.

WVU can decide it wants to take the risk and leave the BE early, it still needs BigXII to agree to allow it to play. You (and others) seem to want to ignore that all important second part.

Unless the matter is settled one way or the other, BigXII would be foolish to allow WVU to play in its conference. Can it happen? Sure, but it's not logical.

Seems to me that the way the BE wrote its complaint, it would be very easy to amend it and add BigXII. BE's complaint even quoted the BigXII's press release (stating WVU would join for 2012 season) as a shot across the bow.

Suggest you read the BE's complaint. Love the part about WVU's then President and counsel being the ones that drafted the tougher exit language.

BTW, you do realize that when BC announced it was leaving (also in October, if memory is correct), they had to stay one extra season beyond the other schools (Miami & VT) because they missed the deadline, right? (BC left in 2005, Miami & VT left in 2004)

Unless there were previous backroom offers to WVU, Pitt, Louisville, and/or 'Cuse that we don't know about (and none are alleged in WVU's complaint), then WVU will be here next year unless BE decides to settle.

After that, I agree all parties probably move on in exchange for $$.

So who says the Big XII is worried about the BE? . It's not their problem. They didn't sign the agreement. You saw their presser. Don't think they are afraid. Didn't WVU sign that agreement before the Cuse and Pitt bailed and gutted the conference's future? Have to provide a good product to your customers. The Be has resigned itself to asking teams 3 time zones away to please come and play. Thats my point here. Total desperation. I do hope UCONN gets an ACC nod though. I am in your corner there...

To add to this, I think if the SEC will wait a year for Mizzou, and the BE lets WVU go after next year, that would be the best for everyone. Mizzou and the SEC can wait. No big deal there, but isn't the BE trying to keep WVU until 2014? How about one year and out and save a ton of legal crap. I think actually that they are all hashing this out behind closed doors...

(11-05-2011 04:42 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  So who says the Big XII is worried about the BE? . It's not their problem. They didn't sign the agreement. You saw their presser. Don't think they are afraid. Didn't WVU sign that agreement before the Cuse and Pitt bailed and gutted the conference's future? Have to provide a good product to your customers. The Be has resigned itself to asking teams 3 time zones away to please come and play. Thats my point here. Total desperation. I do hope UCONN gets an ACC nod though. I am in your corner there...

With all due respect, you're turning this into some sort of macho pi$$ing match between conferences.

The BigXII has already shown that it IS afraid of litigation (rightly so), by virtue of the fact that they backpedaled about the whole "2012" issue. The BigXII's original press release was quite clear, as were Neinas' initial comments to the press.

Courts generally do not look favorably on self serving retractions after the fact...

Anyway, the venue issue will be the first big battle.

It is quite possible that there are plenty of issues that are not publicly known, any one of which would render these arguments moot. However, none have been disclosed in the complaints.

Good luck to everyone involved - I don't have a horse in the race, as long as the BE survives with AQ intact.

(11-05-2011 05:00 PM)mavblues Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 04:42 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  So who says the Big XII is worried about the BE? . It's not their problem. They didn't sign the agreement. You saw their presser. Don't think they are afraid. Didn't WVU sign that agreement before the Cuse and Pitt bailed and gutted the conference's future? Have to provide a good product to your customers. The Be has resigned itself to asking teams 3 time zones away to please come and play. Thats my point here. Total desperation. I do hope UCONN gets an ACC nod though. I am in your corner there...

With all due respect, you're turning this into some sort of macho pi$$ing match between conferences.

The BigXII has already shown that it IS afraid of litigation (rightly so), by virtue of the fact that they backpedaled about the whole "2012" issue. The BigXII's original press release was quite clear, as were Neinas' initial comments to the press.

Courts generally do not look favorably on self serving retractions after the fact...

Anyway, the venue issue will be the first big battle.

It is quite possible that there are plenty of issues that are not publicly known, any one of which would render these arguments moot. However, none have been disclosed in the complaints.

Good luck to everyone involved - I don't have a horse in the race, as long as the BE survives with AQ intact.

I appreciate your input. I am by no means an expert here. Just think there are always two sides to every story. The BE has theirs and WVU has theirs. I still believe a 2013 move for all parties would be a compromise. The newest BE members could be in place and the BE would not need WVU. Big XII is happy, the SEC is patient, and all is good. Good time of the year for the Huskies. BB is here..