(08-02-2021 03:52 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  We'll get that expanded CFP but may not until 2024 instead of 2023. Less aggressive timeline.

2024 would better fit everything. Timing of the XII departures. GOR renewal for the PAC. Most importantly 2 years remaining on the existing CFP contract for a more even number.

The reason for 2023 or 2026 is because of the three year cycle of Contract Bowls and Access Bowls serving as Semi-Final bowls.

Quo,

There is no power autonomous conference that will take the schools of the little 8. They simply don't fill needs in the next few years. May be different in 2030 or 2035, but not right now. The Big XII has autonomous status, and that cannot be rescinded. Leaving for the American would forfeit that as well as their share of the exit fees of Texas and Oklahoma as well as accumulated and future basketball credits piled up in the B12 (credits accrued from before new schools enter are not shared with those schools). If you figure all the credits and exit fees accumulated up to 2025 take another 5 years to be distributed, then there is zero incentive to leave for a non-autonomous conference with at best equal media revenue. Remember, so long as just three schools remain, much like the old Big East when only Cincy, South Florida and UConn held over, the conference wont die, it will pick up new schools so the remnant can collect.

A conference as powerful as the Big 12 doesn't die, it simply degrades. The last round the degradation of the Big East killed the Great West and almost killed the WAC. LOL a Big 12 implosion could kill the OVC.

(08-02-2021 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, in the case of the murder, the issue is who is going to file charges against the killer?

I am struggling to find out who the "state" in this example will be.

Also, no doubt in your example the ex-wife would be entitled to half of the billions, but in that case, the target of her suit would be the party who left her, her now-ex husband.

Can Bowlsby file a suit because he's now out of a job? Can a scrap of LLC paper?

Love that you think in terms of analogies because so do I, but they're really falling off the rails. The ex-wife is entitled to her share because she has the contract (Wedding contract), and the Big 12 has the contract with ESPN.

What you're saying about the piece of paper suing ESPN is totally correct, but that's why I've been saying it's moot.

In order for the Big 12 to become a piece of paper, the 8 members have to decide they don't want the $840 from ESPN, the FOX money, the NCAA Tournament revenue, and the CFP revenue.

And that's just not happening because it's insane. There's not enough Big Ten/SEC/ACC/Pac-12 landing spots for them to all jump to. And even if there WERE, it still makes more sense for all of them to go in 2025 instead of now.

The whole situation of leaving the Big 12 is "Do you want the $1.2 billion you're owed; Yes or No?" The answer is yes.

(08-02-2021 11:01 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 10:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...if its in court, you can bet they will be arguing it is punitive. At that point, it will be up to the Big12 to prove it isnt. Good luck with proving that taking a public schools rights for 4 years while providing no compensation for those rights is not punitive. I think thats going to be a tough argument to make. My point is going to court is not going to be as cut and dried as you might think. The Big12 could easily come out much worse off---which is why these things are almost always settled. No conference really wants to test these agreements in court.

What's going to happen (barring a settlement) is that $160 million from each of UT and OU is going to be withheld over a 4-year period. If it goes to court, that is, UT sues the Big 12 because they think that's too high, they will bear the burden of persuasion in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Then, they will bear the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence that the contracts they signed (which included a 99-year commitment, a 12-hour notice provision and an agreement to immediately and firmly reject any offers) should not apply and their provisions are unenforceable. Because why? An exit fee that everyone agreed is not punitive is somehow punitive? It won't be as cut and dried as you (or UT) think. Their better argument is that the contract also specifies that it's 2 years worth of revenues that constitutes the exit fee ($80 million each). Although the Interim Period clearly started last week and they gave 4 years notice. That's at least ambiguous. The punitive argument has less merit, IMO.

Of course, we should settle. But if we don't, it's $160 million (each) which will have already been withheld.

You seem to be locked into the "they agreed it was not punitive when the signed it". The document doesnt say that. In fact---you've admitted that they may have actually intended it to be punitive---but that intent doesnt make it enforceable. In fact, an admission that the intent was to prevent schools from leaving and not a representation of the actual damages renders the clause void. Its like signing a 10 year non-compete. Thats almost always going to be found as unenforceable---whether the employee agreed to it or not.

Here's what I think---this will be settled. Texas and OU will leave early and the Big12 left behinds will receive a big azz vat of money.

(08-02-2021 03:57 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 03:52 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  We'll get that expanded CFP but may not until 2024 instead of 2023. Less aggressive timeline.

2024 would better fit everything. Timing of the XII departures. GOR renewal for the PAC. Most importantly 2 years remaining on the existing CFP contract for a more even number.

The reason for 2023 or 2026 is because of the three year cycle of Contract Bowls and Access Bowls serving as Semi-Final bowls.

Its a 6 year cycle and contract bowls host the semifinals twice in each 6 year cycle.

I don't think it has to be 2023 and split the cycle 3/3. I do think 2025 doesn't make sense to have the playoff just 1 year early. 2022 of course they won't be ready for that.

As long as each contract bowl has served as semis at least once in the 6 year cycle I don't see where they'd have a sense of being cheated, particularly if they are part of the expanded CFP in some capacity.

(08-02-2021 04:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 11:01 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 10:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...if its in court, you can bet they will be arguing it is punitive. At that point, it will be up to the Big12 to prove it isnt. Good luck with proving that taking a public schools rights for 4 years while providing no compensation for those rights is not punitive. I think thats going to be a tough argument to make. My point is going to court is not going to be as cut and dried as you might think. The Big12 could easily come out much worse off---which is why these things are almost always settled. No conference really wants to test these agreements in court.

What's going to happen (barring a settlement) is that $160 million from each of UT and OU is going to be withheld over a 4-year period. If it goes to court, that is, UT sues the Big 12 because they think that's too high, they will bear the burden of persuasion in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Then, they will bear the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence that the contracts they signed (which included a 99-year commitment, a 12-hour notice provision and an agreement to immediately and firmly reject any offers) should not apply and their provisions are unenforceable. Because why? An exit fee that everyone agreed is not punitive is somehow punitive? It won't be as cut and dried as you (or UT) think. Their better argument is that the contract also specifies that it's 2 years worth of revenues that constitutes the exit fee ($80 million each). Although the Interim Period clearly started last week and they gave 4 years notice. That's at least ambiguous. The punitive argument has less merit, IMO.

Of course, we should settle. But if we don't, it's $160 million (each) which will have already been withheld.

You seem to be locked into the "they agreed it was not punitive when the signed it". The document doesnt say that. In fact---you've admitted that they may have actually intended it to be punitive---but that intent doesnt make it enforceable. In fact, an admission that the intent was to prevent schools from leaving and not a representation of the actual damages renders the clause void. Its like signing a 10 year non-compete. Thats almost always going to be found as unenforceable---whether the employee agreed to it or not.

Here's what I think---this will be settled. Texas and OU will leave early and the Big12 left behinds will receive a big azz vat of money.

Agree. A settlement is in everyone’s best interest. The unwanted and unloved little 8 can take their money to the bank and concentrate their efforts on putting together a top tier G5/6 conference ‘cause their power conference days are gone.

(08-02-2021 04:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You seem to be locked into the "they agreed it was not punitive when the signed it". The document doesnt say that. In fact---you've admitted that they may have actually intended it to be punitive---but that intent doesnt make it enforceable. In fact, an admission that the intent was to prevent schools from leaving and not a representation of the actual damages renders the clause void. Its like signing a 10 year non-compete. Thats almost always going to be found as unenforceable---whether the employee agreed to it or not.

Here's what I think---this will be settled. Texas and OU will leave early and the Big12 left behinds will receive a big azz vat of money.

I'm definitely "locked into it" because the by-laws, in Article 3.4, specifically state that "the members agree that the payment of the Buyout Amount is a reasonable method of compensating the Conference and other Members for such damage and financial hardship and shall not be construed as a penalty." All parties, including UT, for whom you are doing an admirable job of acting as their legal counsel, signed it. "Not a penalty" means, in plain English, "not a penalty." That was the intent of the parties; that is the by-laws' plain meaning.

I agree that this should (and will be) settled. Maybe, as their lawyer, you should advise UT to initiate settlement discussions and make an offer...

(08-02-2021 03:49 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Regarding TCU, I think they really timed everything just about perfectly. In fall 2011 they were fresh off of Fiesta and Rose Bowl appearances and were in the middle of a massive upgrade to their stadium. Very fortunate that it all lined up so perfectly for them.

It was certainly serendipitous in its timing. And it might end up being so this time as well. Dropping OU from the schedule means 1 fewer L per season and their replacement will almost certainly not be so tough to beat. We very well could be looking at better seasons going forward. And the financial windfall (even for just 4 years) is going to be substantial - probably $80 million per year until June 2025. Hopefully, we'll bank some of that for the lean(er) years to come.

Dropping UT probably means 1 fewer W per season. Hopefully, their replacement will be similarly weak.

(08-02-2021 04:29 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 04:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You seem to be locked into the "they agreed it was not punitive when the signed it". The document doesnt say that. In fact---you've admitted that they may have actually intended it to be punitive---but that intent doesnt make it enforceable. In fact, an admission that the intent was to prevent schools from leaving and not a representation of the actual damages renders the clause void. Its like signing a 10 year non-compete. Thats almost always going to be found as unenforceable---whether the employee agreed to it or not.

Here's what I think---this will be settled. Texas and OU will leave early and the Big12 left behinds will receive a big azz vat of money.

I'm definitely "locked into it" because the by-laws, in Article 3.4, specifically state that "the members agree that the payment of the Buyout Amount is a reasonable method of compensating the Conference and other Members for such damage and financial hardship and shall not be construed as a penalty." All parties, including UT, for whom you are doing an admirable job of acting as their legal counsel, signed it. "Not a penalty" means, in plain English, "not a penalty." That was the intent of the parties; that is the by-laws' plain meaning.

I agree that this should (and will be) settled. Maybe, as their lawyer, you should advise UT to initiate settlement discussions and make an offer...

It does not matter what that says. What matters is if they can PROVE that the figure being used is actually a reasonable representation of the actual damages. I dont know how else to say it. The work order we all sign when we leave our car in the care of a repair shop clearly states the shop is not responsible for damages to the car while in their care. That clause means nothing because the shop can absolutely be held responsible for damage to the car while in their care. its a similar situation here. The amount in the contract is considered to be the amount you are required to pay--but its absolutely subject to being overturned by a court if it is litigated and the fee is found to not be a reasonable reflection of the actual damages.

(08-02-2021 04:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It does not matter what that says. What matters is if they can PROVE that the figure being used is actually a reasonable representation of the actual damages. I dont know how else to say it. The work order we all sign when we leave our car in the care of a repair shop clearly states the shop is not responsible for damages to the car while in their care. That clause means nothing because the shop can absolutely be held responsible for damage to the car while in their care. Same here. Its the stated amount is considered to be the amount you are required to pay--but its absolutely subject to being overturned by a court if it it is litgated and the fee does not comply with current established law that applies in all cases of liquidated damages.

What the by-laws say obviously matter. And I've now quoted them to you. And yet again, UT would have to sue the Big 12 in order to challenge it and they would bear the burden of persuasion to prove that the figure is unreasonable; not the other way around as you state. Car repair contracts are contracts of adhesion between lawyer-less consumers and lawyered-up corporations that try to insert clauses in contracts that simply have to be signed or no work will be done. The Big 12 by-laws were signed by savvy institutions with ample legal representation. It is definitely not the "same."

(08-02-2021 03:58 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Quo,

There is no power autonomous conference that will take the schools of the little 8.

I agree with that. I think it very unlikely that any other P conference takes an L8 school. IMO none add enough value to merit that.

I've been wrong before, though.

(08-02-2021 04:00 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, in the case of the murder, the issue is who is going to file charges against the killer?

I am struggling to find out who the "state" in this example will be.

Also, no doubt in your example the ex-wife would be entitled to half of the billions, but in that case, the target of her suit would be the party who left her, her now-ex husband.

Can Bowlsby file a suit because he's now out of a job? Can a scrap of LLC paper?

Love that you think in terms of analogies because so do I, but they're really falling off the rails. The ex-wife is entitled to her share because she has the contract (Wedding contract), and the Big 12 has the contract with ESPN.

What you're saying about the piece of paper suing ESPN is totally correct, but that's why I've been saying it's moot.

Well, the difficulty I have with your marriage analogy is:

husband (leaves) = Big 12 school that leaves
hot new wife (induces husband to leave) = ESPN (induces Big 12 school to leave)
ex-wife (jilted by husband) = Big 12 LLC (jilted by member school)

In the ESPN case, presumably the Big 12 would sue ESPN, not the member school that ESPN induces to leave. The letter from Bowlsby threatened ESPN. That would be analogous to the ex-wife suing the hot new girl who lured her husband away. But IIRC, you have the ex-wife suing the husband not the hot girl. So to me, not the same thing.

As for my situation being moot, it's only moot if you are correct and the L8 stay and do not dissolve the conference. I agree that is most likely, but I was discussing a "what if ...", and so it makes no sense IMO to answer my "what if ..." with "well that would never happen", unless it literally defies to the Law of Physics or something for it to happen. Which this case doesn't.

It's like if someone here says "what would USC do if UCLA and Washington left the PAC to join the MW". Sure, the odds of that happening are extremely small, but the premise is what would USC do IF it happened, so to say "well UCLA and Wash would not do that" is IMO beside the point.

I see a lot of newly minted mid-majors dreaming of a payday that will save their bacon.

College sports is a deranged business. I hope the quarter billy or however much it ends up being in total softens the blow.

(08-02-2021 03:48 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, TCU had *some* value in 2011. They had more value than Houston or my USF, which is why the Big 12 invited TCU instead of us. Yes, the L8 have some value, otherwise they would make nothing at all from media sans OK and OU, when they might make I don't know, $10 million each without them. That's something.

But the difference there is the difference between being a Power conference and not, which IMO is the critical distinction. The L8 are a good G5 conference in terms of value, probably displace the AAC as the top G5 conference. That's something.

But IMO they are no way shape or form a Power conference. Whereas Texas and OU, with any eight G5 they want to wrap around themselves, are a Power conference.

IMO, the L8 without Texas takes a massive pay cut and loses "power" status. Once the current deals expire, they won't have a deal with the Sugar Bowl for the L8 champ, their bowl roster gets reduced, if the CFP is renewed they aren't getting the big check the P5 get, they get a G5 check, stuff like that.

Texas without TCU and Texas Tech probably doesn't take any pay cut at all, or a trivial one. That's why I say TX (and OU) are responsible for the 2012 media deals.

Again, if they left IMO there's no way TCU and Texas Tech are held hostage to nine-figure buyouts and GOR or whatever is being discussed, you guys would be waved on your way with a nominal exit fee, the Big 12 would replace you with UCF and Houston or somebody like that, and wouldn't skip a bit.

Yes, this forum would discuss it, but the media discussion would not be revolving around the dominant themes - how can the Big 12 survive? What will be the fate of the leftbehinds now that the Big 12 will likely lose power status? Etc. That's what I meant by discussion. We'd discuss, but nobody would be saying the Big 12 was going to lose all their big TV deals, etc.

If anything, the discussion would revolve around the two that matter - as in, does TCU and TT leaving mean TX and OU might leave too? Because *that* would be a conference-shattering thing.

In contrast, when it comes to the L8, as the Iowa State AD said - "without TX and OU, we're the Mountain West". Or something like that.

Well, you've made a LOT of progress! You've backed off the ludicrous "ZERO" hyperbole, you've backed off the "not valuable" quackery, you've backed off the "warm body" belittling, you've backed off the Houston is the same as TCU nonsense, you've backed off the "won't even show up on a Forbes list" piffle and you've even backpedalled from the "this forum wouldn't even discuss [lowly] TCU" ridiculousness. Good job! You are now no longer merely repeating UT propaganda and have returned to the ranks of a reasonable human.

You haven't stopped using the cutesy little demeaning acronyms yet, but I suppose I'll let that go because everyone else seems determined to do it and you're certainly not alone.

As to your position now, time and performance will determine whether the Big 12 remains a power conference. In basketball, compared to, say, the Big East where our Hoyas live, the Big 12 is obviously a power conference, with the reigning NCAA champ, a true blueblood and the national runner-up from 3 years ago all still there. The Big 12, even with the loss of Texas's 1 hoops NCAA credit and OU's 2 credits, is one of the strongest in the country. The Big East is still considered a power conference; the Big 12 is stronger. The Big East has a stand-alone deal with Fox; the Big 12 can expect the same or better.

In football, it's not as strong, yet still better than last year's Pac 12. That makes it 4th best in 2020, which would still be considered a power conference, unless you now similarly plan to demean and belittle the Pac 12. (Maybe you should - there are really only 2 power conferences now). At worse, it's the 5th most powerful out of 10. And after the dust settles and the Big 12 expands (BYU? Cincy? USF? UCF? Houston?), it'll only get stronger. The AAC is currently #6 and it claims power status - why would #5 somehow be different?

Oh, you meant financially and brand - not actual power football performance, right? I keep forgetting that actual football performance means nothing. And Rose Bowl championships lose their relevance quickly in the case of teams you wish to denigrate. And AP finishes of #2 and #3 have a quick shelf-life. And 8 Top 10 finishes in the past 15 years aren't indicative of football power. Well, you might be right... All indications are that ESPN doesn't want to pay us much of anything. But there's no way shape or form that's there's no way shape or form that that can't be overcome. TCU did it in the MWC (going from $0 value to $38 million in just 17 years); we can do it in the remaining Big 12. Your present opinion notwithstanding.

Regarding basketball: Yes, no question, the L8 would be a Power hoops conference. But a Power hoops conference doesn't make you a "power" conference. The Big East is fully regarded as a Power hoops conference, and gets paid a whopping .... $4 million or so a year in media for that status. Basketball, sadly, just doesn't mean much when it comes to money. Nor does it give the Big East "autonomy" status either.

As for football performance, I don't think comparisons with last year's PAC are very relevant, as the PAC played such a pitifully short schedule. IIRC, they didn't even play their first game until November. I think PAC teams played between 4 and 6 games, total. Also, the Big 12 being compared to them included Oklahoma and Texas, and TX and OU are leaving. OU won an NY6 game over Florida last year, and IIRC Texas beat a PAC school in a bowl game as well. As mediocre as Texas has been the last 10 years, they have won five bowl games, TCU I think has won four. IMO, the L8 are likely to perform like a "tweener" on the field, a true tweener, not the fake tweener the AAC has been. Best of the "G" conferences.

As for brand value, Bowlsby himself said today that TX and OU were worth 50% of the TV value of the Big 12. The L8 were worth the other 50%. This is why I gave credit for Texas and not TCU for the big TV deals signed in 2012. IMO, the deals would have been the same had the Big 12 signed on Houston in 2012 instead of TCU. They were basically interchangeable - yes, TCU was worth a little more, that's why they got the nod, but final deal numbers would have been very similar. Absent TX and OU, the deal numbers would have been radically different.

Bottom line for me is that if TCU and say Texas Tech had left last week the conversations would IMO would be radically different. Nobody would be talking about the remainder as the Little 8. Nobody would be talking about the conference taking massive cuts to TV in 2025. Nobody would be talking about the Big 12 no longer being a Power conference - unless they were speculating that TX and OU might leave too. There would have been no commission quickly formed by the Lt. Governor to study the ramifications of TCU and Texas Tech leaving. There would be no study that says the remaining Texas cities, like Austin, might lose $300 million or whatever. Bob Bowlsby would not have been testifying before the legislature today about the devastating impact of the TCU and Texas Tech departures. And we would not be talking about the Big 12 wanting hundreds of millions in various kinds of exit fees and GOR payments from TT and TCU. They would IMO be let go with a wave and handshake and a nominal exit fee just to prove it exists.

Because despite having some value, to me TT and TCU are to me functionally irrelevant to the conference. If they left the Big 12 but TX and OU remained, the Big 12 could replace them easily and carry on as before. Within like 24 hours, Cincy and Houston would be added, and that would be that. If TT and TCU left, there'd be no question of any loss of conference money, status, place in the CFP hierarchy, any of that.

Hey, as I've said, I have been wrong before. Maybe once the L8 are on their own, they will prove me wrong again. Heck, maybe they will prove me wrong much sooner, as I've predicted none will get invitations from the PAC, ACC or B1G, because none bring enough value to merit it.

(08-02-2021 04:29 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 04:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You seem to be locked into the "they agreed it was not punitive when the signed it". The document doesnt say that. In fact---you've admitted that they may have actually intended it to be punitive---but that intent doesnt make it enforceable. In fact, an admission that the intent was to prevent schools from leaving and not a representation of the actual damages renders the clause void. Its like signing a 10 year non-compete. Thats almost always going to be found as unenforceable---whether the employee agreed to it or not.

Here's what I think---this will be settled. Texas and OU will leave early and the Big12 left behinds will receive a big azz vat of money.

I'm definitely "locked into it" because the by-laws, in Article 3.4, specifically state that "the members agree that the payment of the Buyout Amount is a reasonable method of compensating the Conference and other Members for such damage and financial hardship and shall not be construed as a penalty." All parties, including UT, for whom you are doing an admirable job of acting as their legal counsel, signed it. "Not a penalty" means, in plain English, "not a penalty." That was the intent of the parties; that is the by-laws' plain meaning.

I agree that this should (and will be) settled. Maybe, as their lawyer, you should advise UT to initiate settlement discussions and make an offer...

And as Attackcoog points out, similar language in non-compete agreements regularly gets thrown out. The legal issues are not black and white which is why both sides will want to settle.

(08-02-2021 05:02 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 04:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It does not matter what that says. What matters is if they can PROVE that the figure being used is actually a reasonable representation of the actual damages. I dont know how else to say it. The work order we all sign when we leave our car in the care of a repair shop clearly states the shop is not responsible for damages to the car while in their care. That clause means nothing because the shop can absolutely be held responsible for damage to the car while in their care. Same here. Its the stated amount is considered to be the amount you are required to pay--but its absolutely subject to being overturned by a court if it it is litgated and the fee does not comply with current established law that applies in all cases of liquidated damages.

What the by-laws say obviously matter. And I've now quoted them to you. And yet again, UT would have to sue the Big 12 in order to challenge it and they would bear the burden of persuasion to prove that the figure is unreasonable; not the other way around as you state. Car repair contracts are contracts of adhesion between lawyer-less consumers and lawyered-up corporations that try to insert clauses in contracts that simply have to be signed or no work will be done. The Big 12 by-laws were signed by savvy institutions with ample legal representation. It is definitely not the "same."

if Texas and OU leave in 2022, then the Big 12 will have to sue to get the money other than the $40 million or so withheld this year. They will have to sue to get money from the UT/OU home games. It is not anywhere near as clear as you seem to think it is.

(08-02-2021 05:02 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 04:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It does not matter what that says. What matters is if they can PROVE that the figure being used is actually a reasonable representation of the actual damages. I dont know how else to say it. The work order we all sign when we leave our car in the care of a repair shop clearly states the shop is not responsible for damages to the car while in their care. That clause means nothing because the shop can absolutely be held responsible for damage to the car while in their care. Same here. Its the stated amount is considered to be the amount you are required to pay--but its absolutely subject to being overturned by a court if it it is litgated and the fee does not comply with current established law that applies in all cases of liquidated damages.

What the by-laws say obviously matter. And I've now quoted them to you. And yet again, UT would have to sue the Big 12 in order to challenge it and they would bear the burden of persuasion to prove that the figure is unreasonable; not the other way around as you state. Car repair contracts are contracts of adhesion between lawyer-less consumers and lawyered-up corporations that try to insert clauses in contracts that simply have to be signed or no work will be done. The Big 12 by-laws were signed by savvy institutions with ample legal representation. It is definitely not the "same."

And yet---with both parties having big teams of lawyers----the conferences and teams always settle rather than going to court. The ACC exit fee was 52 million. It was written right there in the byaws. Yet the ACC settlement that was agreed upon had Maryland paying only 31 million.....I wonder why that would be......

(08-02-2021 08:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 05:02 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 04:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It does not matter what that says. What matters is if they can PROVE that the figure being used is actually a reasonable representation of the actual damages. I dont know how else to say it. The work order we all sign when we leave our car in the care of a repair shop clearly states the shop is not responsible for damages to the car while in their care. That clause means nothing because the shop can absolutely be held responsible for damage to the car while in their care. Same here. Its the stated amount is considered to be the amount you are required to pay--but its absolutely subject to being overturned by a court if it it is litgated and the fee does not comply with current established law that applies in all cases of liquidated damages.

What the by-laws say obviously matter. And I've now quoted them to you. And yet again, UT would have to sue the Big 12 in order to challenge it and they would bear the burden of persuasion to prove that the figure is unreasonable; not the other way around as you state. Car repair contracts are contracts of adhesion between lawyer-less consumers and lawyered-up corporations that try to insert clauses in contracts that simply have to be signed or no work will be done. The Big 12 by-laws were signed by savvy institutions with ample legal representation. It is definitely not the "same."

And yet---with both parties having big teams of lawyers----the conferences and teams always settle rather than going to court. The ACC exit fee was 52 million. It was written right there in the byaws. Yet the ACC settlement that was agreed upon had Maryland paying only 31 million.....I wonder why that would be......

Because that was the amount the ACC could withhold before Maryland left.

One of the reasons the Big 12 needs to reach a deal instead of forcing Texas and OU to leave by taking a hard line and then hoping their lawsuit succeeds 5 years down the road.

(08-02-2021 04:00 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, in the case of the murder, the issue is who is going to file charges against the killer?

I am struggling to find out who the "state" in this example will be.

Also, no doubt in your example the ex-wife would be entitled to half of the billions, but in that case, the target of her suit would be the party who left her, her now-ex husband.

Can Bowlsby file a suit because he's now out of a job? Can a scrap of LLC paper?

Love that you think in terms of analogies because so do I, but they're really falling off the rails. The ex-wife is entitled to her share because she has the contract (Wedding contract), and the Big 12 has the contract with ESPN.

What you're saying about the piece of paper suing ESPN is totally correct, but that's why I've been saying it's moot.

In order for the Big 12 to become a piece of paper, the 8 members have to decide they don't want the $840 from ESPN, the FOX money, the NCAA Tournament revenue, and the CFP revenue.

And that's just not happening because it's insane. There's not enough Big Ten/SEC/ACC/Pac-12 landing spots for them to all jump to. And even if there WERE, it still makes more sense for all of them to go in 2025 instead of now.

The whole situation of leaving the Big 12 is "Do you want the $1.2 billion you're owed; Yes or No?" The answer is yes.

Even in the case of a Merger, No matter what name is taken or kept, it would be the AAC to B12, The Corportation has to be B12, Too much to be lost if the 8 went the other direction. You may have a new captain of the ship rather than Bob.

The B12's 8 need to focus on content for expanding vs solely the financial value of a school at G5 status. A school has to have the means and access to excel.

If new schools come into the B12 within the next year or two, will they be entitled to any portion of the settlement money from the OU and UT departures?

If so, that's an incentive for the B12 8 to wait in expanding until all that departure revenue has been distributed. On the other hand, it could be stipulated new members are excluded from receiving any of the exit revenue from the departed members.

I'm not clear on their membership rules in this regard.