REALIGNMENT MOCK DRAFT .:. ON THE CLOCK: Big South (R2, #12), AAC (R1, #8) [pending trade approval], Big12 (R1, #11)

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors"
Author Message
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #241
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors...
(11-03-2013 11:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I think the fact that you're certain a judge would make a decision based on the political fallout kind of simple minded as well. IMO any judge worth his salt makes his decisions based solely on his interpretation of the law. Any other thinking shows no respect for the law, or those whose decisions depend upon his unbiased opinion of the law.

Texas isn't Chicago, even though you seem to think so.

I wish you were right Bit and I wish I was wrong, god how I wish I was wrong. My judgement isn't based upon Chicago although you are correct about it being the worst.



I have appeared before many elected state court judges in my 26 1/2 years of litigation practice.

Ya'll have a much different opinion of them than I do. I have seen and heard a lot.......

They are political animals with law degrees and black robes..but politicians they are.

So...our opinion would be more similar than dissimilar.
11-03-2013 11:26 PM
Find all posts by this user
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,768
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 529
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #242
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors...
(11-03-2013 11:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I think the fact that you're certain a judge would make a decision based on the political fallout kind of simple minded as well. IMO any judge worth his salt makes his decisions based solely on his interpretation of the law. Any other thinking shows no respect for the law, or those whose decisions depend upon his unbiased opinion of the law.

Texas isn't Chicago, even though you seem to think so.

I wish you were right Bit and I wish I was wrong, god how I wish I was wrong. My judgement isn't based upon Chicago although you are correct about it being the worst.



I have appeared before many elected state court judges in my 26 1/2 years of litigation practice.

Ya'll have a much different opinion of them than I do. I have seen and heard a lot.......

They are political animals with law degrees and black robes..but politicians they are.

So...our opinion would be more similar than dissimilar.


Yes, I am speaking about those who believe that judges decide cases in some kind of non-political vacuum based solely on legal principles.

Sometimes, some judges decide which way they want to rule (sometimes based on personal beliefs,their bias, political opinion/situation, which lawyers provide more campaign funds, golfing junkets, meals, drinks, or are on their re-election committee, among other considerations) then tell their law clerks to find/invent/stretch some legal basis for their decision...afterwards.

Litigation ain't always what is taught in civics classes...or law school.
11-03-2013 11:44 PM
Find all posts by this user
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,525
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 908
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #243
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors...
(11-03-2013 11:44 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I think the fact that you're certain a judge would make a decision based on the political fallout kind of simple minded as well. IMO any judge worth his salt makes his decisions based solely on his interpretation of the law. Any other thinking shows no respect for the law, or those whose decisions depend upon his unbiased opinion of the law.

Texas isn't Chicago, even though you seem to think so.

I wish you were right Bit and I wish I was wrong, god how I wish I was wrong. My judgement isn't based upon Chicago although you are correct about it being the worst.



I have appeared before many elected state court judges in my 26 1/2 years of litigation practice.

Ya'll have a much different opinion of them than I do. I have seen and heard a lot.......

They are political animals with law degrees and black robes..but politicians they are.

So...our opinion would be more similar than dissimilar.


Yes, I am speaking about those who believe that judges decide cases in some kind of non-political vacuum based solely on legal principles.

Sometimes, some judges decide which way they want to rule (sometimes based on personal beliefs,their bias, political opinion/situation, which lawyers provide more campaign funds, golfing junkets, meals, drinks, or are on their re-election committee, among other considerations) then tell their law clerks to find/invent/stretch some legal basis for their decision...afterwards.

Litigation ain't always what is taught in civics classes...or law school.

of course you ARE in Louisiana!
11-04-2013 12:13 AM
Find all posts by this user
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,863
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #244
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors"
And Louisiana is nearly as corrupt as Chicago.
11-04-2013 09:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,365
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 917
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #245
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors"
I've for to agree with Terry, and I am a lawyer.

Judges are people, especially at the State level.
11-04-2013 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,165
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #246
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors...
(11-03-2013 12:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  03-lmfao

I am supposed to cite cases of law for you now? Get out of here.

Believe what you will but I have grown bored of you constantly twisting my words out of context, telling me my words meant something that they did not.

What a clown. I ask you for some kind of substantive basis, like a court precedent, for your speculation that a judge would void the GoR, and you come back with .... this?

I haven't twisted any of your words, and you can't show where I have. I've just held your feet to the fire on the meaning of the words you have chosen to use. 07-coffee3

Seriously? You are saying that contracts like these are always held to the the exact details within when they are taken to and disputed within a court of law? I am a clown for saying such and for not feeling like scouring the internet in order to provide you with examples of such? Keeping in mind that after providing such you still wont accept them as evidence of anything and will just continue with your pedantic arguing against my personal opinion?

Of course I would accept them as evidence, that's why I asked for them.

Your position is that we are all just telling stories, none of which are any more likely to come true than any of the others. But the facts say otherwise - your story is clearly less likely to be realized. Sorry if my pointing that out bothers you, which it clearly does.
11-04-2013 10:40 AM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,165
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #247
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors...
(11-03-2013 12:34 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.
Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...wyers.html
Quote:What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Voided contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of voided contracts include:
Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).
That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.
I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.



For what it is worth, I agree with you.

I do not see a scenario wherein a school leaves a conference with a GOR and the school does not get paid its TV revenues by the old conference/network.

The new conference/network would not benefit, but the school would be paid for its TV rights, even if it left a GOR bound conference/network arrangement, in my opinion.

I imagine a settlement would be hammered out. E.g., let's say that Texas tries to leave the Big 12 and the value of its rights the Big 12 tries to retain as flowing from the GoR are worth a total of $250 million over 13 years of the life of the agreement. I doubt a judge would be inclined to order specific performance of the contract. But he also wouldn't let a school walk scot-free either.

I would bet that a judge would signal that a settlement of about $100 million would be reasonable. This of course is still a lot more than any school is likely to be willing/able to pay.
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2013 10:44 AM by quo vadis.)
11-04-2013 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,165
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #248
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors...
(11-03-2013 11:44 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I think the fact that you're certain a judge would make a decision based on the political fallout kind of simple minded as well. IMO any judge worth his salt makes his decisions based solely on his interpretation of the law. Any other thinking shows no respect for the law, or those whose decisions depend upon his unbiased opinion of the law.

Texas isn't Chicago, even though you seem to think so.

I wish you were right Bit and I wish I was wrong, god how I wish I was wrong. My judgement isn't based upon Chicago although you are correct about it being the worst.



I have appeared before many elected state court judges in my 26 1/2 years of litigation practice.

Ya'll have a much different opinion of them than I do. I have seen and heard a lot.......

They are political animals with law degrees and black robes..but politicians they are.

So...our opinion would be more similar than dissimilar.


Yes, I am speaking about those who believe that judges decide cases in some kind of non-political vacuum based solely on legal principles.

Sometimes, some judges decide which way they want to rule (sometimes based on personal beliefs,their bias, political opinion/situation, which lawyers provide more campaign funds, golfing junkets, meals, drinks, or are on their re-election committee, among other considerations) then tell their law clerks to find/invent/stretch some legal basis for their decision...afterwards.

Litigation ain't always what is taught in civics classes...or law school.

FWIW, I think the same is largely true of appointed, even appointed for life judges like Federal judges. They are all political, which is why there is so much fighting between the parties that goes on when a President nominates a judge or justice. E.g., on issues like abortion and gay rights, we can predict like clockwork how a Scalia or a Sotomayor is going to vote, their personal ideologies determine that long before they hear the facts of a case.
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2013 10:48 AM by quo vadis.)
11-04-2013 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,365
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 917
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #249
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors...
(11-04-2013 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:34 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...s.htmlThat last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.
I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.



For what it is worth, I agree with you.

I do not see a scenario wherein a school leaves a conference with a GOR and the school does not get paid its TV revenues by the old conference/network.

The new conference/network would not benefit, but the school would be paid for its TV rights, even if it left a GOR bound conference/network arrangement, in my opinion.

I imagine a settlement would be hammered out. E.g., let's say that Texas tries to leave the Big 12 and the value of its rights the Big 12 tries to retain as flowing from the GoR are worth a total of $250 million over 13 years of the life of the agreement. I doubt a judge would be inclined to order specific performance of the contract. But he also wouldn't let a school walk scot-free either.

I would bet that a judge would signal that a settlement of about $100 million would be reasonable. This of course is still a lot more than any school is likely to be willing/able to pay.

I agree; they're unlikely to get an injunction.
11-04-2013 10:50 AM
Find all posts by this user
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #250
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors...
(11-04-2013 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  03-lmfao

I am supposed to cite cases of law for you now? Get out of here.

Believe what you will but I have grown bored of you constantly twisting my words out of context, telling me my words meant something that they did not.

What a clown. I ask you for some kind of substantive basis, like a court precedent, for your speculation that a judge would void the GoR, and you come back with .... this?

I haven't twisted any of your words, and you can't show where I have. I've just held your feet to the fire on the meaning of the words you have chosen to use. 07-coffee3

Seriously? You are saying that contracts like these are always held to the the exact details within when they are taken to and disputed within a court of law? I am a clown for saying such and for not feeling like scouring the internet in order to provide you with examples of such? Keeping in mind that after providing such you still wont accept them as evidence of anything and will just continue with your pedantic arguing against my personal opinion?

Of course I would accept them as evidence, that's why I asked for them.

Your position is that we are all just telling stories, none of which are any more likely to come true than any of the others. But the facts say otherwise - your story is clearly less likely to be realized. Sorry if my pointing that out bothers you, which it clearly does.

No, you are not pointing out anything in a factual way. You are merely claiming your opinion is fact in opposition to me supposedly stating my opinion is anything more than my opinion. Funny how you are spinning the whole situation by saying you opinion is absolutely right while you conveniently skip over the actual fact that these contractual disputes hardly ever get judged right down the line of the contract. If you want to believe they do then have at it, ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Like I said before, I am not going to go scouring cases to show to you just to disprove your ignorance.

You pointing out what you feel is the truth does not bother me, your hypocrisy does though.
11-04-2013 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #251
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors...
(11-04-2013 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:34 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...s.htmlThat last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.
I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.



For what it is worth, I agree with you.

I do not see a scenario wherein a school leaves a conference with a GOR and the school does not get paid its TV revenues by the old conference/network.

The new conference/network would not benefit, but the school would be paid for its TV rights, even if it left a GOR bound conference/network arrangement, in my opinion.

I imagine a settlement would be hammered out. E.g., let's say that Texas tries to leave the Big 12 and the value of its rights the Big 12 tries to retain as flowing from the GoR are worth a total of $250 million over 13 years of the life of the agreement. I doubt a judge would be inclined to order specific performance of the contract. But he also wouldn't let a school walk scot-free either.

I would bet that a judge would signal that a settlement of about $100 million would be reasonable. This of course is still a lot more than any school is likely to be willing/able to pay.

See, two faced. To one person you state the contract will be upheld to the letter of the agreement and yet to another you slip and slide saying there would be a negotiated amount. Now I suppose you are going to say that the "100 million mark" is absolutely the truth and that someone has to get proof that it is not in order for it to not be the truth?
11-04-2013 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,863
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #252
RE: UConn insider lets slip: Talk of Connecticut to the Big Ten "more than rumors"
Okay. This is going nowhere. So it's time to end it. IMO this thread has run its course, and has emptied into the sea.
11-04-2013 09:48 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.