(05-15-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  Conferences will simply require state run schools to waive whatever sovereign immunity is determined to exist as a condition of membership in the conference. I suspect most conference bylaws already have such a provision.

They don't. I checked the SEC and Big 12 bylaws online yesterday and neither has any such provision.

(05-15-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 08:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yesterday, the supreme court overruled a 1979 precedent that had said State X could be sued in State Y's courts. In the new decision, the court ruled that states have sovereign immunity versus each other: State X cannot by sued in State Y's courts, unless State X waives its immunity and allows itself to be.

I'm not a lawyer, but when Maryland left the ACC, the ACC sued Maryland in a North Carolina court, which was allowable under the 1979 precedent, and which surely put pressure on Maryland to settle.

Would that kind of lawsuit be allowed now under the new doctrine? If not, it could make it easier for schools that are public, and thus arms of their state's government, to leave conferences without worrying as much about legal ramifications in other state jurisdictions?

Or am i just way off base on this? Lawyers?

Most college athletic programs are separate private non profit corps separated from the University. So I don't know that the rule applies. The ACC was not a state, nor is Maryland's Athletic dept.

I don't know that to be true. Most have separate booster clubs which raise funds for the athletic program. But the athletics departments themselves are part of the university.

I doubt any of this will matter in the long run. Conferences will simply require state run schools to waive whatever sovereign immunity is determined to exist as a condition of membership in the conference. I suspect most conference bylaws already have such a provision.

I doubt they do, just because until a couple days ago it wasn't necessary.

Going forward? Do you really think the same AAC schools that refuse to sign a GOR will be willing to sign a waiver like this?

Or ACC schools for that matter? You can't make it a requirement now, ex-post-facto.

(05-15-2019 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 08:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yesterday, the supreme court overruled a 1979 precedent that had said State X could be sued in State Y's courts. In the new decision, the court ruled that states have sovereign immunity versus each other: State X cannot by sued in State Y's courts, unless State X waives its immunity and allows itself to be.

I'm not a lawyer, but when Maryland left the ACC, the ACC sued Maryland in a North Carolina court, which was allowable under the 1979 precedent, and which surely put pressure on Maryland to settle.

Would that kind of lawsuit be allowed now under the new doctrine? If not, it could make it easier for schools that are public, and thus arms of their state's government, to leave conferences without worrying as much about legal ramifications in other state jurisdictions?

Or am i just way off base on this? Lawyers?

Most college athletic programs are separate private non profit corps separated from the University. So I don't know that the rule applies. The ACC was not a state, nor is Maryland's Athletic dept.

I don't know that to be true. Most have separate booster clubs which raise funds for the athletic program. But the athletics departments themselves are part of the university.

I doubt any of this will matter in the long run. Conferences will simply require state run schools to waive whatever sovereign immunity is determined to exist as a condition of membership in the conference. I suspect most conference bylaws already have such a provision.

I doubt they do, just because until a couple days ago it wasn't necessary.

Going forward? Do you really think the same AAC schools that refuse to sign a GOR will be willing to sign a waiver like this?

Or ACC schools for that matter? You can't make it a requirement now, ex-post-facto.

Correct, which means any future changes open a window for disagreement and therefore departures. If you have to hold a vote a window is opened. It might yet yield some tense and interesting situations. Especially should language and stipulations in existing GOR's be impacted by the recent ruling and changes are needed there as well.

(05-15-2019 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 08:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yesterday, the supreme court overruled a 1979 precedent that had said State X could be sued in State Y's courts. In the new decision, the court ruled that states have sovereign immunity versus each other: State X cannot by sued in State Y's courts, unless State X waives its immunity and allows itself to be.

I'm not a lawyer, but when Maryland left the ACC, the ACC sued Maryland in a North Carolina court, which was allowable under the 1979 precedent, and which surely put pressure on Maryland to settle.

Would that kind of lawsuit be allowed now under the new doctrine? If not, it could make it easier for schools that are public, and thus arms of their state's government, to leave conferences without worrying as much about legal ramifications in other state jurisdictions?

Or am i just way off base on this? Lawyers?

Most college athletic programs are separate private non profit corps separated from the University. So I don't know that the rule applies. The ACC was not a state, nor is Maryland's Athletic dept.

I don't know that to be true. Most have separate booster clubs which raise funds for the athletic program. But the athletics departments themselves are part of the university.

I doubt any of this will matter in the long run. Conferences will simply require state run schools to waive whatever sovereign immunity is determined to exist as a condition of membership in the conference. I suspect most conference bylaws already have such a provision.

I doubt they do, just because until a couple days ago it wasn't necessary.

Going forward? Do you really think the same AAC schools that refuse to sign a GOR will be willing to sign a waiver like this?

Or ACC schools for that matter? You can't make it a requirement now, ex-post-facto.

Correct, which means any future changes open a window for disagreement and therefore departures. If you have to hold a vote a window is opened. It might yet yield some tense and interesting situations. Especially should language and stipulations in existing GOR's be impacted by the recent ruling and changes are needed there as well.

Only opens it a small crack. Even without a waiver you can still sue a public university, just have to file the lawsuit in that university's own state. Which is the way it should be, right? It looks like what was absurd in that Supreme Court case was that the guy was trying to get a court in one state to stop another state from collecting taxes he owed. That's like trying to get a court in one state to stop a public university in another state from changing athletic conferences.

But a crack nevertheless.

Consider the rabid pitbull act the ACC pulled on UMD how things would be if Maryland could have just said “yeah, that dog don’t hunt up here?”

As one who thought UMD was forced to settle on ACC-favorable terms, at the very least something like this judgment changes the scope, tone, and tempo of the settlement arrangements whenever these conferences or schools sue each other on their way out.

And nobody has yet to really challenge GOR. That first time, if or when it comes, I don’t know...have to think conferences will have to play it smarter than just asserting rights assignment. We just don’t know whether schools should be able to just sign those rights away as state agencies.

(05-15-2019 12:53 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  But a crack nevertheless.

Consider the rabid pitbull act the ACC pulled on UMD how things would be if Maryland could have just said “yeah, that dog don’t hunt up here?”

As one who thought UMD was forced to settle on ACC-favorable terms, at the very least something like this judgment changes the scope, tone, and tempo of the settlement arrangements whenever these conferences or schools sue each other on their way out.

And nobody has yet to really challenge GOR. That first time, if or when it comes, I don’t know...have to think conferences will have to play it smarter than just asserting rights assignment. We just don’t know whether schools should be able to just sign those rights away as state agencies.

(05-15-2019 10:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  Conferences will simply require state run schools to waive whatever sovereign immunity is determined to exist as a condition of membership in the conference. I suspect most conference bylaws already have such a provision.

They don't. I checked the SEC and Big 12 bylaws online yesterday and neither has any such provision.

Do their bylaws not specify where disputes between the conference and members will be settled? Usually it is in the state where the conference headquarters is located.

(05-15-2019 02:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  Conferences will simply require state run schools to waive whatever sovereign immunity is determined to exist as a condition of membership in the conference. I suspect most conference bylaws already have such a provision.

They don't. I checked the SEC and Big 12 bylaws online yesterday and neither has any such provision.

Do their bylaws not specify where disputes between the conference and members will be settled? Usually it is in the state where the conference headquarters is located.

Nope. Now, I suppose it's possible that the conference members have some separate written agreement, but it's not in the bylaws.

(05-15-2019 12:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Only opens it a small crack. Even without a waiver you can still sue a public university, just have to file the lawsuit in that university's own state. Which is the way it should be, right?

I'd say it's more than a crack. Even though it's not supposed to work this way, there is often a "home field advantage" in legal cases, that's why lawyers often "jurisdiction shop". It would surprise nobody if a jury of 12 Marylanders is more likely to look favorably on Maryland's side of an ACC dispute than 12 North Carolinians.

Remember when the Alston case was going to have wide ranging implications and change the dynamic of conference realignment?

That fizzled fast.

Pump the brakes a bit on claims that this decision will have a big impact on CR.

(05-16-2019 07:44 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Remember when the Alston case was going to have wide ranging implications and change the dynamic of conference realignment?

That fizzled fast.

FWIW, I immediately surmised that Alston was more of a win for the NCAA than anything else, and would not open the door to big changes.

Major realignment doesn't happen frequently, but it seems possible this decision could play a role when it does, especially with regards to things like exit fee collection or breaking a GOR. We shall see.

(05-16-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:44 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Remember when the Alston case was going to have wide ranging implications and change the dynamic of conference realignment?

That fizzled fast.

FWIW, I immediately surmised that Alston was more of a win for the NCAA than anything else, and would not open the door to big changes.

Major realignment doesn't happen frequently, but it seems possible this decision could play a role when it does, especially with regards to things like exit fee collection or breaking a GOR. We shall see.

I am referring to all of the talk about Alston before the decision came down.

Lots of people were on message boards predicting wide ranging implications that never materialized.

I suppose it's possible that schools could decline to sign GoRs in the future. But then, their conference's media partners will reduce the amounts and/or years they are willing to commit to based on the increased instability that results. If a school doesn't want to sign a GoR or agree to litigate disputes in another because they want to leave their present conference they could have done so more cheaply in the past.

(05-17-2019 03:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose it's possible that schools could decline to sign GoRs in the future. But then, their conference's media partners will reduce the amounts and/or years they are willing to commit to based on the increased instability that results. If a school doesn't want to sign a GoR or agree to litigate disputes in another because they want to leave their present conference they could have done so more cheaply in the past.

We know that schools will decline to sign GORs in the present, because it is clear that Aresco wanted the AAC schools to sign a GOR, or at least floated that idea, during the recently concluded TV negotiations, but that idea was quickly torpedoed by the membership, all of whom have aspirations of being invited to a P5 conference.

That said, I'm not sure that future willingness to sign or not sign a GOR will be impacted much by this SCOTUS decision. Those decisions are made by schools based on their perceptions of what is in their interest. I do think that if conferences attempt to get members to sign an agreement waiving their right not to be sued in other states, the membership will reject that, as there is no earthly reason to voluntarily give the conference a legal "home field advantage" in a dispute.

(05-17-2019 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose it's possible that schools could decline to sign GoRs in the future. But then, their conference's media partners will reduce the amounts and/or years they are willing to commit to based on the increased instability that results. If a school doesn't want to sign a GoR or agree to litigate disputes in another because they want to leave their present conference they could have done so more cheaply in the past.

We know that schools will decline to sign GORs in the present, because it is clear that Aresco wanted the AAC schools to sign a GOR, or at least floated that idea, during the recently concluded TV negotiations, but that idea was quickly torpedoed by the membership, all of whom have aspirations of being invited to a P5 conference.

That said, I'm not sure that future willingness to sign or not sign a GOR will be impacted much by this SCOTUS decision. Those decisions are made by schools based on their perceptions of what is in their interest. I do think that if conferences attempt to get members to sign an agreement waiving their right not to be sued in other states, the membership will reject that, as there is no earthly reason to voluntarily give the conference a legal "home field advantage" in a dispute.

Moreover, nobody needs a GOR including the networks. Clauses in the contract and bylaws of the conference determining a reasonable means of withdrawal worked fine for decades without the hysteria which was really promulgated by conference employees afraid of losing their jobs who in turn whipped up the fear among the college presidents.

A conference can easily require a two year notice for withdrawal and expect it to be upheld because 2 years is about what it takes to work out the paper work and legal issues anyway. Networks can put a clause in every contract that allows them to renegotiate value upon a departure or acquisition. It's just part of the process of doing business. And every conference that thought a long term contract was beneficial has gotten screwed so the duration of these contracts has no real business being longer than 10 years.

If the GOR for state schools is cracked it becomes a worthless tool anyway. And IMO all state schools everywhere and at all times should be able to operate in their self interest on behalf of the taxpayers of their states.

(05-17-2019 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the GOR for state schools is cracked it becomes a worthless tool anyway. And IMO all state schools everywhere and at all times should be able to operate in their self interest on behalf of the taxpayers of their states.

(05-17-2019 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose it's possible that schools could decline to sign GoRs in the future. But then, their conference's media partners will reduce the amounts and/or years they are willing to commit to based on the increased instability that results. If a school doesn't want to sign a GoR or agree to litigate disputes in another because they want to leave their present conference they could have done so more cheaply in the past.

We know that schools will decline to sign GORs in the present, because it is clear that Aresco wanted the AAC schools to sign a GOR, or at least floated that idea, during the recently concluded TV negotiations, but that idea was quickly torpedoed by the membership, all of whom have aspirations of being invited to a P5 conference.

That said, I'm not sure that future willingness to sign or not sign a GOR will be impacted much by this SCOTUS decision. Those decisions are made by schools based on their perceptions of what is in their interest. I do think that if conferences attempt to get members to sign an agreement waiving their right not to be sued in other states, the membership will reject that, as there is no earthly reason to voluntarily give the conference a legal "home field advantage" in a dispute.

Moreover, nobody needs a GOR including the networks. Clauses in the contract and bylaws of the conference determining a reasonable means of withdrawal worked fine for decades without the hysteria which was really promulgated by conference employees afraid of losing their jobs who in turn whipped up the fear among the college presidents.

A conference can easily require a two year notice for withdrawal and expect it to be upheld because 2 years is about what it takes to work out the paper work and legal issues anyway. Networks can put a clause in every contract that allows them to renegotiate value upon a departure or acquisition. It's just part of the process of doing business. And every conference that thought a long term contract was beneficial has gotten screwed so the duration of these contracts has no real business being longer than 10 years.

If the GOR for state schools is cracked it becomes a worthless tool anyway. And IMO all state schools everywhere and at all times should be able to operate in their self interest on behalf of the taxpayers of their states.

I agree with this, but ... it does seem that the TV networks do think that GORs have legal teeth. I think that e.g. networks made it clear to Aresco that there would be a bit more money on the table for the AAC if they signed a GOR, which would only be the case if media felt that a GOR provided more protection for their investment, i.e., did raise barriers to exit.

Oftentimes, perception can overcome reality, or is reality.

(05-17-2019 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose it's possible that schools could decline to sign GoRs in the future. But then, their conference's media partners will reduce the amounts and/or years they are willing to commit to based on the increased instability that results. If a school doesn't want to sign a GoR or agree to litigate disputes in another because they want to leave their present conference they could have done so more cheaply in the past.

We know that schools will decline to sign GORs in the present, because it is clear that Aresco wanted the AAC schools to sign a GOR, or at least floated that idea, during the recently concluded TV negotiations, but that idea was quickly torpedoed by the membership, all of whom have aspirations of being invited to a P5 conference.

That said, I'm not sure that future willingness to sign or not sign a GOR will be impacted much by this SCOTUS decision. Those decisions are made by schools based on their perceptions of what is in their interest. I do think that if conferences attempt to get members to sign an agreement waiving their right not to be sued in other states, the membership will reject that, as there is no earthly reason to voluntarily give the conference a legal "home field advantage" in a dispute.

The same argument could be made in reverse. If one member (out of say 12-16) decides to try to exit without paying the agreed upon exit fee, why would the other schools voluntarily agree to give the departing school the "home field advantage" in the courts? In a confererence, the location of the conference headquarters is the most logical place to settle arguments. And most contracts I have ever seen involving interstate commerce specify which state laws will apply.

(05-18-2019 03:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose it's possible that schools could decline to sign GoRs in the future. But then, their conference's media partners will reduce the amounts and/or years they are willing to commit to based on the increased instability that results. If a school doesn't want to sign a GoR or agree to litigate disputes in another because they want to leave their present conference they could have done so more cheaply in the past.

We know that schools will decline to sign GORs in the present, because it is clear that Aresco wanted the AAC schools to sign a GOR, or at least floated that idea, during the recently concluded TV negotiations, but that idea was quickly torpedoed by the membership, all of whom have aspirations of being invited to a P5 conference.

That said, I'm not sure that future willingness to sign or not sign a GOR will be impacted much by this SCOTUS decision. Those decisions are made by schools based on their perceptions of what is in their interest. I do think that if conferences attempt to get members to sign an agreement waiving their right not to be sued in other states, the membership will reject that, as there is no earthly reason to voluntarily give the conference a legal "home field advantage" in a dispute.

Moreover, nobody needs a GOR including the networks. Clauses in the contract and bylaws of the conference determining a reasonable means of withdrawal worked fine for decades without the hysteria which was really promulgated by conference employees afraid of losing their jobs who in turn whipped up the fear among the college presidents.

A conference can easily require a two year notice for withdrawal and expect it to be upheld because 2 years is about what it takes to work out the paper work and legal issues anyway. Networks can put a clause in every contract that allows them to renegotiate value upon a departure or acquisition. It's just part of the process of doing business. And every conference that thought a long term contract was beneficial has gotten screwed so the duration of these contracts has no real business being longer than 10 years.

If the GOR for state schools is cracked it becomes a worthless tool anyway. And IMO all state schools everywhere and at all times should be able to operate in their self interest on behalf of the taxpayers of their states.

I agree with this, but ... it does seem that the TV networks do think that GORs have legal teeth. I think that e.g. networks made it clear to Aresco that there would be a bit more money on the table for the AAC if they signed a GOR, which would only be the case if media felt that a GOR provided more protection for their investment, i.e., did raise barriers to exit.

Oftentimes, perception can overcome reality, or is reality.

Quo, networks feel that way because it is a legal tool that would have to be contested in court and the Networks have oodles more money than the conferences. Hence the one that financially blinks first looses. It is why you can't really contest bogus charges by an entity like AT&T. I goes to arbitration by your signed consent and the arbitration boards exist because of corporations and are really only impartial when the dispute is between two corporations.

If it goes to court you get outspent which is what happens if the conferences or schools within it challenge the Network.

The best way out of the morass is the old way, give the network a renegotiation window if a conference adds or subtracts schools. It worked fine for years. The networks insist on the GOR because then they absolutely control the product, which if you are a commissioner or president of a university you sign it because (a) as a commissioner you are probably a media rights lawyer and may one day need to work for the networks again, or (b) you are a busy and dismissive academic who finds such arrangements tedious. Either way we lose control of our product paid and developed by tax payer dollars to the corporations who will take 50% or more of the profits. The taxpayers and states get a dole with all of the overhead and corporations make money off of something they didn't create, with only overhead, and very little risk.

As competitors enter this arena we need fuller control of our product and shorter contracts with no GOR's.

(05-18-2019 07:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose it's possible that schools could decline to sign GoRs in the future. But then, their conference's media partners will reduce the amounts and/or years they are willing to commit to based on the increased instability that results. If a school doesn't want to sign a GoR or agree to litigate disputes in another because they want to leave their present conference they could have done so more cheaply in the past.

We know that schools will decline to sign GORs in the present, because it is clear that Aresco wanted the AAC schools to sign a GOR, or at least floated that idea, during the recently concluded TV negotiations, but that idea was quickly torpedoed by the membership, all of whom have aspirations of being invited to a P5 conference.

That said, I'm not sure that future willingness to sign or not sign a GOR will be impacted much by this SCOTUS decision. Those decisions are made by schools based on their perceptions of what is in their interest. I do think that if conferences attempt to get members to sign an agreement waiving their right not to be sued in other states, the membership will reject that, as there is no earthly reason to voluntarily give the conference a legal "home field advantage" in a dispute.

The same argument could be made in reverse. If one member (out of say 12-16) decides to try to exit without paying the agreed upon exit fee, why would the other schools voluntarily agree to give the departing school the "home field advantage" in the courts? In a confererence, the location of the conference headquarters is the most logical place to settle arguments. And most contracts I have ever seen involving interstate commerce specify which state laws will apply.

Problem for the conference administration is that, apparently, no such clauses exist in at least some of the conference bylaws. And that is understandable, since under the old scotus precedent there was no need for a clause specifying that.

So the problem the conferences might face is that they now would have to affirmatively add such a clause, and members are likely to balk at agreeing to it.