(09-13-2020 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2020 09:00 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-13-2020 06:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's dispel some inaccurate information.
1. They probably don't need 9 votes. Why? The legal issue is they have no right to compel a state school operating as a non profit in a sovereign state to shut down football season. A GOR compels schools to play to honor a contractual obligation. A GOR cannot compel non performance, and more specifically a conference probably can't either. And that makes in a backhanded way the whole notion of a GOR for state schools questionable.

In the past there was no reason to challenge one. If a F.S.U. wanted to leave the ACC for the SEC or Big 10 in 2010 they might make 7 million more and the lawsuit, likely to make it to the Supreme Court, might cost 15 million. So there was no desire to challenge it because it cost too much.

Now you are talking about shutting Ohio State out of nearly 200 million by ordering them not to play. You had better believe that the Attorney General of Ohio would spend the 15 million to challenge that as would the AG of Nebraska for their 130 million. GOR's were mostly used for professional entertainers prior to the raids and their use in college football. They've never really been applied to state non profits where tax payers pick up the shortfalls in taxes.

So the Big 10 doesn't want to touch that issue with a 10 foot pole and will likely vote to cancel the season.........., but......., permit those schools who desire to play to do so, which is precisely the position they should have declared from the beginning instead of trying to force independent states into compliance because that was what Michigan and Minnesota wanted to do.

2. It's going to be damn difficult for Nebraska, Iowa and Ohio State to work out a schedule now. So even if the Big 10 permits them to play independently, they likely have already suffered significant losses due to the colossal screw up by the Commissioner and a few of the presidents.

3. If it goes to trial for damages the efficacy of GOR's and Conference mandates are going to come under direct assault anyway and by golly that may be the best thing that could happen for college sports because then all new associations would be by choice and not by history.

I'm not a lawyer, but each of the members in any conference is a member voluntarily, and at liberty to leave any time they wish per the rules of the conference that they willingly joined. Therefore, if any school such as Nebraska wishes to leave the conference, they are not "compelled" (your word) to remain a member of the conference, and could probably sue to avoid exit fees due to the reasons you've stated. But I do think the conference is within its rights to say "members of this conference are not allowed to compete this fall." Don't like the rules, don't stay in the conference.

(note, I think the B1G has acted foolishly, but I don't think your legal argument holds water)



USFFan

Show me the rule in the Big 10 bylaws that permits the conference to tell a school they shall not play? I won't hold my breath. The Conference can't circumvent state law, or the right of a school to fund its programs. So get some depends, they'll hold your water for you. BTW: The Attorney General of Nebraska knew this and the A.G. of Ohio was willing to join the suit. Take up your legal issues with them.

I see they all voted to play so that renders this moot. But, to your suggestion, they are not just free to leave. They are free to leave their full share of the BTN value they've bought into, and they are free to pay massive GOR damages for future seasons remaining on the contract, or they are free to lose what would be for Nebraska roughly 130 million in football revenue for the year, or for OSU closer to 200 million. That's not being free to leave. That's why the A.G.'s were willing to get involved because basically it's the taxpayer of the states that fund the losses and no football conference has the legal right to levy massive taxes on a state and therein has always resided the weakness of a GOR for non profit school from a sovereign state and the word sovereign is highly operative.

Also, having all Big 10 schools play keeps the GOR intact. I think the current one expires in 2023 or 4. It will be interesting to see what is done then. They backtracked on their initial decision because they didn't have the legal grounds to enforce it. What they have done tonight is yield to the Attorneys General. I think it was the only move they could make.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/i...ndbook.pdf

Not going to read the whole thing, but this seems to cover it:

Quote:4.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS: COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS/
CHANCELLORS (BOARD OF DIRECTORS)
4.1.1 Composition. The Council consists of the chancellor or president of each
member university, constituted for the purposes set forth in the Certificate of
Incorporation and the Bylaws. The Council meets from time to time as set forth in the
Bylaws. The terms “Board of Directors” and “Council of Presidents/Chancellors” are
synonymous and interchangeable.
A. Council of Presidents/Chancellors Executive Committee. The Executive
Committee shall consist of four presidents/chancellors, and will include the Chair,
two past chairs, and one other president/chancellor. The Executive Committee is
to conduct the regular business of the Council between Council meetings and
provide direction to the Commissioner in the conduct of the day-to-day operations
of the Conference. (Re vise d 6/5/11)
4.1.3 Duties and Responsibilities: Matters Reserved to the Council. The following
policy matters are reserved to the Council. These may take effect only upon the vote of
not less than sixty percent (60%) of the entire Council:
A. Hiring, determining duties, responsibilities and conditions of employment, and
terminating the employment of the Conference Commissioner;
B. Preparing and approving the Conference budget and all other financial matters;
C. Initiating and settling litigation in which total financial exposure is reasonably
expected to exceed $250,000 (Re vise d 6/6/04; Editorialre vision 8/1/12);
D. Enforcing any of the Conference's Rules, Agreements, Appendices or Bylaws
which would (i) reduce the amount of revenue to be received by a member; (ii)
terminate personnel at a member university; (iii) reduce the number of sporting
events in a member's schedule; or (iv) deprive participation of a member's team in
either a post-season sporting event or in a telecast of a sporting event;

Seems to me that agreeing to be a member of the conference means that you've agreed that the Council of Presidents/Chancellors has the right to enforce any of the conference's rules which would reduce the number of sporting events in a member's schedule.

USFFan

(09-13-2020 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Show me the rule in the Big 10 bylaws that permits the conference to tell a school they shall not play?

4.1.3.D, 3.0.1 generally, as a start/

(09-13-2020 09:44 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-13-2020 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2020 09:00 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-13-2020 06:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's dispel some inaccurate information.
1. They probably don't need 9 votes. Why? The legal issue is they have no right to compel a state school operating as a non profit in a sovereign state to shut down football season. A GOR compels schools to play to honor a contractual obligation. A GOR cannot compel non performance, and more specifically a conference probably can't either. And that makes in a backhanded way the whole notion of a GOR for state schools questionable.

In the past there was no reason to challenge one. If a F.S.U. wanted to leave the ACC for the SEC or Big 10 in 2010 they might make 7 million more and the lawsuit, likely to make it to the Supreme Court, might cost 15 million. So there was no desire to challenge it because it cost too much.

Now you are talking about shutting Ohio State out of nearly 200 million by ordering them not to play. You had better believe that the Attorney General of Ohio would spend the 15 million to challenge that as would the AG of Nebraska for their 130 million. GOR's were mostly used for professional entertainers prior to the raids and their use in college football. They've never really been applied to state non profits where tax payers pick up the shortfalls in taxes.

So the Big 10 doesn't want to touch that issue with a 10 foot pole and will likely vote to cancel the season.........., but......., permit those schools who desire to play to do so, which is precisely the position they should have declared from the beginning instead of trying to force independent states into compliance because that was what Michigan and Minnesota wanted to do.

2. It's going to be damn difficult for Nebraska, Iowa and Ohio State to work out a schedule now. So even if the Big 10 permits them to play independently, they likely have already suffered significant losses due to the colossal screw up by the Commissioner and a few of the presidents.

3. If it goes to trial for damages the efficacy of GOR's and Conference mandates are going to come under direct assault anyway and by golly that may be the best thing that could happen for college sports because then all new associations would be by choice and not by history.

I'm not a lawyer, but each of the members in any conference is a member voluntarily, and at liberty to leave any time they wish per the rules of the conference that they willingly joined. Therefore, if any school such as Nebraska wishes to leave the conference, they are not "compelled" (your word) to remain a member of the conference, and could probably sue to avoid exit fees due to the reasons you've stated. But I do think the conference is within its rights to say "members of this conference are not allowed to compete this fall." Don't like the rules, don't stay in the conference.

(note, I think the B1G has acted foolishly, but I don't think your legal argument holds water)



USFFan

Show me the rule in the Big 10 bylaws that permits the conference to tell a school they shall not play? I won't hold my breath. The Conference can't circumvent state law, or the right of a school to fund its programs. So get some depends, they'll hold your water for you. BTW: The Attorney General of Nebraska knew this and the A.G. of Ohio was willing to join the suit. Take up your legal issues with them.

I see they all voted to play so that renders this moot. But, to your suggestion, they are not just free to leave. They are free to leave their full share of the BTN value they've bought into, and they are free to pay massive GOR damages for future seasons remaining on the contract, or they are free to lose what would be for Nebraska roughly 130 million in football revenue for the year, or for OSU closer to 200 million. That's not being free to leave. That's why the A.G.'s were willing to get involved because basically it's the taxpayer of the states that fund the losses and no football conference has the legal right to levy massive taxes on a state and therein has always resided the weakness of a GOR for non profit school from a sovereign state and the word sovereign is highly operative.

Also, having all Big 10 schools play keeps the GOR intact. I think the current one expires in 2023 or 4. It will be interesting to see what is done then. They backtracked on their initial decision because they didn't have the legal grounds to enforce it. What they have done tonight is yield to the Attorneys General. I think it was the only move they could make.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/i...ndbook.pdf

Not going to read the whole thing, but this seems to cover it:

Quote:4.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS: COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS/
CHANCELLORS (BOARD OF DIRECTORS)
4.1.1 Composition. The Council consists of the chancellor or president of each
member university, constituted for the purposes set forth in the Certificate of
Incorporation and the Bylaws. The Council meets from time to time as set forth in the
Bylaws. The terms “Board of Directors” and “Council of Presidents/Chancellors” are
synonymous and interchangeable.
A. Council of Presidents/Chancellors Executive Committee. The Executive
Committee shall consist of four presidents/chancellors, and will include the Chair,
two past chairs, and one other president/chancellor. The Executive Committee is
to conduct the regular business of the Council between Council meetings and
provide direction to the Commissioner in the conduct of the day-to-day operations
of the Conference. (Re vise d 6/5/11)
4.1.3 Duties and Responsibilities: Matters Reserved to the Council. The following
policy matters are reserved to the Council. These may take effect only upon the vote of
not less than sixty percent (60%) of the entire Council:
A. Hiring, determining duties, responsibilities and conditions of employment, and
terminating the employment of the Conference Commissioner;
B. Preparing and approving the Conference budget and all other financial matters;
C. Initiating and settling litigation in which total financial exposure is reasonably
expected to exceed $250,000 (Re vise d 6/6/04; Editorialre vision 8/1/12);
D. Enforcing any of the Conference's Rules, Agreements, Appendices or Bylaws
which would (i) reduce the amount of revenue to be received by a member; (ii)
terminate personnel at a member university; (iii) reduce the number of sporting
events in a member's schedule; or (iv) deprive participation of a member's team in
either a post-season sporting event or in a telecast of a sporting event;

Seems to me that agreeing to be a member of the conference means that you've agreed that the Council of Presidents/Chancellors has the right to enforce any of the conference's rules which would reduce the number of sporting events in a member's schedule.

USFFan

Telling a school they can't play at all when they have violated no Conference or NCAA rule isn't in that. But, even if it was it's moot if it violates state laws, laws regarding intra state, or inter state, commerce, or national laws. Those rules are more about enforcement for violation of existing rules. There is no rule granting the Big 10 the right to simply say you can't play because we decided you couldn't even though you've violated no existing rules requiring sanctions or punishment. Nebraska and Ohio State and Iowa are currently guilty of nothing. If the Big 10 decides not to play the Big 10 can't impinge their right to mitigate their losses simply because it decides to do so. And that is why they have reversed their position.

(09-13-2020 09:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Telling a school they can't play at all when they have violated no Conference or NCAA rule isn't in that.

Citation?

(09-13-2020 02:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I’ll wait to believe it will actually happen. I’m sorry but there is political implications involved in that decision. No word on the PAC ?

That is garbage. There are no political implications with starting sports in the PAC-12. No one wants this. It is a financial disaster. There are no high school sports, no college sports. No fans attending pro sports. Normal activities are shutdown or restricted. Who are the politicians that want to screw west coast athletics?

Ohio AG will not want to step into this mess since it is controversial especially covering up a fact that Ohio State hide a wife beater by sweeping it under the bus. This is why it is so dangerous for OSU to play this fall because they could get sued by the parents if one of the players catch the virus and dies from it. Schools need to be on their tippy toes right now.

If we're going to play the game of Nebraska and Ohio State should be allowed to play individual seasons on their own and screw the Big Ten, then South Carolina should go call Clemson right now and they should play this Saturday, screw Citadel. If individual Big Ten teams should be able to go against the wishes of their conference for their own personal gain, so should individual SEC teams. If you or the SEC have a problem with that, it's a double standard. The Big Ten teams should be able to do what they want but SEC teams have to all fall in line to what the conference says or they're all one big happy family?

UN and Iowa should have played in the Big 12 this year. Hell, throw OSU in there as well. Why be bullied by some liberal governors in other states? I’m not sure how the money would have worked out though with the existing TV deals but you could have aired games on the B1G NETWORK and divied up the revenue

(09-14-2020 05:25 AM)schmolik Wrote:  If we're going to play the game of Nebraska and Ohio State should be allowed to play individual seasons on their own and screw the Big Ten, then South Carolina should go call Clemson right now and they should play this Saturday, screw Citadel. If individual Big Ten teams should be able to go against the wishes of their conference for their own personal gain, so should individual SEC teams. If you or the SEC have a problem with that, it's a double standard. The Big Ten teams should be able to do what they want but SEC teams have to all fall in line to what the conference says or they're all one big happy family?

IMO there's a difference here. The SEC has rational reasons for wanting uniformity with regard to playing OOC games (in this case, no such games). The presence of an OOC game on the schedules of some teams but not others could reduce flexibility if conference games have to be postponed, which we've already seen a couple times with conferences that are already playing, and you can't have uniformity in virus protocols across all your games because you can't control what the OOC team does. You may agree or disagree with those reasons, but they are rational.

But I don't see any rational reason for the B1G saying that no teams can play. If Nebraska, Ohio State and Iowa want to cobble together a season with games against each other and non-B1G schools, how does that impact the 11 schools that choose not to play? It doesn't. That seemed like a pure control-power move by those not playing, as in "if we think we can't play then you can't play either", spiteful, not rational.

(09-14-2020 12:12 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Ohio AG will not want to step into this mess since it is controversial especially covering up a fact that Ohio State hide a wife beater by sweeping it under the bus. This is why it is so dangerous for OSU to play this fall because they could get sued by the parents if one of the players catch the virus and dies from it. Schools need to be on their tippy toes right now.

That sounds dangerous, but I suppose he deserved it.

(09-14-2020 12:12 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Ohio AG will not want to step into this mess since it is controversial especially covering up a fact that Ohio State hide a wife beater by sweeping it under the bus. This is why it is so dangerous for OSU to play this fall because they could get sued by the parents if one of the players catch the virus and dies from it. Schools need to be on their tippy toes right now.

COVID Liability shield has already cleared the legislature in Ohio, just waiting on Governor Dewine to sign.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labo...hield-bill

(09-14-2020 06:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 05:25 AM)schmolik Wrote:  If we're going to play the game of Nebraska and Ohio State should be allowed to play individual seasons on their own and screw the Big Ten, then South Carolina should go call Clemson right now and they should play this Saturday, screw Citadel. If individual Big Ten teams should be able to go against the wishes of their conference for their own personal gain, so should individual SEC teams. If you or the SEC have a problem with that, it's a double standard. The Big Ten teams should be able to do what they want but SEC teams have to all fall in line to what the conference says or they're all one big happy family?

IMO there's a difference here. The SEC has rational reasons for wanting uniformity with regard to playing OOC games (in this case, no such games). The presence of an OOC game on the schedules of some teams but not others could reduce flexibility if conference games have to be postponed, which we've already seen a couple times with conferences that are already playing, and you can't have uniformity in virus protocols across all your games because you can't control what the OOC team does. You may agree or disagree with those reasons, but they are rational.

But I don't see any rational reason for the B1G saying that no teams can play. If Nebraska, Ohio State and Iowa want to cobble together a season with games against each other and non-B1G schools, how does that impact the 11 schools that choose not to play? It doesn't. That seemed like a pure control-power move by those not playing, as in "if we think we can't play then you can't play either", spiteful, not rational.

No rational reason other than wanting to ensure all fourteen schools were available to compete in a Spring (or October 17th, apparently) season, you mean?

Interesting. Gives them 9 weeks for an 8 week schedule plus a CCG on Dec 19. Not ideal but that's enough to be considered for a playoff berth, IMO

(09-13-2020 06:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's dispel some inaccurate information.
1. They probably don't need 9 votes. Why? The legal issue is they have no right to compel a state school operating as a non profit in a sovereign state to shut down football season. A GOR compels schools to play to honor a contractual obligation. A GOR cannot compel non performance, and more specifically a conference probably can't either. And that makes in a backhanded way the whole notion of a GOR for state schools questionable.

In the past there was no reason to challenge one. If a F.S.U. wanted to leave the ACC for the SEC or Big 10 in 2010 they might make 7 million more and the lawsuit, likely to make it to the Supreme Court, might cost 15 million. So there was no desire to challenge it because it cost too much.

Now you are talking about shutting Ohio State out of nearly 200 million by ordering them not to play. You had better believe that the Attorney General of Ohio would spend the 15 million to challenge that as would the AG of Nebraska for their 130 million. GOR's were mostly used for professional entertainers prior to the raids and their use in college football. They've never really been applied to state non profits where tax payers pick up the shortfalls in taxes.

So the Big 10 doesn't want to touch that issue with a 10 foot pole and will likely vote to cancel the season.........., but......., permit those schools who desire to play to do so, which is precisely the position they should have declared from the beginning instead of trying to force independent states into compliance because that was what Michigan and Minnesota wanted to do.

2. It's going to be damn difficult for Nebraska, Iowa and Ohio State to work out a schedule now. So even if the Big 10 permits them to play independently, they likely have already suffered significant losses due to the colossal screw up by the Commissioner and a few of the presidents.

3. If it goes to trial for damages the efficacy of GOR's and Conference mandates are going to come under direct assault anyway and by golly that may be the best thing that could happen for college sports because then all new associations would be by choice and not by history.

It would be very difficult for those schools to work out a schedule, but presumably they could do in season home and homes plus pick up a few games with G5/FCS/Indy schools later in the calendar to fill a few more dates, particularly with their large pocketbooks and possible future return dates. It wouldn't be very glamorous but I could see an Ohio St getting to 7 or 8 games that way and make their case for CFP inclusion.

(09-14-2020 05:25 AM)schmolik Wrote:  If we're going to play the game of Nebraska and Ohio State should be allowed to play individual seasons on their own and screw the Big Ten, then South Carolina should go call Clemson right now and they should play this Saturday, screw Citadel. If individual Big Ten teams should be able to go against the wishes of their conference for their own personal gain, so should individual SEC teams. If you or the SEC have a problem with that, it's a double standard. The Big Ten teams should be able to do what they want but SEC teams have to all fall in line to what the conference says or they're all one big happy family?

It is very frustrating, but from what I understand the SEC was very adamant about this not being allowed and the SC administration is notoriously weak chinned and won't fight them on it any more.

I wouldn't be completely shocked if SC petitions to play Clemson on Dec 12 (a bye week before the conference title games) assuming we have already been eliminated. At that point there would be zero risk for the SEC, but I still think even that is unlikely.

South Carolina might be playing for a conference championship, but Clemson could be? What would Clemson get out of playing the game this year if they are going to be in the hunt to win the ACC and national title?

(09-14-2020 09:40 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  South Carolina might be playing for a conference championship, but Clemson could be? What would Clemson get out of playing the game this year if they are going to be in the hunt to win the ACC and national title?

I simply do not get the whiny butthurt about SC vs Clemson being canceled. Other rivalries that are at least as venerable have been canceled and nobody is whining, everyone understands it's a unique year.

What's doubly-surprising is that most of the complaining is coming from the SC side, not the Clemson side. Why are Gamecocks so eager to get plastered by 30 again?

(09-14-2020 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 09:40 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  South Carolina might be playing for a conference championship, but Clemson could be? What would Clemson get out of playing the game this year if they are going to be in the hunt to win the ACC and national title?

I simply do not get the whiny butthurt about SC vs Clemson being canceled. Other rivalries that are at least as venerable have been canceled and nobody is whining, everyone understands it's a unique year.

What's doubly-surprising is that most of the complaining is coming from the SC side, not the Clemson side. Why are Gamecocks so eager to get plastered by 30 again?

No other school outside the ACC is losing their biggest rivalry game.

(09-14-2020 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 09:40 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  South Carolina might be playing for a conference championship, but Clemson could be? What would Clemson get out of playing the game this year if they are going to be in the hunt to win the ACC and national title?

I simply do not get the whiny butthurt about SC vs Clemson being canceled. Other rivalries that are at least as venerable have been canceled and nobody is whining, everyone understands it's a unique year.

What's doubly-surprising is that most of the complaining is coming from the SC side, not the Clemson side. Why are Gamecocks so eager to get plastered by 30 again?

1) Clemson isn't banned from playing South Carolina this year.

2) South Carolina technically has nothing to lose and everything to gain. If they get plastered by 30, everyone expects it. What if by some miracle they win? It's like Pittsburgh playing Penn State. Pittsburgh wants to play it way more than Penn State does because they have way more to gain while PSU would prefer not to play it and stay "#1 in the state".

(09-14-2020 12:12 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Ohio AG will not want to step into this mess since it is controversial especially covering up a fact that Ohio State hide a wife beater by sweeping it under the bus. This is why it is so dangerous for OSU to play this fall because they could get sued by the parents if one of the players catch the virus and dies from it. Schools need to be on their tippy toes right now.

Once again you know nothing about Ohio...... Stick to Twitter or Reddit.