(02-17-2022 02:04 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Does anybody have a copy of the bylaws? The lawsuits will also depend on what state's laws the bylaws are being governed by. For example, the bylaws were probably signed in Texas, with an entity from Texas and an entity from Mississippi, but they bylaws are probably governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, which are 90% of all agreements and contracts. In this case, Delaware would be the jurisdiction that a lawsuit could be file in.

My guess is since we're dealing with public state universities, I would imagine its far more complex.

Its really about what the by law says, and most importantly, how a judge interprets that by law.

I would be more general and say that anyone who is confident about anything in this fiasco is probably overstating their case.

(02-17-2022 02:18 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I would be more general and say that anyone who is confident about anything in this fiasco is probably overstating their case.

Cmon Loki, don't you already know we all scored 180 on our LSATs and a 330 on the BAR.

(02-17-2022 02:26 PM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:18 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I would be more general and say that anyone who is confident about anything in this fiasco is probably overstating their case.

Cmon Loki, don't you already know we all scored 180 on our LSATs and a 330 on the BAR.

I scored a 0.27 once leaving a bar, but I had been there quite a while...

(02-17-2022 02:27 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:26 PM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:18 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I would be more general and say that anyone who is confident about anything in this fiasco is probably overstating their case.

Cmon Loki, don't you already know we all scored 180 on our LSATs and a 330 on the BAR.

I scored a 0.27 once leaving a bar, but I had been there quite a while...

I scored a 10 at a bar once but the next morning it was lowered to a 4.

(02-17-2022 01:53 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:49 PM)GEAUX UL Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:30 PM)rileylives Wrote:  - WKU, MTSU, La Tech, FIU and UTEP are not behind this stand, it's Judy's office. To me, I'm very relieved to read that, I did not want to think Western was stomping its foot on this matter.

It is pretty hard for me to believe this. Judy works for them after all. If those schools were really opposed to this it wouldn't be happening.

bingo!

Considering we have been very vocal about also wanting to leave C-USA, I seriously doubt we are pushing hard to keep any one else in the conference. Setting a precedent here would make it easier for us to leave in the future. I think this is a move being spearheaded by the conference office and the University members are just along for the ride.

(02-17-2022 01:57 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:54 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:40 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:28 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  You sure you read it? The article said it was being led from the conference offices. The only AD quoted from the remaining 5 said he was concerned about how far CUSA offices were pushing it.

Yes. Says the 6 schools bound for the AAC have not been as informed on the legal discussions, and the 5 C-USA holdovers are integral in discussions with league officials.

While some C-USA administrators are miffed at Southern Miss, ODU and Marshall’s position on leaving early, they are just as disappointed in the league’s stonewalled response.

“It feels like hurt feelings rather than good business,” says one administrator within Conference USA. “Everybody is dug in. Over what?”

That's the only quote from a remaining 5. There is nothing in the article that states that anyone, but the CUSA offices are driving the hard stance. In fact the article suggests the opposite. The remaining 5 think the CUSA offices are going too far.

This part is what makes me think otherwise.

During the latest discussions, the six C-USA programs bound for the AAC have not been as informed on the topic, two officials tell SI. For the most part, the five members that will remain in C-USA have been more integral in discussions with league officials. Those include FIU, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, UTEP and Louisiana Tech. C-USA is also adding FCS programs Sam Houston State and Jacksonville State as well as independents New Mexico State and Liberty.

Now, these discussions could be along the lines of end this quickly, or we will call a special board meeting and fire the Commissioner. But someone is allowing the League officials to move forward.

To me, I think it's simply communication according to the bylaws, that they need 3/4 approval to push forward, they have yet to push forward though, it's not at that stage of lawsuits yet.

I would imagine that would be 3/4 of the schools that are currently in and not leaving.

That is, they need 4 out of the remaining 5.

And to be honest, the publishing of the schedule and the communication put out earlier saying the stuff about 'legal options' is likely board-level actions themselves. I would be surprised if the CUSA office had the inherent authority to do that at a time like this. In plain jane times, the publishing of the schedule has no issue and is ministerial in nature. Not so here.

So they probably got the 4 out of 5 (at least) to do the very strong statement threatening legal actions, and perhaps had to get 4 out of 5 to publish the schedule (which does have legal consequences, mind you).

How much harder from having to get 4 out of 5 to do the 'to the edge' posturing to getting 4 out of 5 to 'go over the edge'.

I would almost guarantee you the petitions are drawn up. Not filed, but absolutely drafts that could be filed in minutes if need be. If they are not, then this would be beyond an incompetent group.

(02-17-2022 02:02 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:49 PM)GEAUX UL Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:30 PM)rileylives Wrote:  - WKU, MTSU, La Tech, FIU and UTEP are not behind this stand, it's Judy's office. To me, I'm very relieved to read that, I did not want to think Western was stomping its foot on this matter.

It is pretty hard for me to believe this. Judy works for them after all. If those schools were really opposed to this it wouldn't be happening.

From the article-

While some C-USA administrators are miffed at Southern Miss, ODU and Marshall’s position on leaving early, they are just as disappointed in the league’s stonewalled response.

“It feels like hurt feelings rather than good business,” says one administrator within Conference USA. “Everybody is dug in. Over what?”

It's odd to me all the people who state the conference commissioner essentially does nothing and all the conference members decide everything. If that was the case why would we pay Judy more than the president of the entire United States?

The issues at hand right now would be board level decisions in a normal company, not a CEO level decision. The members are the board for CUSA and Judy is the CEO.

Whenever you start edging closer to a 'bet the company litigation', the more each little action drifts into a board decision as opposed to a CEO decision.

(02-17-2022 02:04 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Does anybody have a copy of the bylaws? The lawsuits will also depend on what state's laws the bylaws are being governed by. For example, the bylaws were probably signed in Texas, with an entity from Texas and an entity from Mississippi, but they bylaws are probably governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, which are 90% of all agreements and contracts. In this case, Delaware would be the jurisdiction that a lawsuit could be file in.

First, that is not necessarily true.

First, CUSA I believe is a Texas entity itself -- it has an entry at the Secretary of State of Texas office.

Choice of law in the bylaws can be anything.

And, venue is not choice of law.

(02-17-2022 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:57 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:54 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:40 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  Yes. Says the 6 schools bound for the AAC have not been as informed on the legal discussions, and the 5 C-USA holdovers are integral in discussions with league officials.

While some C-USA administrators are miffed at Southern Miss, ODU and Marshall’s position on leaving early, they are just as disappointed in the league’s stonewalled response.

“It feels like hurt feelings rather than good business,” says one administrator within Conference USA. “Everybody is dug in. Over what?”

That's the only quote from a remaining 5. There is nothing in the article that states that anyone, but the CUSA offices are driving the hard stance. In fact the article suggests the opposite. The remaining 5 think the CUSA offices are going too far.

This part is what makes me think otherwise.

During the latest discussions, the six C-USA programs bound for the AAC have not been as informed on the topic, two officials tell SI. For the most part, the five members that will remain in C-USA have been more integral in discussions with league officials. Those include FIU, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, UTEP and Louisiana Tech. C-USA is also adding FCS programs Sam Houston State and Jacksonville State as well as independents New Mexico State and Liberty.

Now, these discussions could be along the lines of end this quickly, or we will call a special board meeting and fire the Commissioner. But someone is allowing the League officials to move forward.

To me, I think it's simply communication according to the bylaws, that they need 3/4 approval to push forward, they have yet to push forward though, it's not at that stage of lawsuits yet.

I would imagine that would be 3/4 of the schools that are currently in and not leaving.

That is, they need 4 out of the remaining 5.

And to be honest, the publishing of the schedule and the communication put out earlier saying the stuff about 'legal options' is likely board-level actions themselves. I would be surprised if the CUSA office had the inherent authority to do that at a time like this. In plain jane times, the publishing of the schedule has no issue and is ministerial in nature. Not so here.

So they probably got the 4 out of 5 (at least) to do the very strong statement threatening legal actions, and perhaps had to get 4 out of 5 to publish the schedule (which does have legal consequences, mind you).

How much harder from having to get 4 out of 5 to do the 'to the edge' posturing to getting 4 out of 5 to 'go over the edge'.

I would almost guarantee you the petitions are drawn up. Not filed, but absolutely drafts that could be filed in minutes if need be. If they are not, then this would be beyond an incompetent group.

This is the same administration who lost a guaranteed contract. CUSA was guaranteed for Journey to Atlantis forever. Why we gave up the contract and what CUSA got in return for giving it up we will probably never know. But, I doubt it was worth it. The ability to play power teams on a neutral court every year guaranteed forever is big.

So ya I do believe is a beyond incompetent group and is a reason why schools are scurrying out the door to whatever conference will accept them and why 2 schools felt it was so bad they almost jumped ship for the MAC.

(02-17-2022 02:28 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:27 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:26 PM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:18 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I would be more general and say that anyone who is confident about anything in this fiasco is probably overstating their case.

Cmon Loki, don't you already know we all scored 180 on our LSATs and a 330 on the BAR.

I scored a 0.27 once leaving a bar, but I had been there quite a while...

I scored a 10 at a bar once but the next morning it was lowered to a 4.

A 4 would have been a trophy back in the day. I really was worried about quantity and not quality back in my early 20s lol.

Maybe...

Judy is just trying to load the wagon, pile in a bunch of stuff, like lawsuits, etc. all just to then say to the SB3, "want to avoid all this mess, then let's talk money." I am probably giving the ole Jeepster too much credit, but it is a thought.

(02-17-2022 02:28 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:27 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:26 PM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:18 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I would be more general and say that anyone who is confident about anything in this fiasco is probably overstating their case.

Cmon Loki, don't you already know we all scored 180 on our LSATs and a 330 on the BAR.

I scored a 0.27 once leaving a bar, but I had been there quite a while...

I scored a 10 at a bar once but the next morning it was lowered to a 4.

Ever got a 10's number, wake up the next morning and before calling do a Facebook stalk, realize she's a 4, then run into her a few weeks later and realized you drank too much and she used a fake picture. Her name is Steve and he thinks you're a swell guy.

Didn't happen to me.. Happened to a guy I knew named Rick.

(02-17-2022 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:04 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Does anybody have a copy of the bylaws? The lawsuits will also depend on what state's laws the bylaws are being governed by. For example, the bylaws were probably signed in Texas, with an entity from Texas and an entity from Mississippi, but they bylaws are probably governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, which are 90% of all agreements and contracts. In this case, Delaware would be the jurisdiction that a lawsuit could be file in.

First, that is not necessarily true.

First, CUSA I believe is a Texas entity itself -- it has an entry at the Secretary of State of Texas office.

Choice of law in the bylaws can be anything.

And, venue is not choice of law.

I don’t think it matters, but for the record C-USA was incorporated in Illinois.

(02-17-2022 03:13 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:04 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Does anybody have a copy of the bylaws? The lawsuits will also depend on what state's laws the bylaws are being governed by. For example, the bylaws were probably signed in Texas, with an entity from Texas and an entity from Mississippi, but they bylaws are probably governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, which are 90% of all agreements and contracts. In this case, Delaware would be the jurisdiction that a lawsuit could be file in.

First, that is not necessarily true.

First, CUSA I believe is a Texas entity itself -- it has an entry at the Secretary of State of Texas office.

Choice of law in the bylaws can be anything.

And, venue is not choice of law.

I don’t think it matters, but for the record C-USA was incorporated in Illinois.

pretty much any state that CUSA does "business" in could be the venue.

(02-17-2022 03:19 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 03:13 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:04 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Does anybody have a copy of the bylaws? The lawsuits will also depend on what state's laws the bylaws are being governed by. For example, the bylaws were probably signed in Texas, with an entity from Texas and an entity from Mississippi, but they bylaws are probably governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, which are 90% of all agreements and contracts. In this case, Delaware would be the jurisdiction that a lawsuit could be file in.

First, that is not necessarily true.

First, CUSA I believe is a Texas entity itself -- it has an entry at the Secretary of State of Texas office.

Choice of law in the bylaws can be anything.

And, venue is not choice of law.

I don’t think it matters, but for the record C-USA was incorporated in Illinois.

pretty much any state that CUSA does "business" in could be the venue.

So technically it could be Texas, Mississippi, Virginia, or WV?

(02-17-2022 01:53 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:49 PM)GEAUX UL Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:30 PM)rileylives Wrote:  - WKU, MTSU, La Tech, FIU and UTEP are not behind this stand, it's Judy's office. To me, I'm very relieved to read that, I did not want to think Western was stomping its foot on this matter.

It is pretty hard for me to believe this. Judy works for them after all. If those schools were really opposed to this it wouldn't be happening.

bingo!

Correct, It take a idiot or the complete lack of how a business is ran for someone to believe Judy/conference is doing this without the 5 remaining school giving her the OK on this. That is not how things like this work.

(02-17-2022 03:21 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 03:19 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 03:13 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 02:04 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Does anybody have a copy of the bylaws? The lawsuits will also depend on what state's laws the bylaws are being governed by. For example, the bylaws were probably signed in Texas, with an entity from Texas and an entity from Mississippi, but they bylaws are probably governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, which are 90% of all agreements and contracts. In this case, Delaware would be the jurisdiction that a lawsuit could be file in.

First, that is not necessarily true.

First, CUSA I believe is a Texas entity itself -- it has an entry at the Secretary of State of Texas office.

Choice of law in the bylaws can be anything.

And, venue is not choice of law.

I don’t think it matters, but for the record C-USA was incorporated in Illinois.

pretty much any state that CUSA does "business" in could be the venue.

So technically it could be Texas, Mississippi, Virginia, or WV?

I wouldnt think that would be the case because I believe the injured party has the choice to sue in the state the injury accrued in.

(02-17-2022 01:49 PM)GEAUX UL Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:30 PM)rileylives Wrote:  - WKU, MTSU, La Tech, FIU and UTEP are not behind this stand, it's Judy's office. To me, I'm very relieved to read that, I did not want to think Western was stomping its foot on this matter.

It is pretty hard for me to believe this. Judy works for them after all. If those schools were really opposed to this it wouldn't be happening.

You are correct. She is doing her best to let it appear it is the league office causing all the problems thus relieving the remaining five of any responsibility. They are handling it like this in order to hopefully retain working relationships between cusa and sunbelt for future scheduling. It wont work, its obvious the remaining five could stop this in its tracks thus nothing from here on will allow them to wash their hands of the matter.

(02-17-2022 01:49 PM)GEAUX UL Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:30 PM)rileylives Wrote:  - WKU, MTSU, La Tech, FIU and UTEP are not behind this stand, it's Judy's office. To me, I'm very relieved to read that, I did not want to think Western was stomping its foot on this matter.

It is pretty hard for me to believe this. Judy works for them after all. If those schools were really opposed to this it wouldn't be happening.

You are correct. She is doing her best to let it appear it is the league office causing all the problems thus relieving the remaining five of any responsibility. They are handling it like this in order to hopefully retain working relationships between cusa and sunbelt for future scheduling. It wont work, its obvious the remaining five could stop this in its tracks thus nothing from here on will allow them to wash their hands of the matter.