https://www.si.com/college/2022/02/17/co...thern-miss

"Attorneys believe the conference will first file suit and seek judicial intervention to obtain injunctive relief requiring the three schools to remain in the conference, at the very least until a trial on the underlying breach of contract issues is complete. The league, headquartered in Dallas, could file suit in either federal or state court in Texas. But most believe that the conference must file three individual suits in the three states in which the schools, each pubic institutions, reside: Mississippi (Southern Miss), West Virginia (Marshall) and Virginia (ODU). That could prove difficult. Fighting a court battle against a state university in that very state is a recipe for failure, Winter says.

For one, state entities are protected through sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that shelters them from civil suits filed in their own courts.

“Assuming local judges do not recuse themselves, it may be extremely difficult to get a local judge who may live and work down the street from the school to render a decision enjoining the state school,” Clifton says."

If this is fought in WV, MS and VA instead of Texas, the odds against CUSA just went way up. Whatever the outcome, the lawyer in me is fascinated to watch the legal process of it all unfold.

(02-17-2022 01:14 PM)forphase1 Wrote:  https://www.si.com/college/2022/02/17/co...thern-miss

"Attorneys believe the conference will first file suit and seek judicial intervention to obtain injunctive relief requiring the three schools to remain in the conference, at the very least until a trial on the underlying breach of contract issues is complete. The league, headquartered in Dallas, could file suit in either federal or state court in Texas. But most believe that the conference must file three individual suits in the three states in which the schools, each pubic institutions, reside: Mississippi (Southern Miss), West Virginia (Marshall) and Virginia (ODU). That could prove difficult. Fighting a court battle against a state university in that very state is a recipe for failure, Winter says.

For one, state entities are protected through sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that shelters them from civil suits filed in their own courts.

“Assuming local judges do not recuse themselves, it may be extremely difficult to get a local judge who may live and work down the street from the school to render a decision enjoining the state school,” Clifton says."

If this is fought in WV, MS and VA instead of Texas, the odds against CUSA just went way up. Whatever the outcome, the lawyer in me is fascinated to watch the legal process of it all unfold.

It's hard to keep up with all the threads discussing the topic, but this subject was discussed prior to the article being released. In the end it all depends if a district was agreed to by the parties or not in the bylaws. If so the suit will most likely swing to the high end of penalties. If not then mediation will swing numbers to the lower end of penalties.

The entire article was a good read. Happy to read that the remaining C-USA schools are driving the hard stance, and not the AAC6.

(02-17-2022 01:20 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  The entire article was a good read. Happy to read that the remaining C-USA schools are driving the hard stance, and not the AAC6.

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.

Yeah, I said this in the main thread and I'll post it here too...

That SI article was astounding. It clarified for me a couple things.

- 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.

- CUSA does not possess a GOR, so unlike Oklahoma and Texas which is forced to stay through 2024, we are not forced to stay in CUSA.

- The Sun Belt is keenly aware, and doesn't want to get sued.

- There is no precedent for what is happening, this is Conference USA doing something pretty unprecedented, as in most history has shown negotiations have been made available, and in some cases, teams have been able to outright walk away without penalty. That right there will vote very well for the SB3.

- Unlike some posters on these boards that want to puff up their chest with their legal knowledge, not even sport contract lawyers know what's going to happen.

- if Conference USA wants to file injunctions, they're going to need to do that in our individual states, so that's very unlikely.

(02-17-2022 01:20 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  The entire article was a good read. Happy to read that the remaining C-USA schools are driving the hard stance, and not the AAC6.

Yeah, actually the way I read it it wasn't even the schools at all, it's Judy and the office.

So I agree, I've always said we have no hard feelings against the schools, and it looks like the schools are kind of understanding as well that this is a Judy fight.

(02-17-2022 01:20 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  The entire article was a good read. Happy to read that the remaining C-USA schools are driving the hard stance, and not the AAC6.

Yeah, the conference is dicking the AAC6 with its moves as well. I mean, we might deserve a little but they don’t seem to have any interest in collateral damage.

(02-17-2022 01:28 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:20 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  The entire article was a good read. Happy to read that the remaining C-USA schools are driving the hard stance, and not the AAC6.

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.

(02-17-2022 01:17 PM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  It's hard to keep up with all the threads discussing the topic, but this subject was discussed prior to the article being released. In the end it all depends if a district was agreed to by the parties or not in the bylaws. If so the suit will most likely swing to the high end of penalties. If not then mediation will swing numbers to the lower end of penalties.

Yeah I know, I was part of those discussions in some of the other threads. Just thought it was worth putting it out here by itself since we now have some actual reporting on the issue of venue versus all of us just throwing our own, likely less informed, opinions around. I can't imagine there not being a choice of law clause and/or a venue clause in the bylaws or conference documentation, and usually they are controlling. Clearly the article writer feels differently, or assumes there isn't one.

(02-17-2022 01:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:28 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:20 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  The entire article was a good read. Happy to read that the remaining C-USA schools are driving the hard stance, and not the AAC6.

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.

(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.

(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!

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

(02-17-2022 01:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:28 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 01:20 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  The entire article was a good read. Happy to read that the remaining C-USA schools are driving the hard stance, and not the AAC6.

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.

(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:  

(02-17-2022 01:20 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  The entire article was a good read. Happy to read that the remaining C-USA schools are driving the hard stance, and not the AAC6.

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.

(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?

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.

(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.

I don't think it exactly works that way.

IF Commissioner McLeod was only doing the business that the 14 schools she represents supported, would any of the schools be so ready to leave?

"'Judy' works for them" means we wouldn't have any issue with media rights, tournament locations, or lack of eastern division rivals for Marshall and ODU.

(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.

The SI article talking with lawyers specializing in sports conference law states that the most likely course of action is CUSA will have to file in each of the schools states separately if they want to pursue that action, but that's not guaranteed.

"Hank, why do you drink?"

"To get drink."

"Why do you smoke dope?"

"To get stoned."

(02-17-2022 02:06 PM)Eagleyed 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.

The SI article talking with lawyers specializing in sports conference law states that the most likely course of action is CUSA will have to file in each of the schools states separately if they want to pursue that action, but that's not guaranteed.

I read that as well, but I am just saying that Delaware could be in play, or the state that the bylaws are governed by and construed.