Legal issues around A&M expansion

[AssEndDawg]

As odd as it may sound I've been looking at Tortious Interference law a good bit the past few years. I have a friend who wrote a program that will allow your computer to play World of Warcraft for you while you are at work, asleep, etc. It basically allows you to cheat the game by playing for you and getting you experience or gold and items. Blizzard, the company that owns WoW sued him for tortious interference because they argued he enticed people to break the End User License Agreement of the game. It's been an interesting argument that has been going on at least three years now.

So as I understand it the SEC is keeping A&M at arms length because we don't want Baylor and the other dwarfs of the Big 12 to sue us for enticing A&M to break their contract. But here is where I am confused, the Big 12 already agreed to let A&M out of their contract and A&M is going to pay a boatload of money to make that happen. Baylor (I will use Baylor to represent all the Dwarfs since they are the ring leader) is now saying, "we will sue unless Oklahoma agrees to stay." This is because Oklahoma leaving would definitely destroy the Big 12 which would hurt Baylor and cost them tons of money.

Here is where I am confused. The SEC is worried about someone suing us over something I don't see them being able to sue over. Even if they could, the damage done by A&M leaving is, by Baylor's own words, not a problem. Rather it would be Oklahoma leaving, which isn't our issue at all, that would destroy the Big 12. So as I see it we are afraid of someone suing us over enticing A&M to break a contract, they have already legally gotten out of, under the pretense it hurts their conference, which by their own admission isn't caused by A&M leaving. As far as I can tell the SEC, even if we did go to court, would win and even if we lost the actual damages to Baylor caused by A&M leaving would be little to nothing by their own arguments.

At the point A&M is out of the contract I don't understand why we are so scared of the little dwarfs. The only thing that makes sense to me is that the SEC is really in no hurry here. If A&M pushed out another year it would allow us to work on a 14th member and keep us from unbalancing the conference. It just seems to me we are way to concerned about Baylor nipping at our heels.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I think you may be right. I think it may be that the SEC would prefer to expand by either 2 or 4 if we're going to do so. I think they also knew that A&M was likely to face some legal repercussions for leaving, so they tell A&M you're in, but you have to get clean of all legal challenges first.

On the Oklahoma note, what's to keep Oklahoma from granting some sort of assurance that they're going to stay only to back out later and leave? Would Baylor make them sign a contract saying how long they planned to stay? Also, how could Baylor's challenge pass legal muster when they didn't offer any challenge to Colorado or Nebraska last year for doing the same thing?

It's an interesting case. If you're Baylor, you have to see that the light at the end of the tunnel is actually a train at this point, and there really is nothing that can be done about it. I guess they're just going to posture now and try to get as much money out of the split as possible.

If they really want to blame someone, they need to attack Texas. Texas is the one who caused the destruction of the Big 12. I don't know that they can make the case for it, but Texas is the ultimate one at fault here. They started the dominos, and Baylor is going to end up lost in the shuffle...unless by some chance they have the political clout to force Texas to take them as a tag along if Texas does decide to join the Pac 12 or something like that.

 

[msudawg05]

why the SEC is so worried. It seems to me that if A&M has met the requirements for leaving the conference then Baylor would have no grounds on which to sue. If a contract has an out clause, and you fulfill those obligations, then you can't be sued for something like breach of contract, right?

 

[AssEndDawg]

I would think they would have to break the contract for us to be sued for enticing them to break the contract. The whole thing seems rather silly to me. I can understand the SEC not wanting to get sued but is that realistic in this day and age? I would think the SEC gets sued from time to time anyway. Wasn't that jackass whining about the cowbell suing the SEC?

 

[Dawgzilla]

Why is the SEC so worried about this? It was obviously a concern from the start, since they earlier told A$M they needed to cleanly exit the Big XII before the SEC would even vote on them.

As you said, it appears the Big XII agreement has a buyout clause. If the Aggies abide by the buyout clause, then they haven't breached their contract, so there cannot be tortious interference. If the SEC funded the buyout, then maybe there would be a case, but we don't have any evidence that is happening.

For some reason, the SEC does not want to go to court. Perhaps they don't like the bad PR of litigating something like this. Maybe they are concerned that a court would issue a preliminary injunction stopping the expansion and that would prevent the SEC from finding a 14th team.

I really don't know. Whenever I see a party that is scared to even be brought into court, it usually turns out they have something to hide.

Baylor, OTHO, is doing exactly what I would advise any client to do. They originally gave consent to A$M leaving because the other 9 schools all committed to keeping the conference together. That was obviously a hollow commitment, since OU is already talking to the PAC-12. Since Baylor lost their assurances of conference stability, they are taking back their agreement not to sue over A$M leaving. It really just makes sense. Dont give up your legal rights without getting something in return.

 

[AssEndDawg]

Baylor, OTHO, is doing exactly what I would advise any client to do. They originally gave consent to A$M leaving because the other 9 schools all committed to keeping the conference together. That was obviously a hollow commitment, since OU is already talking to the PAC-12. Since Baylor lost their assurances of conference stability, they are taking back their agreement not to sue over A$M leaving. It really just makes sense. Dont give up your legal rights without getting something in return.

though to be holding your legal rights over one entity in order to try and get something from another entity? I mean, does Oklahoma really give a **** that Baylor may sue A&M if they don't stay in the conference? I would think that Oklahoma has to do what is in their best interest at this point, A&M be damned. this just seems an awfully strange way to try and hold a conference together. I would think at this point forcing A&M to stay in the Big 12 would be toxic.

 

[patdog]

I doubt Baylor could win a lawsuit against either the SEC or Texas A&M. The Big 12 has agreed to let A&M leave so they have every legal right to leave under the conditions of their agreement with the Big 12, whether it hurts Baylor or anyone else. That doesn't mean Baylor can't file a lawsuit. Also, this is more a PR issue than a legal issue. The SEC doesn't want to be the ones who broke the Big 12 up, and Baylor is buying time to try to work something out to remain in a BCS conference.</p>

 

[jacksonreb1]

to TAMU leaving with the agreement of the other 9 to stay together, then it seems to me they've already given up their right to complain/sue TAMU. if one of the 9 breaks the agreement then they might have a claim against them but that seems to me would be totally seperate from TAMU. why would that not be correct?

also, as a non lawyer from the perspective of a potential defendant,,,,,even if i didn't have anything to hide i'd do anything reasonable to stay out of court. its very expensive and who knows what some nut judge/jury is going to do. so i don't blame the sec for trying to avoid getting dragged into this fight.

 

[boatsnhoes]

who is responsible breaking up the big 12. The pole smokers in austin. The only people who refute that are the previously stated.

It was reported yesterday that the Big East had contacted "the dwarfs" Iowa State, Kansas, K State, and the ringleader. Baylor is preforming extortion, as it is about money. Either you pay us or we will sue you aggieland.

 

[Dawgzilla]

I understand that litigation is time consuming and expensive and you would rather not be in court if you can avoid it. But sometimes litigation is the only option, and yet one party starts bending over backward to prevent a lawsuit. THAT'S when I always suspect there is a little more to the story.

The SEC's position is just odd. Financially, they can certainly afford the litigation, or, if that was all they were worried about, they could get A$M to indemnify the SEC against any costs of litigation. No, there is some other reason the SEC does not want this to go to court, and I'm not sure what that is. I guess its possible they just don't want the headache, but then you have to wonder do they really want A$M that badly if they aren't willing to fight over it?

With respect Baylor reneging on their agreement, since they got their withdrawal in before the SEC presidents voted, I don't think they are bound by their original consent. As I understand it, the Big XII schools unanimously agreed to let the Aggies leave, provided the SEC extended an invitation before Sept. 8. Had the SEC and the Aggies relied on that consent and struck their deal, then maybe the SEC would have an argument that Baylor is bound by their original consent. However, Baylor withdrew their consent before the SEC acted, so I think they are within their rights.

 

[catvet]

they are not real happy with the SEC right now. And I agree. Baylor has nothing to sue about. A&M asked for the exit fees, were given them, followed the bylines of the conference and applied for admission in the SEC. We are the freaking SEC. Quit dealing with economic terrorists--Baylor-, go Jack Bauer on them, and accept A&M unconditionally and dare Baylor to sue. Then bury their *** in court and under Texas law, Baylor would then have to pay legal fees.

 

[Hector.sixpack]

I'm smaller than you, and don't have as much money....so I'll just be a little ***** about you wanting to break up with me- PROMISE ME YOU'LL LOVE ME- CAUSE IF YOU DON'T- I'LL TAKE YOUR *** TO COURT!!!

It has absolutely no merit. The SEC nor the Big12 answer to Baylor.Its ridiculous. This is just PR bullcrap that will do nothing good for even Baylor and will only temporarily slow down the inevitable(sp?).

 

[maroonmadman]

This kinda plays into my 'IsESPN behind conference realignment' conspiracy thread from a few days ago.

Why doesn't Baylor go after the Big XII, Texas and ESPN?

The Big XII had a deal (Apr. 2011) with FSN (Fox Sports Network) to carry Big XII games. Texas and ESPN cut a back door deal for the Longhorn Network that basically says 17 you to the rest of the Big XII members. Why doesn't Baylor go after these ********? Why did the Big XII act like a bunch of pussies and allow Texas and ESPN to do this deal? Do you think Slive and the SEC would sit by and let one of the SEC members to cut such a deal? There's something kinda ****** going on that allowed all this other stuff to happen to bring us to where we are now and it seems everyone is kinda turning a blind eye to it and trying to make aTm the bad guy in all this.

Just a few thought and questions for you legal eagles out there.

 

[patdog]

Not to mention that they'd have even less standing to sue ESPN or Texas than they would have to sue the SEC or A&M. Texas and ESPN have every legal right toto televiseany of their games not included in the Big 12's deal with Fox. They also have the right to buy any games from Fox that Fox and the Big 12 agree to sell them.

 

[engie]

comes off as EXTREMELY unprepared in this situation.IMO, the threat of litigation is simply a stalling method to give them some "power" to determine their next move.They won't sue, and couldn't win if they did.The writing has been on the wall for a long time in the Big12.Why they didn't have a preliminary agreement with the BigEast as a backup plan is beyond me.They were never getting into the Pac12 or the SEC.They knew from the negotiations last season who was going to end up where.Should've had a handshake agreement with Kansas, Kstate, and ISU to go to the BigEast, which is where they will end up anyway. As soon as the A&M card dropped and OK became restless, they should've collectively said peace out...and left Texas holding the bag.

This is a PR nightmare for them. A&M comes out looking strong, OK looks strong, Texas looks indifferent, and the rest of themare fighting for their right to continue being puppets...

I can easily see Baylor, Kansas, Kstate, ISU, TCU, SMU, Houston, and one moreforming a western division under the umbrella of the Big East conference. This gets them to 16 in football, while cuttingdown on the geographic nightmare(TCU, ect)somewhat.