Big East Contract VOID?

[MaxwellCuse]

From what I've been reading on the UCF, Houston and SMU boards I'd be surprised if they are available until 2013. If they can get out of CUSA earlier I'm all for it but I'm doubtful.

 

[SmilinBob]

Good question Jake, I did think that SU and Pitt decided not to vote on their own but I'm not sure.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I disagree, this complaint may meet pleading standards and survive a motion to dismiss, but it's a ridiculous farce as far as applying law and contract provisions to facts.

It would be nearly impossible to prove economic damages, because there was a widespread expectation that the BE would improve its television revenue (so long as it stayed together).

There is no law against rejecting an offer during negotiations. There is no law against block voting. There are no serious, material allegations likely to establish a conflict of interest problem with Marinatto. No fiduciary duties prohibit considering Villanova, etc.

After Miami left, I'm not sure there was much the BE could have done better, given the circumstances.

I think loss of BCS status, which is stated in the complaint, clearly qualifies as economic damages and harm to the media properties of WVU. And since you are bringing up the rejected contract, I think there is a lot of embarrassing stuff that ESPN won't want to see the light of day. Surviving a dismissal for failure to state a claim is all that WVU needs, IMO, in order to get their early exit. What the cost is in dollars is yet to be negotiated, but trust me, ESPN doesn't want to be in court.

 

[IthacaMatt]

All that is true, but there is plenty of case law on the books regarding contract liquidated damages being excessive and punitive under certain circumstances.

The crux of the argument is this: Does the expansion of said teams offset or even increase the revenue stream of the Big East even with lost revenues from Syracuse & Pitt leaving?

If that answer is 'yes', then there is a strong case to be argued that the liquidated damages being levied are punitive since the monetary losses are offset with new conference additions... and therefore illegal.

i.e. Marinatto may say he's holding us to 27 mos. regardless, but if the new teams are in next year, we're out... plain and simple.

And as a practial matter, how is the Big East going to schedule a 14 or 15 team footbal conference for 1 or 2 years? I just don't see it happening.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

I think loss of BCS status, which is stated in the complaint, clearly qualifies as economic damages and harm to the media properties of WVU. And since you are bringing up the rejected contract, I think there is a lot of embarrassing stuff that ESPN won't want to see the light of day. Surviving a dismissal for failure to state a claim is all that WVU needs, IMO, in order to get their early exit. What the cost is in dollars is yet to be negotiated, but trust me, ESPN doesn't want to be in court.

But the Big East has not lost it's BCS status. Talk about "speculative damages." That is one of the several reasons this complaint is a farce.

The law would consider their argument regarding a lost BCS status to be "speculative," and you cannot prevail on a theory of speculative damages. This complaint is not really legal, it is a tactical part of the negotiations, like the NFLPA complaint to Judge Nelson, which was a hysterically funny read, but a terrible legal pleading.

Judge Nelson ended up granting the injunction, so you never know what can happen in highly-political cases at the trial level. The appellate court immediately overturned Nelson's insanely funny decision, because of course, it had no basis in the law at all and she didn't have jurisdiction.

I think your read on the ESPN/mtd issues are spot on.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

This is little bit more complicated than a feel good story of honoring a contract. The Big East has been dishonoring teams like Syracuse & WVU, who have made the Conference a BCS level league. Without them, the Big East would have never reached such heights. So how does the Big East repay them? They cater to the Basketball only schools, keeping the conference down & making it look like a freak show.

If the Big East had done what it was supposed to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's possible they could have kept Miami, BC, & VTech in the first place.

It's a two way street, & the Big East has been hurting the strongest members of its conference for too long. In fact, Syracuse & West Virginia have been more than accomodating over the past decade with this conference, & it's about time they earned a bit more respect than Big East leadership has been willing to afford them.

It seems like you & others are only looking at one side of the story, with naive colored glasses on your eyes...

So, what specifically, could the BE have done in order to prevent the initial raid, and to have prevented the second raid? Specifics here please.

 

[Moontan]

So, what specifically, could the BE have done in order to prevent the initial raid, and to have prevented the second raid? Specifics here please.

There was nothing to be done about the first raid.

There were two follow on issues that led the end:

1. Further expansion just took too long. While getting to 9 was a good step (evening and strengthening the schedule), the failure to follow that up with a move to 12 was a failure in BE leadership. Giving 'Nova a chance to prop up its program was admirable, but two other programs (and a spare) should've been lined up concurrently. UCF and either of Houston or SMU were the right choices. Allowing USF and the rest of their C-USA pack to thwart a UCF invite was the killer.
2. Rejecting the ESPN contract extension offer while the expansion fiasco was going on was the final straw. Had a 12-team conference been in place it would be expected that ESPN would've increased its offer even more.

Had these two items been addressed, we would've seen a 12-team BE (8 + TCU, UCF, Houston and Nova/SMU) with a healthier TV contract.

The ACC might still have invited Syracuse and Pitt. Would they have taken the offer... maybe. Even if they would've, the BE would not have been in an immediate panic mode. I suspect Boise, Air Force, BYU and Navy would find it easier to join under those circumstances than they would today.

That said, the fact that Boise & Co. are apparently willing to join the party under the current circumstances makes it appear as if the BE were able to present them with some sort of assurances that the AQ status will be prolonged. Either through direct support from other conferences or by showing a very strong statistical case why that status should be safe.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

There was nothing to be done about the first raid.

There were two follow on issues that led the end:

1. Further expansion just took too long. While getting to 9 was a good step (evening and strengthening the schedule), the failure to follow that up with a move to 12 was a failure in BE leadership. Giving 'Nova a chance to prop up its program was admirable, but two other programs (and a spare) should've been lined up concurrently. UCF and either of Houston or SMU were the right choices. Allowing USF and the rest of their C-USA pack to thwart a UCF invite was the killer.
2. Rejecting the ESPN contract extension offer while the expansion fiasco was going on was the final straw. Had a 12-team conference been in place it would be expected that ESPN would've increased its offer even more.

Had these two items been addressed, we would've seen a 12-team BE (8 + TCU, UCF, Houston and Nova/SMU) with a healthier TV contract.

Good response.

I do have a few counterpoints though about expansion and the new tv deal.

With the uncertainty regarding the new tv deal and what the Big East could garner, it didn't make sense to dilute the conference before you even know what you were worth. For instance, I think it's at least debatable that SMU, UCF, TCU, etc. don't bring as much to the table (tv revenue wise) as opposed the current 8 team Big East. So unless the Big East was willing to decrease the per team payout, expansion didn't make sense to me.

As far as rejecting the ESPN TV deal? I think it was more than reasonable to reject the offer and negotiate on a new with ESPN or NBC on the open market. The conference landscape was unstable, but money was flying around for college sports and without knowing that ESPN would raid the conference, I think it certainly made sense to wait for other offers.

If the Big East had added UCF, Houston, SMU, etc (the usual suspects) I think it's plausible to assume that Syracuse and Pitt both leave for the ACC anyways.

So, not so much on here (Syracuse board), but WVU board justifying their lawsuit, I find it weak at best, considering the moves were:

a) At minimum, debatable.
b) Wouldn't have 100% prevented schools from leaving. So how can you say the conference didn't do enough, even when the moves on the table wouldn't have made sense.

As a fan, I hate seeing my league broken up, but from the outside I "get it". There's no debate with me, that you are gone, I'm not arguing that. However, trying to get out of the 27 month waiting period (again mainly WVU, not Cuse) I think it's just a slap in the face and an insult to the Big East.

 

[orange79]

As far as rejecting the ESPN TV deal? I think it was more than reasonable to reject the offer and negotiate on a new with ESPN or NBC on the open market. The conference landscape was unstable, but money was flying around for college sports and without knowing that ESPN would raid the conference, I think it certainly made sense to wait for other offers.

The thing is, there is a chance that SU and Pitt might (and I repeat, might) still be in the BE today if they had accepted the ESPN deal.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

The thing is, there is a chance that SU and Pitt might (and I repeat, might) still be in the BE today if they had accepted the ESPN deal.

Totally, totally agree with you Orange79.

In retrospect, I accept the deal in a minute. At the time, nobody knew that the consequences would mean Pitt and Cuse leaving.

 

[Jake]

Totally, totally agree with you Orange79.

In retrospect, I accept the deal in a minute. At the time, nobody knew that the consequences would mean Pitt and Cuse leaving.

What is the most incredulous aspect of this vote is that Rutgers voted against it. Really? I think the football schools realized how important that deal was and I think all of them except RU came around to approve it. But Rutgers and the hoop schools blocked it.

That is where Marinato failed. He should have forced the Hoops schools to take the deal.

 

[orange79]

What is the most incredulous aspect of this vote is that Rutgers voted against it. Really? I think the football schools realized how important that deal was and I think all of them except RU came around to approve it. But Rutgers and the hoop schools blocked it.

That is where Marinato failed. He should have forced the Hoops schools to take the deal.

Totally agree. I think the BB schools bought into Pernetti's 'media background' and saw even more $$$$. He may very well have sealed RU's fate.

 

[rrlbees]

What is the most incredulous aspect of this vote is that Rutgers voted against it. Really? I think the football schools realized how important that deal was and I think all of them except RU came around to approve it. But Rutgers and the hoop schools blocked it.

That is where Marinato failed. He should have forced the Hoops schools to take the deal.

Pitt also was against it originally but they knew it was in the best interests of the football schools to vote with the others.

 

[sufan]

This is little bit more complicated than a feel good story of honoring a contract. The Big East has been dishonoring teams like Syracuse & WVU, who have made the Conference a BCS level league. Without them, the Big East would have never reached such heights. So how does the Big East repay them? They cater to the Basketball only schools, keeping the conference down & making it look like a freak show.

---------------

So that's your "legal argument??????????????????

 

[sufan]

I am anything but a lawyer, but my question is this:

If the Big East no longer allows WVU, SU and Pitt to vote on any league issues, isn't that a tacit admission that they are no longer considered part of the league? I guess I don't understand how you can bar a school from voting on all league matters and then insist they are part of the league until they are let you go. Is there a provision in the league charter that establishes "non-voting members".

Is there a by-law that says "once you accept membership in another league, you must pay, wait and can no longer vote on league matters?"

Just curious.

---------------------------------

Your question answers itself.

If SU, Pitt and WVU have the right to vote and are being denied that right, wouldn't you guess that there would be an article or statement that the Big East was violating their rights??

 

[sufan]

I think loss of BCS status, which is stated in the complaint, clearly qualifies as economic damages and harm to the media properties of WVU. And since you are bringing up the rejected contract, I think there is a lot of embarrassing stuff that ESPN won't want to see the light of day. Surviving a dismissal for failure to state a claim is all that WVU needs, IMO, in order to get their early exit. What the cost is in dollars is yet to be negotiated, but trust me, ESPN doesn't want to be in court.

----------------------

Using your argument, the left behind Big East teams should then sue SU, Pitt and WVU for economic damages for possible loss of the BCS contract???

"Fortunately", SU has no need to worry: SU hasn't been rated for 8 years.

 

[sufan]

The serious legal question is, Do these teams exiting the Big East have to abide by the contract, when we are not sure if the contract is still legally binding?

The Big East has invited NEW teams to the conference, therefore CHANGING the original conditions of the contract. Does this, in fact, VOID the obligations of the schools who signed on to the contract, because the original conditions are no longer in effect?

When soes this happen? When the new teams are invited, or when they actually join the conference & begin to dilute the payouts to each team in the conference?

It hardly seems fair to allow the conference to hold you hostage for more than 2 years, especially if they are allowed to harm your program with bad scheduling & less money out of spite.

I think any program should be able to leave their conference within 1 year, to avoid the ugliness that is sure to follow...

-------------------

The Big East has provisions for teams to leave and provisions to add teams. The all sports but football schools obviously have the right to vote on sports teams who they will end up having to play in all sports other than football.

The 27 month provision allows the conference time to select replacement teams if they can, and allows the replacement teams to provide notice to their own conferences. The Big East has only 8, now 5 full time members; they are obviously the most vulnerable conference with respect to full sports members. They need 8. Not every replacement team can be available on a moments notice.

Talk about jumping to conclusions. The Big East just found out last week the Big 12 is only expanding by taking TCU and WVU, for now. Potential replacement teams are only now in process of being invited. Until the dust clears, of course the conference is going to hold departing schools to the terms of the agreement they signed.