Question for legal junkies re: Baylor

[OttosBestFriend]

While I understand what Baylor and their pals are doing in trying to block A&M from moving to the SEC, hasn't the precedent been set by the Baylor contingent in allowing Nebraska and Colorado to jump ship?

How can they (legally) selectively decide who goes and who stays (against their will)?

Seems to me that if Nebraska and Colorado got what was essentially a free ticket outta Dodge, A&M shouldn't be punished for being third to jump.

Thoughts from the legal experts????

 

[Moontan]

There may be new agreements in place since then. I know the BE went through that after the 2003 raid.

 

[rrlbees]

While I understand what Baylor and their pals are doing in trying to block A&M from moving to the SEC, hasn't the precedent been set by the Baylor contingent in allowing Nebraska and Colorado to jump ship?

How can they (legally) selectively decide who goes and who stays (against their will)?

Seems to me that if Nebraska and Colorado got what was essentially a free ticket outta Dodge, A&M shouldn't be punished for being third to jump.

Thoughts from the legal experts????

Not a legal beagle but there are new agreements that came out last year when Nebraska left which involved the B12 teams getting upwards of $17M per team which Baylor plans to use to upgrade their stadium.

 

[suloyalfan]

That's what I was thinking too... I can't imagine that they can just let the previous teams have a pass, but then selectively say "No, you can't leave or else we'll sue you.". Doesn't sound like they'll have much to stand on.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

There do not appear to be any "legal" arguments as to the damages: (1) the contractual issues between the conferences have been waived by the b12 (the B12 and the SEC are contracting parties under the BCS); (2) A&M exited the B12 through proper contractual avenues; (3) the individual B12 schools lack any contract privity with respect to the SEC; and (4) from the facts I've heard, there is no chance at a tortuous interference with contract issue against the SEC: so there aren't really any "legal" issues to sue on.

There are, however, so-called "equitable" issues that the B12 individual schools can sue on: namely, "reasonable reliance." You may have noticed that phrase "reasonable reliance" in a number of press releases and statements relevant to the Baylor issue. This is a weak, yet plausible, theory of recovery.

The reasonable reliance theory would basically allege that either A&M or the SEC had given the individual schools (possibly through the B12 conference) assurances that: (1) either A&M would stay committed to the B12 or (2) the SEC would not admit a B12 member. If this nonsense ever got to court (which it wouldn't), the main issues would be whether the SEC or A&M gave such assurances, and if so, whether the individual B12 schools "reasonably" relied on those assurances.

Unless the assurances in question were concrete promises, the reasonable reliance theory is almost certain to fail, because as others have pointed out, the Nebraska and Colorado exodus gave notice to all B12 schools that further departures were foreseeable. Therefore, Baylor would be hard pressed to argue that it spent millions of dollars towards future B12 seasons in reasonable reliance on A&M staying in the B12, if A&M had refrained from making any concrete promises.

The big factual question is, after Nebraska and Colorado left, did A&M make a stupidly concrete commitment to the B12? I cannot imagine that they did. That would be the only way that a reasonable reliance theory would hold water.

Anywho, much ado about nothing. I applaud Baylor and the B12 leftovers for putting up a fight, and to their credit they have bought themselves some time.

 

[ImperialOrange]

There do not appear to be any "legal" arguments as to the damages: (1) the contractual issues between the conferences have been waived by the b12 (the B12 and the SEC are contracting parties under the BCS); (2) A&M exited the B12 through proper contractual avenues; (3) the individual B12 schools lack any contract privity with respect to the SEC; and (4) from the facts I've heard, there is no chance at a tortuous interference with contract issue against the SEC: so there aren't really any "legal" issues to sue on.

There are, however, so-called "equitable" issues that the B12 individual schools can sue on: namely, "reasonable reliance." You may have noticed that phrase "reasonable reliance" in a number of press releases and statements relevant to the Baylor issue. This is a weak, yet plausible, theory of recovery.

The reasonable reliance theory would basically allege that either A&M or the SEC had given the individual schools (possibly through the B12 conference) assurances that: (1) either A&M would stay committed to the B12 or (2) the SEC would not admit a B12 member. If this nonsense ever got to court (which it wouldn't), the main issues would be whether the SEC or A&M gave such assurances, and if so, whether the individual B12 schools "reasonably" relied on those assurances.

Unless the assurances in question were concrete promises, the reasonable reliance theory is almost certain to fail, because as others have pointed out, the Nebraska and Colorado exodus gave notice to all B12 schools that further departures were foreseeable. Therefore, Baylor would be hard pressed to argue that it spent millions of dollars towards future B12 seasons in reasonable reliance on A&M staying in the B12, if A&M had refrained from making any concrete promises.

The big factual question is, after Nebraska and Colorado left, did A&M make a stupidly concrete commitment to the B12? I cannot imagine that they did. That would be the only way that a reasonable reliance theory would hold water.

Anywho, much ado about nothing. I applaud Baylor and the B12 leftovers for putting up a fight, and to their credit they have bought themselves some time.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that.
Quick question, would UT be at any legal risk since they made the move which restarted this whole expansion mess after the B12 had agreed new terms?

 

[syr02esq]

There do not appear to be any "legal" arguments as to the damages: (1) the contractual issues between the conferences have been waived by the b12 (the B12 and the SEC are contracting parties under the BCS); (2) A&M exited the B12 through proper contractual avenues; (3) the individual B12 schools lack any contract privity with respect to the SEC; and (4) from the facts I've heard, there is no chance at a tortuous interference with contract issue against the SEC: so there aren't really any "legal" issues to sue on.

There are, however, so-called "equitable" issues that the B12 individual schools can sue on: namely, "reasonable reliance." You may have noticed that phrase "reasonable reliance" in a number of press releases and statements relevant to the Baylor issue. This is a weak, yet plausible, theory of recovery.

The reasonable reliance theory would basically allege that either A&M or the SEC had given the individual schools (possibly through the B12 conference) assurances that: (1) either A&M would stay committed to the B12 or (2) the SEC would not admit a B12 member. If this nonsense ever got to court (which it wouldn't), the main issues would be whether the SEC or A&M gave such assurances, and if so, whether the individual B12 schools "reasonably" relied on those assurances.

Unless the assurances in question were concrete promises, the reasonable reliance theory is almost certain to fail, because as others have pointed out, the Nebraska and Colorado exodus gave notice to all B12 schools that further departures were foreseeable. Therefore, Baylor would be hard pressed to argue that it spent millions of dollars towards future B12 seasons in reasonable reliance on A&M staying in the B12, if A&M had refrained from making any concrete promises.

The big factual question is, after Nebraska and Colorado left, did A&M make a stupidly concrete commitment to the B12? I cannot imagine that they did. That would be the only way that a reasonable reliance theory would hold water.

Anywho, much ado about nothing. I applaud Baylor and the B12 leftovers for putting up a fight, and to their credit they have bought themselves some time.

I belive Baylor would argue that it has third party beneficiary rights and thus has a right to sue on the contract between the Big 12 and SEC even though Baylor is not a party to such a contract. Baylor and the other schools would assert economic damages from the loss of tv revenue should the Big 12 eventually fail (from the recently negotiated lucrative Fox Sports contract).

 

[CaliCuse]

While I understand what Baylor and their pals are doing in trying to block A&M from moving to the SEC, hasn't the precedent been set by the Baylor contingent in allowing Nebraska and Colorado to jump ship?

How can they (legally) selectively decide who goes and who stays (against their will)?

Seems to me that if Nebraska and Colorado got what was essentially a free ticket outta Dodge, A&M shouldn't be punished for being third to jump.

Thoughts from the legal experts????

I would first have to think that the contract they signed in forming the conference would have clauses in effect for this kind of movement and required votes and procedure. That might be the "legal issue" to first consider Start there and then move on to other factors.