BE Schools Sue . . . Now it gets Interesting

[Water Pony]

The FB schools, who would be left behind, are legally challenging the move of Miami, Syracuse and BC. Can Congress be far behind?

<A HREF="http://espn.go.com/ncaa/news/2003/0606/1564113.html" TARGET=_blank>http://espn.go.com/ncaa/news/2003/0606/1564113.html</A>

[ponyte]

The contracts and money involved are too great to allow all this to happen. Though some may feel contracts are a mere guide to an agreement, courts take them very seriously. I would suppose that other teams and conferences are watching this with interest. And the BSC could be impacted.

I do not think there will be mass movement of teams and conference rearrangement for just this reason. Courts and the legal system can bog team movement down for years.

[Stallion]

the funny part is that they probably couldn't bring an Anti-Trust Suit because in this case the conspirators got screwed by the other conspirators.

[EastStang]

Interesting that since Temple has been bounced, they aren't one of the plaintiffs. Now if Temple sues the rest of them, it could make for really great theatre. When theives fall out.... Note that Syracuse is not getting sued because they didn't make any promises about staying that other schools "relied upon". Also since the BCS contract ends in 2005, what good faith reliance could they have? One other thought that struck me was that if the western WAC four want to leave for the MWC, would SMU have grounds to sue under this same "reliance" theory because we built Ford Stadium in reliance upon their continued membership in the WAC.

[This message has been edited by EastStang (edited 06-06-2003).]

[Water Pony]

The Temple example is a good one to appreciate. More interesting is the need for Big East to raid Conf. USA (Louisville, etc.) to enhance FB, whether or not Miami leaves.

Part of me still believes that Miami could go and not BC and Syracuse. This works with consessions to ND scheduling fewer BE FB games and keeping their own TV revenue.

[EastStang]

No way BC stays now. A better ploy would have been for the ND athletic director to call the Miami and BC athletic directors and say, "Oh by the way, if you leave, your off our schedule permanently."

[Hoop Fan]

For any of you lawyers out there, does this reliance thing have any merit at all? It seems to me that the only way Miami could be held liable for the Uconn or Pitt facility decisions, would be if Miami had required those facility completions as an explicit condition of their continued membership in the Big East. I cannot imagine that Miami would have said specifically, "Now Pitt, if you build that bball arena we'll never leave the Big East". Short of that, it seems to me that Big East has no case. Do they?

[EastStang]

Apparently the Connecticut legislature appropriated the funds in 1999 for the stadium. Sounds tenuous to me. The Hokies enlarged their stadium because they were selling out almost all their games including non-conference games. Also, they needed to enlarge the stadium for non-conference games with Texas A&M and the like. Pitt has the worst argument of all, because Miami is one of the worst basketball schools in the Conference and could be replaced in a second by Louisville or Marquette, two of the best basketball schools in the Country. The better suit would have been an old tort claim against the ACC and Miami for interference with contract relationship (which possibly was claimed but the articles say nothing). That suit merely requires that one party induces another to break a contract. The problem here again, is that the contract has a legal out clause and the ACC was inducing them to exercise that out clause.

[Nacho]

Speaking as a non-lawyer this seems like a way for the remaining BE schools to embarrass Miami and BC as much as they can. It borders on being frivilous. Miami and BC are going to bolt--end of story. I'm not quite as sure about Cuse since they were left out of the suit. Maybe this is the BE's way of saying we want you, you want us, let's kiss and make up. This may open the door for VT to slide in.

[Water Pony]

Why does BC have to leave now because of the suit? In the end, self interest rules and BC would be better in BE with Syracuse, partial qualifier ND and others.

Miami is the big program (at the moment) and the least attractice geographically. So losing them and only them is perhaps a more graceful solution. However, unless ND contributions some FB games, the three schools must leave in their own self-interest.

[This message has been edited by Water Pony (edited 06-06-2003).]

[Nacho]

Miami has made it clear that they want BC with them or it is in their words a "deal breaker." I'm not sure they feel the same way about Cuse.

[Nacho]

Let me add that if this thing does get tangled up in the courts for a couple of years it can only benefit SMU. By that time we will be much better and more marketable.

[No Cal Pony]

I agree with Nacho that IF this gets into the courts, it will aid us. However, the whole deal seems without any real merit. People say things all the time, that later have no relavence. Just because Miami's Prez said they had no desire to leave, probably indicated at the time they had no desire. But now...

It all sounds like sour grapes to me. I just moved to NC, and folks here make it sound like a done deal.

Go Ponies!

[Nacho]

I wonder if the BE really wants this to go public. All kinds of things might be discovered that could embarrass everybody involved. Can't wait. My guess is that they will drop the suit before it gets to that point.

[EastStang]

I don't know Connecticut's statutes, but Virginia has a statute which gives a private right of action and treble damages to any persons who conspire to harm another's business. It also included possible injunctive relief. This has been used in hostile takeovers to stop the hostile litigant. Too bad, Virginia Tech joined in the CT suit, it had both jurisdiction (ACC has a member school in Virginia) and a conspiracy between the ACC, Miami, BC, and Syracuse to harm it in its business.