Attorneys, help us understand this...

[Southland]

Lawyers, help me with my understanding …

After reading the Big East Lawsuit, it seems to come down to three issues:

1) Damages related to the potential loss of BCS status; claiming that it will be impossible to stay at a fair competitive level in Division 1A without the revenue.
2) Damages for improper contact with Big East Conference members. Basically the Big East is saying it is immoral and illegal to speak with a school belonging to another conference.
3) Damages related to the loss in home game revenue, as it is associated to stadium expansions/renovations

The rest of the 40 pages is just a bunch of p*ss and vinegar talking about the Universities involved.

Layman’s POV:

#3 will be thrown out. Ultimately, it is the decision of an individual University to spend money on stadium improvements. Any stadium regulations are laws of the conference, not the mandate of one Member University. Further, canceling games and dropping teams from the schedule is a collegiate practice as old as the forward pass. Since the schools would be getting a multiple year notice, they don’t really have a leg to stand on with this claim.

The first and second claims are interesting…

1) If they win on this issue, basically they have proven the WAC/MAC/MWC/CUSA/Sunbelt case that the BCS prohibits fair competition, and should be scrutinized as a violation of anti-trust law.

2) If they win on this issue, basically they are screwed if they try and take schools from CUSA. The attorneys in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Alabama must be licking their chops. Every one of their claims in the 40-page suit will be used against them.


One thing to remember:

Even if the Big East were to win the suit, it still does not guarantee that Miami and BC stay in the Big East. Even if Miami and BC stay in the Big East, it still doesn’t guarantee the Big East drops the suit.

[FloridaMustang]

The truth is, their case is crap.