Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

This is the forum for talk about SMU Football

Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower

User avatar
smupony94
PonyFans.com Super Legend
PonyFans.com Super Legend
Posts: 25665
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:34 am
Location: Bee Cave, Texas

Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by smupony94 »

Been in works for awhile
NickSMU17
PonyFans.com Super Legend
PonyFans.com Super Legend
Posts: 5668
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:01 am
Location: Hinsdale, IL

Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by NickSMU17 »

GRGB wrote:
Stallion wrote:So what if a Big East school decides to just breach that Contract-they'd owe:

5 Million Buy Out Clause
+
Additional Damages, if proven
-Mitigation Damages

So say a Big East team loses game with Louisville-they would have to reduce their damages by amount they recovered by playing a different team. If they lost damages as a result of TV Contract they would have to mitigate damages based on new Contract which very likely is going to be more valuable than old Contract since the Big East rejected that lucrative TV Contract last March. In fact, if the Big East Contract isn't clearly written and provide for a reasonable Penalty specifically related to the 27 month provision, the Court might just limit damages to the 5 Million Buy Out Clause. You'd have to look closely at the Big East Agreement but Louisville might just breach the Contract and say Adios. Big East then though might have tortious interference with Contract claim against the Big 12 with similiar damage/mitigation issues.



Don't forget that big east could lose NCAA aq status if they drop below 8 teams. That would be a direct result of any team leaving before the 27 month period.


That could be huge.



They changed that rule...
User avatar
2ndandlong
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:13 am
Location: University Park

Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by 2ndandlong »

NickSMU17 wrote:
GRGB wrote:
Stallion wrote:So what if a Big East school decides to just breach that Contract-they'd owe:

5 Million Buy Out Clause
+
Additional Damages, if proven
-Mitigation Damages

So say a Big East team loses game with Louisville-they would have to reduce their damages by amount they recovered by playing a different team. If they lost damages as a result of TV Contract they would have to mitigate damages based on new Contract which very likely is going to be more valuable than old Contract since the Big East rejected that lucrative TV Contract last March. In fact, if the Big East Contract isn't clearly written and provide for a reasonable Penalty specifically related to the 27 month provision, the Court might just limit damages to the 5 Million Buy Out Clause. You'd have to look closely at the Big East Agreement but Louisville might just breach the Contract and say Adios. Big East then though might have tortious interference with Contract claim against the Big 12 with similiar damage/mitigation issues.



Don't forget that big east could lose NCAA aq status if they drop below 8 teams. That would be a direct result of any team leaving before the 27 month period.


That could be huge.



They changed that rule...

Dutch
Where are his fireworks?
"This is . . . dedication to distraction by fans. Is that what I'm going to go with Jay?"
"That poor kid has to be wondering what is dad doing."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XknLDwj0dSo
User avatar
Dooby
PonyFans.com Legend
PonyFans.com Legend
Posts: 3005
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:01 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by Dooby »

Biggest problem with BYU is their refusal to play on Sundays in any sport. Even though Big XII's basketball championship hasn't been on a Sunday in years, this irks ESPN to no end because the want the option.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
User avatar
Dutch
PonyFans.com Legend
PonyFans.com Legend
Posts: 4377
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: 75205

Re: Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by Dutch »

2ndandlong wrote:Where are his fireworks?

fireworks go in the [deleted] thread
Ok this is getting ridiculous...I agree with Dutch on THIS ONE POST by him totally
User avatar
GRGB
All-American
All-American
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:48 pm

Re: Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by GRGB »

NickSMU17 wrote:
GRGB wrote:
Stallion wrote:So what if a Big East school decides to just breach that Contract-they'd owe:

5 Million Buy Out Clause
+
Additional Damages, if proven
-Mitigation Damages

So say a Big East team loses game with Louisville-they would have to reduce their
The damages by amount they recovered by playing a different team. If they lost damages as a result of TV Contract they would have to mitigate damages based on new Contract which very likely is going to be more valuable than old Contract since the Big East rejected that lucrative TV Contract last March. In fact, if the Big East Contract isn't clearly written and provide for a reasonable Penalty specifically related to the 27 month provision, the Court might just limit damages to the 5 Million Buy Out Clause. You'd have to look closely at the Big East Agreement but Louisville might just breach the Contract and say Adios. Big East then though might have tortious interference with Contract claim against the Big 12 with similiar damage/mitigation issues.



Don't forget that big east could lose NCAA aq status if they drop below 8 teams. That would be a direct result of any team leaving before the 27 month period.


That could be huge.





They changed that rule...



Who did? Ur not a conference under 8, right?
NickSMU17
PonyFans.com Super Legend
PonyFans.com Super Legend
Posts: 5668
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:01 am
Location: Hinsdale, IL

Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by NickSMU17 »

NCAA last year
User avatar
GRGB
All-American
All-American
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:48 pm

Re: Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by GRGB »

Scout.com aug 2011

"Without 8 FBS full members (after a two year waiver period), the WAC and BIg East can both lose their seats on the governance panel for the NCAA.  All FBS conferences get a seat, while FCS and non-football conferences get rotating spots (kind of like the UN Security Council - superpowers are guaranteed permanent seats, while other continents rotate).


The WAC and Big East would also lose their ability to invite an FCS football to FBS.

For the Big East, that wouldn't be a big issue, as they could still possibly attract existing  CUSA or MAC teams.  
Also, the Big East, if it adds the service academics as football only members, could get to 8 football teams, but still not meet the NCAA criteria of 8 full football members.

For the WAC, losing its ability to invite an FCS school to the FBS level would be huge. "
User avatar
GRGB
All-American
All-American
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:48 pm

Re: Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by GRGB »

Proposal 2010-100

The new rule allows for seven active D-1 schools who all must play men's basketball and at least six must play Football.
NickSMU17
PonyFans.com Super Legend
PonyFans.com Super Legend
Posts: 5668
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:01 am
Location: Hinsdale, IL

Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by NickSMU17 »

It had been discussed on here that they changed it but I am not sure
User avatar
GRGB
All-American
All-American
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:48 pm

Re: Big 12 Has A New Problem--Good For Big East

Post by GRGB »

Neither am I. It looks like 7 total 6 fb min to be a conference.

Pitt cuse leave but are held through 2013.

B12 has to have 10 for fox contract in 2012

Mizzu won't want to stay if they are leaving. They've indicated that should they leave they would do so in time so that they can play in 2012.


14 is easier to sch than 13 for the sec.

If UL or Wv leave BE, then they would not drop BE below 6 until 2014 season, but why should cuse and Pitt stay only to enable UL to bypass 27 month rule?

Seems they could sue for specific performance and prevent departure before 2014. Or sue b12 poacher for tort.

The theory then being: b12 needs another school for 2012 or 2013 and cannot come from BE.
Post Reply