Big 12 to meet to consider 6 new teams(PAC)

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Nov 27, 2007
3,277
1,542
1,743
36
Tulsa
So you are saying that ESPN can throw out the existing contract and refuse to give them anything decent without letting teams out of the GoRs? I very much highly doubt that. I know the ACC sold their soul to ESPN to get that network, but I can't imagine they did that. Even if ESPN could, that would probably be good for the ACC. They are locked into a bad conference and taking their rights to market would probably lead to a much better payout.

Could ESPN potentially entice the conference to let members out? Possibly, but I don't see it happening without some MAJOR concessions of money. Why would any school with an uncertain landing spot vote to make their own conference less valuable? I know the thought process is that schools will just bolt when the GoRs is up, but that is a long way off and a lot can change in a decade. If I was an ACC bottom feeder It would require doubling or even tripling my payout to risk my future by devaluing the conference.

Conclusion, I still think it is 100% in the ACCs hands as pretty much ANYTHING that lets a school out of the GoRs will require a voting majority by the rules of the conference.

I’m not saying anything because I don’t know my a$$hole from my elbow. Im just repeating the what I heard an industry insider say.

I don’t knows a damn thing thing about ACC GOR compared high profile attorneys employed by these schools, conference, and tv networks. I know for a fact that Clemson was in serious talks with the SEC at one point. And maybe it’s possible that they ran head first into a GOR buzzsaw and it ended there. But I don’t think their admin would have wasted time if they thought it was cut and dry.

The thing that you’re not taking into account in your rational is that the ACCs contract with ESPN is null and void if the conference make-up changes. So IF FSU/CLEM/U/UNC decide to leave, ESPN could walk away completely leaving fox and others to fight over scraps.

Make no mistake. The one that writes the checks, calls the shots.
 
Last edited:

ouflak

Greenhorn
Nov 7, 2009
38
3
1,558
Manchester, England
University attorneys have bene looking at this GOR since the OUT announcement. If this were truly unenforceable, it would have already been challenged.
I'm not so sure about that. I mean it is definitely plausible that someone could and would challenge it in several scenarios, and it certainly may yet happen. But I don't think it's certain, either that it would have happened by now or that it will be. I could see several schools waiting very carefully to see what their future endgame actually is and being absolutely certain things were going to work out how they want.

OU/UT/USC/UCLA are set. I suppose there is Notre Dame, but if they wanted to, they could just join < insert conference > for football only and leave their other sports parked in the ACC until 2036. Why waste the money in a GOR fight for a bunch of non-revenue sports (excluding men's/women's BB perhaps)?

So who's left out there who might be willing to blow that kind of money and be certain they have a financially positive outcome when all of the legal dust has settled and they are presumably... very presumably... in their new conference? FSU, Clemson, maybe Miami and North Carolina? The Virginias? Seems iffy to me.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
16,728
6,013
1,743
Katy, TX
OU/UT/USC/UCLA are set. I suppose there is Notre Dame, but if they wanted to, they could just join < insert conference > for football only and leave their other sports parked in the ACC until 2036. Why waste the money in a GOR fight for a bunch of non-revenue sports (excluding men's/women's BB perhaps)?
I wish I could remember the sources but I’ve read that ND’s ACC contract has a stipulation that should they join a conference in football it would have to be the ACC. Who knows if there is any truth to this
 

CPTNQUIRK

I'm Your Captain!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 20, 2006
39,864
22,684
1,743
71
In the Boondocks in Creek County, Oklahoma
im an attorney. graduated tulane law school.

i think the gor through 2036 is unenforceable. not a slam dunk, but i think a florida judge would find tying a university's hands beyond 5 years would violate florida's public policy.

if i were a judge, id rule that. anything beyond 5 years and damages become speculative.
You are an attorney who doesn’t know how to capitalize or punctuate a sentence.
 

CPTNQUIRK

I'm Your Captain!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 20, 2006
39,864
22,684
1,743
71
In the Boondocks in Creek County, Oklahoma
The GOR is enforceable. it is the length of the ACC's GOR that I think is vulnerable.

And the BIG will take who they want and fight the GOR in court, which is what they did when they took the terps. The BIG paid a 52 million dollar settlement to get the Terps, and i think they'd double that to get their picks of the ACC schools.

The BIG isnt scared of litigation, and the longer it drags out, the less money the ACC has from year to year.

Litigation is expensive, and the BIG has a lot more money than the ACC. There are tons of cases out there that invalidate contracts due to damages being speculative or violative of public policy.

If FSU and miami filed a preemptive lawsuit in Florida, which is exactly how this would play out, seeking a declaratory judgment that the GOR was invalid beyond a 5 year term, i think you would see a hometown judgment in favor of the florida schools. Judges are elected, after all, and there are a lot of seminole fans in florida.
You do realize this would end up in federal court, don’t you? We are talking about interstate commerce. The universities sign the contracts. It’s done. The only way out is if the conference dissolves.
 
Jul 9, 2011
3,055
1,683
1,743
67
Carlos, TX
I wish I could remember the sources but I’ve read that ND’s ACC contract has a stipulation that should they join a conference in football it would have to be the ACC. Who knows if there is any truth to this
I've read this in articles about conference expansion a while back as well. Who knows if that's correct though.
 
Nov 27, 2007
3,277
1,542
1,743
36
Tulsa
You do realize this would end up in federal court, don’t you? We are talking about interstate commerce. The universities sign the contracts. It’s done. The only way out is if the conference dissolves.
Not necessarily true about a federal court, it depends on the contract. A lot of contracts spell out which jurisdiction would be utilized, called governing law or choice of law.

I had a contract dispute go on for 6 months because an IDN wanted the “governing law” clause removed from the contract and the legal team at my company would not allow that to happen.

Since the ACC is HQ’d in NC, I’d imagine it would be done there, but it could be anywhere they set, probably in a state with a strong history of contract enforcement.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,210
21,207
1,743
im an attorney. graduated tulane law school.

i think the gor through 2036 is unenforceable. not a slam dunk, but i think a florida judge would find tying a university's hands beyond 5 years would violate florida's public policy.

if i were a judge, id rule that. anything beyond 5 years and damages become speculative.
Are you aware of any Florida ruling that found a contract otherwise duly and appropriately entered into was violative of public policy based upon the length of the contract or because damages become speculative?

I'd like to see that legal authority.

Speculative damages is usually a fact issue. The winner in a contract dispute has to prove their damages by a preponderance of the evidence and if they are determined to be speculative, they haven't met their burden. Speculative damages in a contract is rarely, if ever, a basis invalidating the contract. It's an issue determining remedies once it has been established that the contract has been breach.

That's not even considering the possibility that there is a liquidated damages clause in the contract in case of a speculative damages claim.

As for length of the contract....except for the general common law rule against perpetuities....parties are free to engage in whatever length or term of contract they wish. Heck, most mortgages are thirty year contracts. I would really be interested in any actual legal authority invalidating a contract of the length of this one on the basis that the length violates public policy.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,210
21,207
1,743
Not necessarily true about a federal court, it depends on the contract. A lot of contracts spell out which jurisdiction would be utilized, called governing law or choice of law.

I had a contract dispute go on for 6 months because an IDN wanted the “governing law” clause removed from the contract and the legal team at my company would not allow that to happen.

Since the ACC is HQ’d in NC, I’d imagine it would be done there, but it could be anywhere they set, probably in a state with a strong history of contract enforcement.
You are right...not necessarily true about federal court, BUT I would be shocked if these parties from numerous states and the media groups involved would have agreed to a forum clause or a governing law clause in one of the party's home state. If there isn't one, diversity jurisdiction would obviously be available to get it into the Federal Courts.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,210
21,207
1,743
The GOR is enforceable. it is the length of the ACC's GOR that I think is vulnerable.

And the BIG will take who they want and fight the GOR in court, which is what they did when they took the terps. The BIG paid a 52 million dollar settlement to get the Terps, and i think they'd double that to get their picks of the ACC schools.

The BIG isnt scared of litigation, and the longer it drags out, the less money the ACC has from year to year.

Litigation is expensive, and the BIG has a lot more money than the ACC. There are tons of cases out there that invalidate contracts due to damages being speculative or violative of public policy.

If FSU and miami filed a preemptive lawsuit in Florida, which is exactly how this would play out, seeking a declaratory judgment that the GOR was invalid beyond a 5 year term, i think you would see a hometown judgment in favor of the florida schools. Judges are elected, after all, and there are a lot of seminole fans in florida.
Can you cite any legal authority for "thinking" that the length of a contract makes in vulnerable as against public policy. I'm not talking about the rule of perpetuities, but rather a contract of the type of length of this one violates public policy solely as a result of its length?

Any pre-emptive lawsuit in Florida state courts by FSU and Miami would immediately see a Motion for Removal to Federal Court which would be decided by the Federal courts. You're suggesting that Florida judges would rubber-stamp a lawsuit in a pre-determined manner because they are elected. That's the very reason we have the ability to remove things to federal court if that court has jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
Sep 9, 2013
1,234
609
743
62
You are an attorney who doesn’t know how to capitalize or punctuate a sentence.
Im actually retired. When I practiced law, i never typed a single word. I dictated onto a tape and my secretary typed it.

i have good grammar, but i cant type worth a damn.

Im not familiar with Florida law, but every state has laws that invalidate contracts that violate public policy. What violates public policy, like what constitutes an unfair trade practice, is fairly subjective.

In any event, what is important is for the BIG to have a colorable defense to the breach of contract claim. They dont actually have to prevail bc the case will settle.

this is exactly what happened when the BIG stole maryland. They filed suit, and ended up paying a hefty settlement, but far less than the GOR called for.
 
Sep 12, 2013
1,812
952
743
Broken Arrow, OK
The thing that you’re not taking into account in your rational is that the ACCs contract with ESPN is null and void if the conference make-up changes. So IF FSU/CLEM/U/UNC decide to leave, ESPN could walk away completely leaving fox and others to fight over scraps.
The contract with ESPN might be null and void, but the GOR still stands. The GOR is between the schools and the conference. The ESPN contract is between the conference and the network.
 

ouflak

Greenhorn
Nov 7, 2009
38
3
1,558
Manchester, England
I wish I could remember the sources but I’ve read that ND’s ACC contract has a stipulation that should they join a conference in football it would have to be the ACC. Who knows if there is any truth to this
I think you're right actually. Don't know if it's ever been confirmed, but I've heard it many places, especially at the time they made that deal. I have often wondered if there was a financial component to that, and how that would be calculated if Notre Dame did put its football in another conference. Even so, they are fiercely independent. Negotiations with NBC are not complete, if they've even seriously started. No urgent reason for them to challenge a GOR or that must-be-ACC-first stipulation. Not yet.
 
Last edited:
Sep 9, 2013
1,234
609
743
62
You do realize this would end up in federal court, don’t you? We are talking about interstate commerce. The universities sign the contracts. It’s done. The only way out is if the conference dissolves.
Can you cite any legal authority for "thinking" that the length of a contract makes in vulnerable as against public police. I'm not talking about the rule of perpetuities, but rather a contract of the type of length of this one violates public policy solely as a result of its length?

Any pre-emptive lawsuit in Florida state courts by FSU and Miami would immediately see a Motion for Removal to Federal Court which would be decided by the Federal courts. Your suggesting that Florida judges would rubber-stamp a lawsuit in a pre-determined manner because they are elected. That's the very reason we have the ability to remove things to federal court if that court has jurisdiction.
It has been several years since I last practiced. I wont say my age, but i not only recall JFK being assassinated, but where i was at the time and people's reaction:tears mostly.

But, yes, I do know that there have been several Louisiana cases that cut off damages after a certain time bc damages too far into the future are too speculative.

I also could see the florida supreme court reject a foreign court deciding the fate of a major florida university. There numerous cases rejecting venue and choice of law provisions in a contract that have a great impact on the home state.

I just think the importance of a major university to the state of florida would prompt a florida judge to reject choice of law provisions that limited its jurisdiction to decide if a contract provision violated Florida public policy.
 

CPTNQUIRK

I'm Your Captain!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 20, 2006
39,864
22,684
1,743
71
In the Boondocks in Creek County, Oklahoma
It has been several years since I last practiced. I wont say my age, but i not only recall JFK being assassinated, but where i was at the time and people's reaction:tears mostly.

But, yes, I do know that there have been several Louisiana cases that cut off damages after a certain time bc damages too far into the future are too speculative.

I also could see the florida supreme court reject a foreign court deciding the fate of a major florida university. There numerous cases rejecting venue and choice of law provisions in a contract that have a great impact on the home state.

I just think the importance of a major university to the state of florida would prompt a florida judge to reject choice of law provisions that limited its jurisdiction to decide if a contract provision violated Florida public policy.
BFD. I remember it also. That changes nothing.
 
Jul 31, 2008
4,261
1,860
1,743
Not necessarily true about a federal court, it depends on the contract. A lot of contracts spell out which jurisdiction would be utilized, called governing law or choice of law.

I had a contract dispute go on for 6 months because an IDN wanted the “governing law” clause removed from the contract and the legal team at my company would not allow that to happen.

Since the ACC is HQ’d in NC, I’d imagine it would be done there, but it could be anywhere they set, probably in a state with a strong history of contract enforcement.
Most of mine state Delaware law even though the parties have nothing to do with Delaware.