Baylor suing the SEC

[Objective Aggie]

They can't unilaterally waive a member's legal rights. Your HOA can't waive your right to sue a neighbor when his tree falls on your car.

Yes, but you can't sue your neighbor for moving to a better neighborhood wihout a bully either.

[TheTastyGreek]

TEMPLE got kicked out of a BCS conference and have been relegated to the MAC... but they basically kicked themselves out. They were asked for a plan to increase commitment and attendance and they said to hell with ya!

And they were football only, not a full conference member.

[NorthTexan95]

My goodness A$M is being a whinny baby about this.

[El Paso Eagle]

My goodness A$M is being a whinny baby about this.

At the risk of being bombarded with -1

If A&M is being "whinny", what does that say about all of our comments about wanting to move to another conference and the daily "SMU is out to get us"?

[NorthTexan95]

At the risk of being bombarded with -1

If A&M is being "whinny", what does that say about all of our comments about wanting to move to another conference and the daily "SMU is out to get us"?

You forgot to mention uniform talk and parking talk.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Baylor can't win an anti-trust suit, that's already been explained - in the marketplace, you will not be helped by the court if no one happens to like your brand better than, or as much as, someone else's.

This was the example I used with beverage makers suing Coca-Cola and Pepsi for shelf space in grocery and convenience stores. They never win. If your product isn't as good or in demand, the courts have never stepped in to equalize results.

This, in effect, is what Baylor is asking a court to do. The other forms of anti-trust aren't even in the same ballpark with what's happening. Ken Starr is an academic and this is a big time academic dream theory of a lawsuit...if, they are stupid enough to file it.

At some point, the free market is allowed to run its course. Baylor's football program fails mightily in the free market. That's not A&M's fault. And, no one wanting you in their big boy conference isn't an anti-trust violation, it's just marketplace reality.

SIDE NOTE: I took antitrust law from one of the attorneys who represented OU and Georgia in the suit against the NCAA over television rights back in the early 80s. Interesting class, for sure. But, Baylor has no anti-trust standing anywhere in their plight.

http://attorneys.crowedunlevy.com/AttorneysDetail.aspx?id=57

http://www.law.ou.edu/faculty/meyers.shtml

Edited September 8, 2011 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[MeanGreenTexan]

Baylor can't win an anti-trust suit, that's already been explained - in the marketplace, you will not be helped by the court if no one happens to like your brand better than, or as much as, someone else's.

This was the example I used with beverage makers suing Coca-Cola and Pepsi for shelf space in grocery and convenience stores. They never win. If your product isn't as good or in demand, the courts have never stepped in to equalize results.

This, in effect, is what Baylor is asking a court to do. The other forms of anti-trust aren't even in the same ballpark with what's happening. Ken Starr is an academic and this is a big time academic dream theory of a lawsuit...if, they are stupid enough to file it.

At some point, the free market is allowed to run its course. Baylor's football program fails mightily in the free market. That's not A&M's fault. And, no one wanting you in their big boy conference isn't an anti-trust violation, it's just marketplace reality.

SIDE NOTE: I took antitrust law from one of the attorneys who represented OU and Georgia in the suit against the NCAA over television rights back in the early 80s. Interesting class, for sure. But, Baylor has no anti-trust standing anywhere in their plight.

http://attorneys.crowedunlevy.com/AttorneysDetail.aspx?id=57

http://www.law.ou.edu/faculty/meyers.shtml

I'm no lawyer, but here's my logic.

Baylor is asked to sign a waiver (FOR A REASON, I'M SURE).

Baylor declines, leaving a possibility of a lawsuit open.

SEC says, "Whoa. No-can-do now. Get this figured out A&M." Probably out of genuine fear.

Maybe the basis of a suit could be something like "tampering". The Big 12 is an organization that is viable and a money-maker. Then, rumors surface regarding A&M moving to the SEC. Rumors are denied though. But, if Baylor can somehow confirm that there was tampering, then the SEC would be guilty. Right?

It's not about trust-busting or anything. It's about Baylor not making the money they would be making in the big12 if they're in another conference.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I'm no lawyer, but here's my logic.

Baylor is asked to sign a waiver (FOR A REASON, I'M SURE).

Baylor declines, leaving a possibility of a lawsuit open.

SEC says, "Whoa. No-can-do now. Get this figured out A&M." Probably out of genuine fear.

Maybe the basis of a suit could be something like "tampering". The Big 12 is an organization that is viable and a money-maker. Then, rumors surface regarding A&M moving to the SEC. Rumors are denied though. But, if Baylor can somehow confirm that there was tampering, then the SEC would be guilty. Right?

It's not about trust-busting or anything. It's about Baylor not making the money they would be making in the big12 if they're in another conference.

The SEC really has no reason to ask for the waiver other than to avoid the time and money waste in what would be failing lawsuits.

My guess is, if the SEC wants Texas A&M badly enough, they'll simply say, "Look, forget the waivers. Everyone's signed them but Baylor and Iowa State. Fine. We'll waste a little time in court with them."

SEC lawyers are simply doing their due diligence in trying to avoid time and cost. That doesn't mean they will avoid it.

As to Baylor and their money, they'd have to prove they couldn't make money without the Big 12. It could be easily proven that they could succeed enough to rejoin a BCS AQ conference by simply pointing out Utah and TCU.

You have to understand that when you go in front of the courts, they don't like non-actors in the form of well-educated people acting helpless. Baylor is far from helpless.

Baylor has been on a near-two decade gravy train. They did little to enhance their position within it. No court will brook that. It's non-sense. Outside of California and the 9th Circuit, it's difficult for me to imagine a court simply bending the law just because it feels sorry for Baylor - a private school rich enough to attract the likes of Ken Starr to guide it.

By the way, I think it's laudable that Baylor hasn't wasted every last resource and dollar on athletics. I think that's the higher road taken. But, like getting people off of welfare, when the "free" money is threatened, people tend to freak.

[scrappyman1]

It is now time for Baylor to come back to where they belong and should have been

had it not been for a Governor Richards who went to school there. Go to the

WAC of Conference USA and Shutup. Start playing someone you might beat every once

in a while. They like to play SFA and Sam Houston so much maybe they should go to

the Southland Conference. They just built a 10million dollar indoor football facility

with money from the Big 12, maybe their great building campaign will now slow down. It

is really crying time here in Waco with all the Baylor fans. How they have been led down

a primrose path etc.

Very fun to watch.

Scrappyman1

[UNT90]

Baylor can't win an anti-trust suit, that's already been explained - in the marketplace, you will not be helped by the court if no one happens to like your brand better than, or as much as, someone else's.

This was the example I used with beverage makers suing Coca-Cola and Pepsi for shelf space in grocery and convenience stores. They never win. If your product isn't as good or in demand, the courts have never stepped in to equalize results.

This, in effect, is what Baylor is asking a court to do. The other forms of anti-trust aren't even in the same ballpark with what's happening. Ken Starr is an academic and this is a big time academic dream theory of a lawsuit...if, they are stupid enough to file it.

At some point, the free market is allowed to run its course. Baylor's football program fails mightily in the free market. That's not A&M's fault. And, no one wanting you in their big boy conference isn't an anti-trust violation, it's just marketplace reality.

SIDE NOTE: I took antitrust law from one of the attorneys who represented OU and Georgia in the suit against the NCAA over television rights back in the early 80s. Interesting class, for sure. But, Baylor has no anti-trust standing anywhere in their plight.

http://attorneys.cro...tail.aspx?id=57

http://www.law.ou.ed...ty/meyers.shtml

They may not have a claim against the BCS, but I think they have a claim against the NCAA.

But, if they file suit against the NCAA, then the BCS schools will simply split from the NCAA and form some other much more pseudo-academic alliance. I hope they do, because those universities will then be playing semi-pro football (I know, they already are).

Winnable or not, these suits will be filed against the NCAA. Don't be so naive to think that the where the judge or judges (on appeal) attended college won't be a factor in the decision.

Edited September 8, 2011 by UNT90

[VideoEagle]

I don't personally know enough law to comment on the value of any legal actions by Baylor. The President of Baylor, Ken Starr, thinks they might have some kind of case. Before being President of Baylor, he ran Pepperdine's law school. He was a Federal Judge on the Court of Appeals for the DC circuit for six years. He was Solicitor General of the United States for four years. Of course, he was also the Special Prosecutor in the White Water case as well.

I've also been told by an attorney at Fulbright and Jaworski Baylor and other schools could have a case against A&M. "Could" is the operative word and it depends on what happens but he told me any of the Big XII schools would be foolish to waive rights in advance. Of course, F & J is a VERY pro-Baylor law firm.

It never was the case that "everyone else signed" to waiver. The Big XII Inc. signed on behalf of itself only. According to this mornings DMN, both Iowa State and Kansas are joining Baylor in refusing to waive any rights in advance. Now, things are changing very fast in this and news from yesterday gets dated quickly.

This is going to be interesting to watch in any case!

[NT80]

Did the Big10 and Pac10 get signed waivers from all the Big12 schools when Nebraska and Colorado recently left? I doubt it. Didn't losing those schools affect existing TV contracts or future negotiations value by leaving?

I have never heard of a school or league having to get signed waivers before to change conferences. They all already have conference bylaws in place with timelines and penalties. Those are the pre-agreed to damages and limits.

[Eagle1855]

Did the Big10 and Pac10 get signed waivers from all the Big12 schools when Nebraska and Colorado recently left? I doubt it. Didn't losing those schools affect existing TV contracts or future negotiations value by leaving?

I have never heard of a school or league having to get signed waivers before to change conferences. They all already have conference bylaws in place with timelines and penalties. Those are the pre-agreed to damages and limits.

Nebraska and Colorado left before the new deal was signed.

[NT80]

Nebraska and Colorado left before the new deal was signed.

They took away future conference value from the new deal by having left if we're dealing with frivilous lawsuits. Other schools in conferences left all the time with existing vendor or TV contracts in effect. They didn't require waivers. The WAC could sue 19 schools since 1998 for lowering it's potential media value if that was the case.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

It doesn't matter who the judges are because when you go up on appeal, you rarely get people who have an interest in the matter. If they do, they have to recuse themselves. The judges at the lower levels are supposed to recuse if they even remotely have a dog in the fight.

At the Supreme Court level, you have no justices who went to a school in either the SEC or Big 12. They're all Ivy Leaguers who could care less.

At the appeals level, the law is applied if the lower courts monkey around with it. They are bound to follow precedent.

They are countless lawsuits involving universities and associations. And, thousands on contracts. Baylor isn't going down some novel legal avenue here.

And, yes, anyone "could" sue anyone. But, that doesn't mean they will succeed. Again, we're talking about well-worn legal paths here. And, the results haven't been on litigants like Baylor's side.

Baylor is trying to time waste. In this situation, think of Baylor as Todd Dodge versus OU in 2007, behind 63-7 in the fourth quarter, but still having his QB snap the ball with 20 seconds left on the play clock every play and pass every down.

The game is, for all intents and purposes, over. Baylor may not like the handwriting on the wall. But, if necessary, a court will go ahead and make it plain for them.

[scrappyman1]

Unfortunately I live in Waco and it's not pretty here with a lot of crying going on. I

can only hope Baylor get's what it deserves due to Ann Richards actions to get them in

a conference they didn't deserve to be in, and their record has shown it.

GO MEAN GREEN -----GO NORTH TEXAS

SCRAPPYMAN 1

[VideoEagle]

Unfortunately I live in Waco and it's not pretty here with a lot of crying going on. I

can only hope Baylor get's what it deserves due to Ann Richards actions to get them in

a conference they didn't deserve to be in, and their record has shown it.

GO MEAN GREEN -----GO NORTH TEXAS

SCRAPPYMAN 1

Technically, it was NOT Ann Richards. The Governor just doesn't have that much power. Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock was instrumental in getting both Baylor and Tech included. The threatened to start reviewing UT and A&M budgets line by line, something the Lt. Governor most certainly DOES have the power to do.

[TheTastyGreek]

Helpful advice:

If you're married to a Baylor alum, and the topic comes up... DO NOT come up with analogy that equates Baylor to a barnacle.

Your wife will not take it well, and the rest of dinner will be very, very unpleasant.

[UNTFan23]

Helpful advice:

If you're married to a Baylor alum, and the topic comes up... DO NOT come up with analogy that equates Baylor to a barnacle.

Your wife will not take it well, and the rest of dinner will be very, very unpleasant.

Sorry to hear about that TTG.

[Quoner]

Helpful advice:

If you're married to a Baylor alum, and the topic comes up... DO NOT come up with analogy that equates Baylor to a barnacle.

Your wife will not take it well, and the rest of dinner will be very, very unpleasant.

To be fair, I think barnacles can win at least 20% of their conference games.

Homestead tension rules!

[TheTastyGreek]

Marital discord update:

Analogies comparing Ken Starr's stance on this situation to George Wallace's "Segregation Forever" speech are not only acceptable, but illuminating.

What solidifies your base and galvanizes your constituency in the immediate present will make you and your institution seem absurd and foolish years down the line.

A sense of righteousness and entitlement can't stop the inevitable. Baylor shall rise again?

[UNT90]

Funny how some people in here say Baylor had no business being in the Big 12, while others in here like to believe UNT could replace A&M in the big 12.

Guess it's all a matter of perspective.

[UNT90]

It doesn't matter who the judges are because when you go up on appeal, you rarely get people who have an interest in the matter. If they do, they have to recuse themselves. The judges at the lower levels are supposed to recuse if they even remotely have a dog in the fight.

At the Supreme Court level, you have no justices who went to a school in either the SEC or Big 12. They're all Ivy Leaguers who could care less.

At the appeals level, the law is applied if the lower courts monkey around with it. They are bound to follow precedent.

They are countless lawsuits involving universities and associations. And, thousands on contracts. Baylor isn't going down some novel legal avenue here.

And, yes, anyone "could" sue anyone. But, that doesn't mean they will succeed. Again, we're talking about well-worn legal paths here. And, the results haven't been on litigants like Baylor's side.

Baylor is trying to time waste. In this situation, think of Baylor as Todd Dodge versus OU in 2007, behind 63-7 in the fourth quarter, but still having his QB snap the ball with 20 seconds left on the play clock every play and pass every down.

The game is, for all intents and purposes, over. Baylor may not like the handwriting on the wall. But, if necessary, a court will go ahead and make it plain for them.

Think you may be missing my point a little. When universities realize they are about to lose millions of dollars, they will file lawsuits, whether successful or not.

Surely you don't believe every court of appeals and every judge in every court of appeals interprets the law in the exact same way? If so, please explain the US Court of Appeals for the 9th curcuit?

And really, if you don't think personal biases affect judges decisions, then you really need a lesson in human nature. If liberal/conservative can affect judges decision making as much as it does, then believe me, Texas/Baylor can affect judges the same way. Really naive to think that they would recuse themselves.

And I do disagree that an anti-trust suit against the NCAA regarding BCS payouts is a well worn legal path. Like I said, the super conference teams would just drop their affiliation with the NCAA, making the lawsuit mute, and they would do that because it would be much less expensive than fighting the legal battle would be (remember, this is all about the money). But at least they would have to admit that they don't give a crap about the student-athlete, and it's just about the money.

And, I personally LOVE BAYLOR FOR THROWING A WRENCH IN THE REALIGNMENT. Why? Because it helps us. Any delay which gives this staff time to right the ship (assuming that happens, not a given) helps UNT. Conference realignment right now would be a disaster for UNT.

[LongJim]

Helpful advice:

If you're married to a Baylor alum, and the topic comes up... DO NOT come up with analogy that equates Baylor to a barnacle.

Your wife will not take it well, and the rest of dinner will be very, very unpleasant.

Did you try carbuncle? Or festering boil first? Should have.

[forevereagle]

Did you try carbuncle? Or festering boil first? Should have.

I believe that leech would have also been an acceptable answer. Possibly tapeworm.

Edited September 9, 2011 by forevereagle