Did ok & tex violate big12 bylaws
- Thread starter Postel16
- Start date
Even with Tex n Ok finishing out GoR contract I would argue they still broke the bylaws by actively plotting against the big 12 to the detriment of the the other 8 institutions resulting in actual damages both now and into the future. I believe (not a lawyer, so take it with a ton of salt) that them openly conspiring against the conference for their betterment would qualify as a breach. Wish there was a way to go after media companies interfering in conference membership cuz let's be real what are the odds the folks @ espn didn't know/help plan/endorse this.
I fully assumed there was something like this in the document. It all depends on how aggressive the remaining 8 are in pursuing these claims. There needs to be actual damages, or at least, our lawyers need to show what the damages could be. You need to find an outrageous, brilliant plaintiff attorney that will make the two pussies life miserable. I assure this is on the table and has been discussed. Whether the remaining 8 go scorched earth or not, I have no clue. It is an option.
True but a BIG WINDFALL does buy ISU and the rest time before we go broke and have to cut expenses. By then we should know what the Big 10 and Pac 12 are going to do.
I am pretty sure those lawyers from Baylor would take great pleasure in fighting UT in court over these issues.
Last edited:
Definitely. Breaching the contract (which clearly they did) will, at the very least, better the bargaining position for the remaining members significantly (and the leak substantiates that breach, and lying about it in court is a criminal offense that can undoubtedly be proven). Maybe throw in a bit of a threat to pursue the collusion between the two schools. They are going to pay quite a bit of money for this one (but yes, they will still leave, and the money won't begin to make up for the potential losses if other members don't find themselves well-placed).
The UT and OU settlements would just go straight to the B1G or Pac-12 office as an entrance fee if they took us, anyway.
If they don't and we end up G5, then they will be used to close out existing and incurred debt and to transition down to a vastly reduced AD budget over a few years.
So nothing fun will happen with that money either way.
The point would be to cause as much discomfort 2 the 2 schools who forced this by being greedy with no regard for the contracts they signed and agreed to. Just because they happen to be the 2 programs worth the most in the conference doesn't give them free reign to actively collude to harm the other members which is exactly what they've done. Both financially and through reduced prestige and standing in college athletics. The remaining members should strive to make this transition the most grueli
It will be interesting to find out what conversations Pollard has already had. Not just conversations in the last week, but conversations in the last few years. Surely he has considered the possibility that the Shorthorns bailed on the Big 12. Pollard has shown often that he is a few steps ahead of the rest of us.
Correct. This is all about buying time and lengthening the runway. Nothing more and nothing less.
Agree with all of this, but there also is a PR element for future relationships (pro and con) involved in the decision to pursue actions. In other words, taking legal action against Z for breach, might affect any future relationship with X or Y in potentially a pro or con manner.
"A member.... shall be deemed to have withdrawn... (C) if a third party offers to, or attempts to induce a Member to, leave the Conference and/or breach or not to fully perform its future obligations under the Grant of Rights Agreement and the Member does not both (1) inform the Conference of such action as promptly as possible (but in any event not later than twelve (12) hours after such action) and (2) immediately and unconditionally reject that offer in a form and manner reasonably acceptable to the Commissioner..."
Then in section 3.3, it would seem that the Big 12 could force June 30, 2022 to be the withdrawal effective date, assuming UT and OU had secret conversations with the SEC in December 2020. So they don't get to say, "We're not leaving until 2025."
https://static.big12sports.com/custompages/pdfs/handbook/bylaws.pdf
I don't see anything else related to punishing private conversations, though. What the Heartland article cites seems actually to be related to interfering with the GoR or the televising of the withdrawing school during its remaining term.
Then in section 3.3, it would seem that the Big 12 could force June 30, 2022 to be the withdrawal effective date, assuming UT and OU had secret conversations with the SEC in December 2020. So they don't get to say, "We're not leaving until 2025."
https://static.big12sports.com/custompages/pdfs/handbook/bylaws.pdf
I don't see anything else related to punishing private conversations, though. What the Heartland article cites seems actually to be related to interfering with the GoR or the televising of the withdrawing school during its remaining term.
One could argue any action on the part of the remaining 8 is to mitigate damage, which if often a requirement actually. So, we could be scot free on that particular rule, and in fact required to try and help ourselves.
