Calling All Lawyers

Ok - half of you guys on here seem to be lawyers. Fess up. Lawboy has to be one. The rest of you know who you are.



Here is the question / scenario.



The SEC either did or did not meddle with Texas A&M. Then it all slowed down over concerns about getting sued. Then A&M notified Big 12 it was looking at options. Then A&M notified the Big 12 they were leaving. Then A&M applied for SEC membership after getting some sort of OK and negotiated exit fee and assurance Big12 would not sue them. Maybe individual schools also agreed not to sue them. Maybe they did not think to have the schools not sue SEC. All was looking sweet for them and us, but suddenly Ok, T, and others get nervous about armageddon and contact PAC, Big 10, Big E, and ACC looking for security especially due to possible Ok or T defection. SEC gets nervous and makes acceptance of A&M contingent on Big 12 hold harmless clause for SEC, member schools, and individual officers involved.



So assume SEC decides that maybe they did meddle or it is muddled enough that a jury of their peers might call it meddling, so they do damage control and leave A&M at the alter. A&M eats crow and tries to rejoin Big 12 - no harm - no foul. But meanwhile PAC who did not meddle but offered membership to Ok, T, and others and blows up the Big 12 anyway.



Now there are huge damages to Baylor, Iowa State, and anyone not picked up by SEC, Big 10, or PAC.



If SEC meddled in the beginning, and said meddling led to the domino effect above, I think they still have liability even if they back out on A&M now. A&M might even have a claim if promises were made to them and later broken.



If PAC meddled, they have Liability. If PAC is whistle clean, they still might have a costly suit to defend.



Maybe PAC gets weak knees and just backs off.



Calling all lawyers - who is going to be suing who when all is said and done if PAC blows up Big 12 after SEC backs down?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

The key to most tortious interference claims is "inducement." To be lisle you hand to induce someone to breach a contract or business relationship you know exists, and the other party gets damaged.



The SEC is in hot water because it appears that they approached A&M, but that's not clear. If the party under contract approaches the third party, it's extremely difficult to say they were intentionally induced by the party they approached.



While it looks like the SEC night have approached A&M, the PAC12 and OU have been consistent in the story that OU approached the PAC12, so it would appear that the PAC12 has clean hands.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

The key to this whole issue, and any other conference related issue will be damages. Would Baylor or other schools be financially damaged by A&M's departure, and did the SEC contribute to that by interfering with a contract. If yes, the next question is how much were the damages.



With the MWC TV deal, damages would be small, because the league had a paltry TV deal. Even if the damages amounted to $3M, it is easily remedied. Plus, the league had no penalties clause for leaving if done by a certain date, which basically means the league agreed to let team go without penalty. A claim in that case would go nowhere.



As to the Big XII, it is way more complex, and it all hinges upon the survival of the league. If A&M leaves, and the league stays together, adds a new school, and all contracts stay in place, be really hard for Baylor to show any real damages in that scenario, so a case would probably get tossed quickly. But if A&M leaves, and then more dominoes fall and the league falls apart. Baylor could not only find itself without a league, but also without BCS access it had previously. Quantifying TV media rights losses would be easy, but quantifying other losses would be really hard, but they would be HUGE. And if other schools jumped on board, we could be talking hundreds of millions of dollars here, which would be enough to stop the SEC or PAC in their tracks.

So what you're saying is that alignment might only be the Armageddon round 1.



Let's say that happens and then Nuclear lawsuits are fired from all points in the country. Could we see the Pac-12 and the SEC collapse under immense financial strain? Can you imagine those poor souls if they had to contribute an entire HALF of their $1B TV deal and live in poverty for the next 10 years?



BYU, again, in a good place right now. Big 12 stays together? we're good. Big 12 falls apart and league threatening lawsuits are launched? we're good. And we have great seats.

I think the SEC is smart enough to tell A&M to walk away quietly rather than set themselves up for long and expensive litigation, that could cost them. A&M is not worth that.

Lawboy has it right. The potential law suit is just blackmail. The threat is the cost of the lawsuit (both monetary and in terms of perception) more than the actual damages. In any lawsuit, Tamu and the SEC would just argue Baylor could have gotten BYU or someone else to take their spot and Baylor would have been in the same position (financially) as they were before.



Lawboy is also probably right that the SEC will fold to the blackmail. The question is will the SEC and Tamu just throw some cash at Baylor to make it work or will they just give up on it entirely.

This thing would never go to trial. It is very speculative, which allows lawyers to convince each other that a settlement is in their best interest. No lawyer worth his/her salt goes to court in a case like this based on speculation of what damages did occur or could have been mitigated by inviting someone else. There is just too much to lose and there are too many fingers to point to ever get in a court room.

I agree totally that if there are no significant damages there will be no lawsuit. And I agree that unless the Big 12 blows up - thus leaving some teams with no where BCS worthy to go, there are no significant damages. I agree the suits would most likely settle out of court - but for big bucks. I agree that PAC and Okie look clean. But they may not want to get dragged into something caused by someone else and have to testify or defend. Now we just need a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of fans who will get screwed by all of this. Damages? I know - stretching on this point. Maybe loss of future value of life-time season tickets due to crappy games in the future.



But here is the main point of my question, and it has not been addressed.



If SEC did induce, even if they and A&M back off and A&M even asks the Big 12 to take them back - the original inducement by SEC and actions by A&M would likely be construed as causing Oklahoma to contact PAC. Now that those wheels are already rolling - if Oklahoma goes to PAC even if A&M comes with tail between legs, might the litigants still have a case against the SEC? And might Okie and PAC find themselves dragged into testifying who called who when and why they said they were calling, or worse yet find themselves defending themselves from suits or countersuits.



In any event - this may be more in Okies hands than A&M or SEC hands at this point, unless PAC withdraws any interest to avoid a big hassle.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

If A&M bolts and the Big XII folds, you can bet your mule that Kenneth Starr sues. He is the Baylor Pres, and the same guy who made life hell for Pres. Clinton for a while. His presence alone adds weight to Baylor's suit claims. That is why everyone is taking them so seriously. Because they should.

Lawboy wrote:
If A&M bolts and the Big XII folds, you can bet your mule that Kenneth Starr sues. He is the Baylor Pres, and the same guy who made life hell for Pres. Clinton for a while. His presence alone adds weight to Baylor's suit claims. That is why everyone is taking them so seriously. Because they should.

And if A&M stays, but Oklahoma, having been prodded into action leaves, will Baylor sue SEC anyway for stirring all of this up. Hopefully threats of litigation will make everyone, including PAC, take a long, hard, breath.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

But if the BigXII falls below 10 teams and their TV contract becomes null and void, there would be some serious damages the remaining BigXII teams could claim against aTm and teh SEC.

Cougarbib2 wrote:
If SEC did induce, even if they and A&M back off and A&M even asks the Big 12 to take them back - the original inducement by SEC and actions by A&M would likely be construed as causing Oklahoma to contact PAC. Now that those wheels are already rolling - if Oklahoma goes to PAC even if A&M comes with tail between legs, might the litigants still have a case against the SEC? And might Okie and PAC find themselves dragged into testifying who called who when and why they said they were calling, or worse yet find themselves defending themselves from suits or countersuits.

I don't think there is any legal basis that the SEC induced OU to breach and go to the PAC12. Induce is a much more rigorous standard than simply "causing" something. To induce you have to persuade or influence them directly, and tortious interference requires you to do it intentionally. Even if you read everything that's rumored against OU and the SEC, I don't see anything that would make a semi-reasonable person believe that the SEC intentionally persuaded OU to breach it's contract/business relationship with the Big XII and the affiliated schools.

O the tangled webs we weave! Baylor has less options than say TX or BYU for that matter. This generally is when we can expect the lawyers to show.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BoiseBYU wrote:
O the tangled webs we weave! Baylor has less options than say TX or BYU for that matter. This generally is when we can expect the lawyers to show.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

And Baylor is a school loaded not only with lawyers, but career litigators.

snoscythe wrote:

If SEC did induce, even if they and A&M back off and A&M even asks the Big 12 to take them back - the original inducement by SEC and actions by A&M would likely be construed as causing Oklahoma to contact PAC. Now that those wheels are already rolling - if Oklahoma goes to PAC even if A&M comes with tail between legs, might the litigants still have a case against the SEC? And might Okie and PAC find themselves dragged into testifying who called who when and why they said they were calling, or worse yet find themselves defending themselves from suits or countersuits.

I don't think there is any legal basis that the SEC induced OU to breach and go to the PAC12. Induce is a much more rigorous standard than simply "causing" something. To induce you have to persuade or influence them directly, and tortious interference requires you to do it intentionally. Even if you read everything that's rumored against OU and the SEC, I don't see anything that would make a semi-reasonable person believe that the SEC intentionally persuaded OU to breach it's contract/business relationship with the Big XII and the affiliated schools.

You are getting to the point I was asking. Maybe the key word is DIRECTLY that you used above. I agree SEC did not induce Okie. But if they induced A&M DIRECTLY, and A&M actions resulting from that DIRECT inducement, INDIRECTLY caused Okie to start looking for a new home, which then had momentum before SEC and A&M backed off, and the Big 12 Blows up. Would Baylor Iowa State and anyone else left standing in the cold have any cause of action against the SEC for having stireed this all up with their direct inducment of A&M.

I believe the SEC initially courted/induced TAMU LAST SUMMER (along with Oklahoma), in response to the PAC 10's courting of Texas and Oklahoma. This was BEFORE the Big XII's current deal. The SEC has made it pretty clear that it did not court TAMU this time around. Rather, TAMU called them.



BUT, the mere risk of a lawsuit by Baylor (and Ken Starr) is enough for the SEC to stay put for now. The SEC does not NEED to expand (yet) and the HUGE distraction and costs of the lawsuit alone (including the discovery - depositions of AD's, Presidents, coaches, players, administrators, etc., massive document product requests, etc.) are enough to say "wait", without even considering the risk of an adverse judgment.

Let me make it simple: no one with half a brain will think the SEC intended to induce OU to go PAC12. That is what Baylor would have to prove.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

snoscythe wrote:
Let me make it simple: no one with half a brain will think the SEC intended to induce OU to go PAC12. That is what Baylor would have to prove.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

That still isn't what I asked. I don't think the SEC even tried to induce Oklahoma to do anything. I think the SEC may have induced A&M to give notice to the Big 12. I do not think SEC intended that to lead to all of the rats trying to jump ship before it sank, but it clearly did lead to it. So I am talking about an indirect and unintended consequence of SEC inducing A&M. Did that create liability to Baylor being harmed by indirect and unintended consequences of SEC inducing A&M? I am not saying yay or nay - just asking all you lawyers.



What is in the back of my mind is what a defense lawyer said in a case I was being deposed for. A victim was claiming to have been injured by an action of another person. Injury clearly was not intended, and the action that caused the injury would not have caused injury to a normal person, but the victim was fragile. The attorney said that unfortunately, if your victim happened to be fragile (Big 12), tough for you. You may not have intended injury and it would not have injured a normal victim(Big 10 or PAC 12), but your actions caused the injury. Of course, that was direct cause. This question is more like I tripped and fell into you, and you stepped on someone's toe, but that person was wearing open sandals because a previously injured toe with stitches and pins was too swollen to fit in a protective shoe.



I do not pretend to know the answer even though I do have half a brain, that is why I am asking. If the answer is that SEC cannot be held liable for some injury caused by Oklahoma leaving Big 12 because A&M panicked the Big 12, because A&M tried to induce them because it is an indirect and / or unintentional consequence of them inducing A&M, which I am racing between the lines of what you posted - then I guess I get it.



Ironically, a good friend of mine called me last night for a little help with a case he is prosecuting. The NCAA is in court today as a defendant accused of causing a Bowl Game to blow up and I suppose direct, indirect, intentional, and unintentional will be debated in that one.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Cougarbib2 wrote:

Let me make it simple: no one with half a brain will think the SEC intended to induce OU to go PAC12. That is what Baylor would have to prove.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

That still isn't what I asked. I don't think the SEC even tried to induce Oklahoma to do anything. I think the SEC may have induced A&M to give notice to the Big 12. I do not think SEC intended that to lead to all of the rats trying to jump ship before it sank, but it clearly did lead to it. So I am talking about an indirect and unintended consequence of SEC inducing A&M. Did that create liability to Baylor being harmed by indirect and unintended consequences of SEC inducing A&M? I am not saying yay or nay - just asking all you lawyers.



What is in the back of my mind is what a defense lawyer said in a case I was being deposed for. A victim was claiming to have been injured by an action of another person. Injury clearly was not intended, and the action that caused the injury would not have caused injury to a normal person, but the victim was fragile. The attorney said that unfortunately, if your victim happened to be fragile (Big 12), tough for you. You may not have intended injury and it would not have injured a normal victim(Big 10 or PAC 12), but your actions caused the injury. Of course, that was direct cause. This question is more like I tripped and fell into you, and you stepped on someone's toe, but that person was wearing open sandals because a previously injured toe with stitches and pins was too swollen to fit in a protective shoe.



I do not pretend to know the answer even though I do have half a brain, that is why I am asking. If the answer is that SEC cannot be held liable for some injury caused by Oklahoma leaving Big 12 because A&M panicked the Big 12, because A&M tried to induce them because it is an indirect and / or unintentional consequence of them inducing A&M, which I am racing between the lines of what you posted - then I guess I get it.



Ironically, a good friend of mine called me last night for a little help with a case he is prosecuting. The NCAA is in court today as a defendant accused of causing a Bowl Game to blow up and I suppose direct, indirect, intentional, and unintentional will be debated in that one.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

If A&M breaches its contract, you may be able to argue that the A&M breach was a proximate cause of a later OU breach. But if A&M doesn't breach, the SEC hasn't tortiously interfered, so no one can go after the SEC even if OU breaches.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
Let me make it simple: no one with half a brain will think the SEC intended to induce OU to go PAC12. That is what Baylor would have to prove.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

That still isn't what I asked. I don't think the SEC even tried to induce Oklahoma to do anything. I think the SEC may have induced A&M to give notice to the Big 12. I do not think SEC intended that to lead to all of the rats trying to jump ship before it sank, but it clearly did lead to it. So I am talking about an indirect and unintended consequence of SEC inducing A&M. Did that create liability to Baylor being harmed by indirect and unintended consequences of SEC inducing A&M? I am not saying yay or nay - just asking all you lawyers.



What is in the back of my mind is what a defense lawyer said in a case I was being deposed for. A victim was claiming to have been injured by an action of another person. Injury clearly was not intended, and the action that caused the injury would not have caused injury to a normal person, but the victim was fragile. The attorney said that unfortunately, if your victim happened to be fragile (Big 12), tough for you. You may not have intended injury and it would not have injured a normal victim(Big 10 or PAC 12), but your actions caused the injury. Of course, that was direct cause. This question is more like I tripped and fell into you, and you stepped on someone's toe, but that person was wearing open sandals because a previously injured toe with stitches and pins was too swollen to fit in a protective shoe.



I do not pretend to know the answer even though I do have half a brain, that is why I am asking. If the answer is that SEC cannot be held liable for some injury caused by Oklahoma leaving Big 12 because A&M panicked the Big 12, because A&M tried to induce them because it is an indirect and / or unintentional consequence of them inducing A&M, which I am racing between the lines of what you posted - then I guess I get it.



Ironically, a good friend of mine called me last night for a little help with a case he is prosecuting. The NCAA is in court today as a defendant accused of causing a Bowl Game to blow up and I suppose direct, indirect, intentional, and unintentional will be debated in that one.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

If A&M breaches its contract, you may be able to argue that the A&M breach was a proximate cause of a later OU breach. But if A&M doesn't breach, the SEC hasn't tortiously interfered, so no one can go after the SEC even if OU breaches.

Something I read today said that A&M's notice to quit the Big 12 siad it was contingent on if they received an offer from another conference. SO it sounds like they have not breached yet. But say the SEC backs off, A&M leaves Big 12 anyway, goes Indy for a year, or Big East or or or or - It keeps rasing more questions - but maybe those don't need to be answered until something actually happens.



I posted elsewhere an article about Bowl COnfusion that will happen contractually if the Big 12 dissolves. That might should be merged over to the calling all lawers thread. I guess I was hoping to see some heated debate between the attorneys on this stuff - I am not an attorney - as you know - but maybe this stuff is so cut and dried that there isn't much need for debate.