Texas & Georgia Tech to B1G rumors

[john01992]

I am not sure the GORs are signed to grant stability or if they are signed to create the appearance of stability.

they grant stability. ive seen threads where people have posted the entire document and have yet to see one person find a loophole or anything like that

 

[jdwills126]

Ok maybe someone can enlighten me as I heard that most of these contracts between schools and conferences will be voided if conference affiliations to the NCAA are voided and a new governing body is set.

For example if the B1G, SEC, and 1 or two others withdraws from the NCAA and creates a new governing body the current contracts become null.

Much how the Big East contract become dissolved when they created their new conference but on a larger scale?

 

[Codaxx]

they grant stability. ive seen threads where people have posted the entire document and have yet to see one person find a loophole or anything like that

-
I gave you one already. Citing corporate law or personal law is not quite the same. A lot depends on the states interpretation of Sovereign Immunity. Some states are more firm than others. Some states will not allow for punitive damages. It is not as simple as saying "you were doing 65 in a 50, you get a ticket"

 

[wiskyisgood12]

This whole thing looks like a complete fraudulent rumor by one guy on the internet.

The main reason (outside of the GOR and losing Oklahoma game):
Texas really gains nothing from going to the Big 10.

Texas makes insane cash now. They are the #1 earner. #2 is not even close.
I doubt the Big 10 really makes a huge cash jump over what they have now.

So, exactly what does Texas get out of the deal???

The Big 10 is not going to suddenly turn them from a lesser school to a national name like A&M.
Texas is already a top brand. That angle is not going to help them build an identity.

The Big 10 does not offer access to BCS bowls and playoffs.
Texas already has Big 12 access to the BCS, playoffs, and great bowl tie-ins.

The Big 10 does not offer a perfect cultural fit.
Texas probably is a hybrid of SEC/PAC 12 culture. It depends on whom you ask.

Academic research money is a possibility. Maybe...
But, thanks to Oil Money, Texas has an endowment that is almost obscenely well funded.

The Big 10 is an outstanding league of wealth and academics.
It can really help teams like Maryland and Rutgers.

But, I don't really see it as much more than a lateral move for Texas....EXPENSIVE lateral move.


I call BS on the article.

I completely agree. Texas to the B1G is far more beneficial to the B1G than it ever will be to Texas.

I imagine the talks as more of professional courtesies, because both sides know the chances of anything substantive coming from their conversations are slim to none. I don't see either side thinking of the other as a good cultural fit.

 

[john01992]

-
I gave you one already. Citing corporate law or personal law is not quite the same. A lot depends on the states interpretation of Sovereign Immunity. Some states are more firm than others. Some states will not allow for punitive damages. It is not as simple as saying "you were doing 65 in a 50, you get a ticket"

problem is to break the gor you need the consent of 8 out of 10 schools. that pretty much ensures that your loophole (which i havent heard before and dont have a clue if it will work) needs the sovereign immunity of at least 4 out of 5 b12 states to agree.

texas suing texas tech is one thing, texas suing ISU goes through federal court not state court where the texan politicians can control the outcome

 

[Codaxx]

problem is to break the gor you need the consent of 8 out of 10 schools. that pretty much ensures that your loophole (which i havent heard before and dont have a clue if it will work) needs the sovereign immunity of at least 4 out of 5 b12 states to agree.

texas suing texas tech is one thing, texas suing ISU goes through federal court not state court where the texan politicians can control the outcome

-
You can not sue a Texas state institution in a federal court. It is prohibited under state law. Like I said this is quite complicated. Not to say the Big 12 could not get permission, but it is not a clear cut path that people believe it to be.

 

[BucksFanInGA]

-
You can not sue a Texas state institution in a federal court. It is prohibited under state law. Like I said this is quite complicated. Not to say the Big 12 could not get permission, but it is not a clear cut path that people believe it to be.

How does state law have any say in a federal case?

 

[john01992]

-
You can not sue a Texas state institution in a federal court. It is prohibited under state law. Like I said this is quite complicated. Not to say the Big 12 could not get permission, but it is not a clear cut path that people believe it to be.

a texas institution suing another texas institution.......

or any institution in general

 

[Codaxx]

How does state law have any say in a federal case?

-
Based on constitutional law. This is not my forte, but this a snippet I found on the subjeect:

In Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment (1795) re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991), the court explained that:

we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact, that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention." [Citations omitted.]

 

[starbigd]

dude it was a very good ole miss team vs a struggling texas team. it was their best ooc matchup of the year and a lot of people would of be interested.

that game on the LHN was espn trying to cover their ass with the failure of the LHN

The only failure here is your understanding of what a Tier 3 game is.

Keep trying tho, maybe one day you'll actually figure it out

 

[BucksFanInGA]

-
Based on constitutional law. This is not my forte, but this a snippet I found on the subjeect:

In Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment (1795) re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991), the court explained that:

we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact, that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention." [Citations omitted.]

fair enough, i was honestly asking as I wasn't sure if state law superseded federal law...

 

[john01992]

when did this become a states rights thread

 

[john01992]

so how is the acc suing maryland, the big east suing bsu etc.

 

[LawDawg]

-
I gave you one already. Citing corporate law or personal law is not quite the same. A lot depends on the states interpretation of Sovereign Immunity. Some states are more firm than others. Some states will not allow for punitive damages. It is not as simple as saying "you were doing 65 in a 50, you get a ticket"

Texas is one fucked up state. I am not aware of any other states that allow the state to assert sovereign immunity as to contracts. Think about it, under the Leach case, anyone entering into a binding contract with the state of Texas (or its agencies) really isn't doing so if Texas can just assert sovereign immunity in any dispute. That is crazy and I suspect the legislature will override that, or no one will do business with Texas.

I am glad I did a quick Google, because I was about to tell you that you were crazy, and that no states use sovereign immunity as to a contract claim. Color me wrong, in batshit crazy Texas at least.

 

[Codaxx]

so how is the acc suing maryland, the big east suing bsu etc.

-
different states. Some states enforce their sovereignty to a higher degree. I do not know the ins and outs of this, but it is different across the country. Are you shocked that Texas is one of the more difficult states?

 

[Codaxx]

Texas is one fucked up state. I am not aware of any other states that allow the state to assert sovereign immunity as to contracts. Think about it, under the Leach case, anyone entering into a binding contract with the state of Texas (or its agencies) really isn't doing so if Texas can just assert sovereign immunity in any dispute. That is crazy and I suspect the legislature will override that, or no one will do business with Texas.

I am glad I did a quick Google, because I was about to tell you that you were crazy, and that no states use sovereign immunity as to a contract claim. Color me wrong, in batshit crazy Texas at least.

-
I really can not argue, but Texas has been doing well. I am sure there are other examples, maybe not as extreme. I am sure there are milder states that prevent other things like punitive damages. GOR could be considered punitive. Just a lot of nonsense that goes into a law suit. That is why most never see the inside of a court and why many times settlements are a fraction of the expectations.

 

[BucksFanInGA]

Texas is one fucked up state. I am not aware of any other states that allow the state to assert sovereign immunity as to contracts. Think about it, under the Leach case, anyone entering into a binding contract with the state of Texas (or its agencies) really isn't doing so if Texas can just assert sovereign immunity in any dispute. That is crazy and I suspect the legislature will override that, or no one will do business with Texas.

I am glad I did a quick Google, because I was about to tell you that you were crazy, and that no states use sovereign immunity as to a contract claim. Color me wrong, in batshit crazy Texas at least.

So for example, if the PSU scandal had happened at a Texas state institution those suing the school could be basically told to pound sand?

 

[LawDawg]

-
I really can not argue, but Texas has been doing well. I am sure there are other examples, maybe not as extreme. I am sure there are milder states that prevent other things like punitive damages. GOR could be considered punitive. Just a lot of nonsense that goes into a law suit. That is why most never see the inside of a court and why many times settlements are a fraction of the expectations.

- Sovereign immunity is alive and well for most states and municipalities ... I know, I represented school districts and we used it all the time.

The point isn't whether it is available or not, but what it is available against. Almost always it is used against tort cases, not contract. Tort law is accident law, for lack of a better way to explain it. The state will limit its liability if one of its agents injures someone. Typically, it isn't a total limitation, but will cap the amount of damages (often it is a gap ... you can't sue for anything under $50,000 - that gets rid of the nuisance suits, you can for $51,000 - 1 million which takes care of citizens legitimately injured by the state, but you can't sue for over $1 million - which protects the public coffers from large verdicts that would effect all citizens). If the state is insured for any liability, that typically eliminates sovereign immunity up the amount the insurance covers.

However, contracts are not normally shielded by sovereign immunity as they are accidents. The contracts are entered into with knowledge and consent of the state. It is absurd that the state could defend a contract action with sovereign immunity, and it could hurt state commerce if used often. Why would anyone enter into a large contract with another party who can at any time say they are going to live by the contract and you can't sue me?

- The GOR can't be seen as punitive as it is a transfer of property rights ... that's why it is better than the liquidated damages exit fee.

 

[Codaxx]

So for example, if the PSU scandal had happened at a Texas state institution those suing the school could be basically told to pound sand?

-
here it the NYT article on Leach. I do not know the inner workings, I simply brought this up to show that these things are not nearly as black and white as people are making them out to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/us/a-law-that-lets-texas-decide-who-can-sue-it.html

 

[LawDawg]

So for example, if the PSU scandal had happened at a Texas state institution those suing the school could be basically told to pound sand?

Seems like they could have asserted that. A lot depends on the state's sovereign immunity statute. Look, states realize that asserting sovereign immunity all the time looks like shit. Moreover, the state is the people, and there is a rational that says we know we have a bunch of employees, and that some will do things to injure our citizens, so we are going to let them sue under certain circumstances. Most states have a Sovereign Immunity Act that lays out who can sue and when. Typically there are caps as to how much ... as a citizen of the state, you don't want to get hit for a trillion dollars and have your state go under. A greater good argument, I suppose. One of the exceptions is typically for purposeful acts by a state agent, or done on state property. That is my guess at PSU. Also, the PR hit PSU would have taken for asserting SI would be terrible. Finally, they may have some insurance that vitiates SI, but then again the insurers would argue they don't insure these types of acts. Clear as mud?