C-USA response to defectors

VideoEagle · February 18, 2022

6 hours ago, Cerebus said:

The commissioners office is a figurehead position.

Those decisions you keep blaming on Judy? They were made by the presidents of the institution.

Catching flak for the decisions that don't work out? Exactly why they pay her.

This!!! Conference Commissioners work at the direction of the Presidents of the University members. If the Presidents really want her gone, she is gone. If a majority really don't like what she is doing, it gets changed.

I don't understand the fuss over the three schools leaving early. Scheduling with 11 schools just isn't that hard! As was pointed out in the other thread, the Big 10 did it for a decade or more! It's only one year early and legal action will take months to complete.

Arkstfan · February 20, 2022

Everyone seems to think breaking a contract is some massive thing. It happens multiple times per day all across the country.

SB3 do see Sun Belt as a more attractive destination. USM and Marshall approached Sun Belt before last football season. SBC has finished ahead of CUSA in CFP performance pool distributions. Is on the ESPN platform across the board and bringing in more TV money than CUSA. Some people think it’s still a decade ago and CUSA isn’t the new WAC.

The three owe damages for what CUSA will lose in revenue. They won’t impact NCAA units or CFP distribution. Unlikely any drop or notable drop in sponsorship income. The only loss would be if the TV partners want to pay less. ESPN isn’t likely asking for a cut because they want this to go nice and smooth. So any lost revenue is from CBSSN and Stadium, the latter being a scrappy underdog searching for an audience may well want a fee cut. CBSSN is part of a major conglomerate they will do whatever their value voodoo doctors say.

If it were pro rate we are talking maybe $400,000 a head but that seem unlikely given that is what Army paid to get out early quite a few years ago. ODU probably is valued below the median for the league and Marshall and USM above the median. Straight pro rata each would owe 7.1% of the value of the contracts for the year, a combined 21.4%. If TV drops 21.4% of say $7 million that’s $500,000 per head. Pretty manageable.

If you are CUSA and the contract is $7 million and TV wants to cut the payment say 40% for losing the three that is just over $933,333 a head. Once the payment amount emerges and it becomes obvious the three represented 40% of CUSA’s TV value, that’s a big PR blow.

So do you take the PR blow that losing the three represents more than losing 3/14ths of your value or do you avoid that with tough talk and trying to make them play? It’s one thing to take a value hit losing teams to AAC, but when the conference hasn’t sold itself as anything more than a step up for Sun Belt losing more than 3/14ths of value to Sun Belt is major egg on your face since programs of value chose Sun Belt over CUSA.

The gossip monger claim La Tech is driving the bus on the fight fight fight strategy. I doubt FIU gives a crap or their president spends much time thinking about athletics and would roll with the majority. MTSU? Who knows they blew up WKU’s plan to go to MAC to get the enhanced 2022-23 and 2023-24 payments and entry payments. They might be inclined to support a nice payout, especially since they paid to get out of SBC early. WKU? Who knows where their head is after pitching to Sun Belt and MAC and getting jilted. Vengeance of forced play might suit them. UTEP who knows with them.

If courts rule that Tax Board v. Hyatt applies, CUSA is going to have to travel to state courts in each school’s county to ask for an order forcing the team to play in CUSA. Could be wild as all get out if one or two courts grant injunction and one or two refus.

Wag Tag · February 21, 2022

On 2/19/2022 at 11:05 PM, Arkstfan said:

Everyone seems to think breaking a contract is some massive thing. It happens multiple times per day all across the country.

SB3 do see Sun Belt as a more attractive destination. USM and Marshall approached Sun Belt before last football season. SBC has finished ahead of CUSA in CFP performance pool distributions. Is on the ESPN platform across the board and bringing in more TV money than CUSA. Some people think it’s still a decade ago and CUSA isn’t the new WAC.

The three owe damages for what CUSA will lose in revenue. They won’t impact NCAA units or CFP distribution. Unlikely any drop or notable drop in sponsorship income. The only loss would be if the TV partners want to pay less. ESPN isn’t likely asking for a cut because they want this to go nice and smooth. So any lost revenue is from CBSSN and Stadium, the latter being a scrappy underdog searching for an audience may well want a fee cut. CBSSN is part of a major conglomerate they will do whatever their value voodoo doctors say.

If it were pro rate we are talking maybe $400,000 a head but that seem unlikely given that is what Army paid to get out early quite a few years ago. ODU probably is valued below the median for the league and Marshall and USM above the median. Straight pro rata each would owe 7.1% of the value of the contracts for the year, a combined 21.4%. If TV drops 21.4% of say $7 million that’s $500,000 per head. Pretty manageable.

If you are CUSA and the contract is $7 million and TV wants to cut the payment say 40% for losing the three that is just over $933,333 a head. Once the payment amount emerges and it becomes obvious the three represented 40% of CUSA’s TV value, that’s a big PR blow.

So do you take the PR blow that losing the three represents more than losing 3/14ths of your value or do you avoid that with tough talk and trying to make them play? It’s one thing to take a value hit losing teams to AAC, but when the conference hasn’t sold itself as anything more than a step up for Sun Belt losing more than 3/14ths of value to Sun Belt is major egg on your face since programs of value chose Sun Belt over CUSA.

The gossip monger claim La Tech is driving the bus on the fight fight fight strategy. I doubt FIU gives a crap or their president spends much time thinking about athletics and would roll with the majority. MTSU? Who knows they blew up WKU’s plan to go to MAC to get the enhanced 2022-23 and 2023-24 payments and entry payments. They might be inclined to support a nice payout, especially since they paid to get out of SBC early. WKU? Who knows where their head is after pitching to Sun Belt and MAC and getting jilted. Vengeance of forced play might suit them. UTEP who knows with them.

If courts rule that Tax Board v. Hyatt applies, CUSA is going to have to travel to state courts in each school’s county to ask for an order forcing the team to play in CUSA. Could be wild as all get out if one or two courts grant injunction and one or two refus.

The first sentence sounds like advice from an attorney. $$$$$$$

MCMLXXX · February 21, 2022

On 2/19/2022 at 11:05 PM, Arkstfan said:

Everyone seems to think breaking a contract is some massive thing. It happens multiple times per day all across the country.

In the old days in Texas, before the Yankees started moving here, a simple handshake was as good as gold.

As I understand it, in Arkansas one always pledged a tooth if they were to break a contract and they were therefore effectively unenforceable.

keith · February 21, 2022

The argument of simply paying a penalty for leaving before the required 14-month/July 1 notice seems to be based on the premise of there is a price for everything and the old joke of now that we've established what you are, it's just a matter of negotiating the fee.

The problem for the 3 that want to leave early as I see it is the only specific remedies or equitable relief documented in the by-laws (at least the what has been made available) are:

"an injunction requiring the member to comply fully with the notice of withdrawal requirements set forth above, to fulfill all of its obligations as a Conference member, and to remain in the Conference until the earliest permissible date upon which the member could have, under the circumstances, withdrawn with full and proper prior notice as required above."

I'm no expert here and I'm sure there is probably enough wiggle room, but this seems fairly black and white to me. These three (or anyone wanting to leave early) should have known this and by becoming a member agreed to it. Heck, USM and Marshall probably had a hand in crafting the language exactly they way it is because they didn't want members leaving with limited notice. They just never imagined that the by-laws they wrote, voted on and accepted as a condition of membership would actually apply to them.

VideoEagle · February 22, 2022

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you! How could anyone related to sports think they can change the terms of a signed contract!

GrandGreen · February 22, 2022

On 2/19/2022 at 11:05 PM, Arkstfan said:

Everyone seems to think breaking a contract is some massive thing. It happens multiple times per day all across the country.

SB3 do see Sun Belt as a more attractive destination. USM and Marshall approached Sun Belt before last football season. SBC has finished ahead of CUSA in CFP performance pool distributions. Is on the ESPN platform across the board and bringing in more TV money than CUSA. Some people think it’s still a decade ago and CUSA isn’t the new WAC.

The three owe damages for what CUSA will lose in revenue. They won’t impact NCAA units or CFP distribution. Unlikely any drop or notable drop in sponsorship income. The only loss would be if the TV partners want to pay less. ESPN isn’t likely asking for a cut because they want this to go nice and smooth. So any lost revenue is from CBSSN and Stadium, the latter being a scrappy underdog searching for an audience may well want a fee cut. CBSSN is part of a major conglomerate they will do whatever their value voodoo doctors say.

If it were pro rate we are talking maybe $400,000 a head but that seem unlikely given that is what Army paid to get out early quite a few years ago. ODU probably is valued below the median for the league and Marshall and USM above the median. Straight pro rata each would owe 7.1% of the value of the contracts for the year, a combined 21.4%. If TV drops 21.4% of say $7 million that’s $500,000 per head. Pretty manageable.

If you are CUSA and the contract is $7 million and TV wants to cut the payment say 40% for losing the three that is just over $933,333 a head. Once the payment amount emerges and it becomes obvious the three represented 40% of CUSA’s TV value, that’s a big PR blow.

So do you take the PR blow that losing the three represents more than losing 3/14ths of your value or do you avoid that with tough talk and trying to make them play? It’s one thing to take a value hit losing teams to AAC, but when the conference hasn’t sold itself as anything more than a step up for Sun Belt losing more than 3/14ths of value to Sun Belt is major egg on your face since programs of value chose Sun Belt over CUSA.

The gossip monger claim La Tech is driving the bus on the fight fight fight strategy. I doubt FIU gives a crap or their president spends much time thinking about athletics and would roll with the majority. MTSU? Who knows they blew up WKU’s plan to go to MAC to get the enhanced 2022-23 and 2023-24 payments and entry payments. They might be inclined to support a nice payout, especially since they paid to get out of SBC early. WKU? Who knows where their head is after pitching to Sun Belt and MAC and getting jilted. Vengeance of forced play might suit them. UTEP who knows with them.

If courts rule that Tax Board v. Hyatt applies, CUSA is going to have to travel to state courts in each school’s county to ask for an order forcing the team to play in CUSA. Could be wild as all get out if one or two courts grant injunction and one or two refus.

Just because something happens, does not make it right. Murders occur multiple times a day.

I am also sure someone who obviously is a fan of a Belt member is completely non-biased.

Nothing wrong with being a fan, but in this situation, the Belt 3 are breaking a contract that despite your view is legally binding. Litigation is not good for the conference or any of the teams.

Again, I do not understand why the Belt 3 would risk damages to move to the Belt a year early. There are only two answers IMV to that, one it is financially attractive or that they want the media exposure.

Your moving to a better conference is an argument for going to the Belt, but believing that their schedule next year is going to improve is shaky at best. The conference includes a lot of sports, not just football.

greenminer · February 22, 2022

Monkeypox · February 23, 2022

Getting ugly.

So it's really the 3 SBC schools vs the 5 schools who are stuck in CUSA.

The SBC doesn't want to touch it at this point, not really wanting to be a party to the lawsuit(s).

The AAC 6 are just counting down the days until they can bolt, aren't really involved in CUSA discussions, and aren't concerned about a media deal they're forfeiting $$$ rights to if they have to stick around longer than anticipated.

Jonnyeagle · February 23, 2022

13 hours ago, texx2818 said:

I understand it’s a better league in football

How’s that? The AAC had a playoff team, Houston is always good and SMU etc have solid programs. Lafayette has been good but that is because of Napier and he’s gone. Quit buying into that narrative. The AAC is a huge step up for us. I thank god every day we were able to get in.

MeanGreenTexan · February 23, 2022

6 hours ago, Jonnyeagle said:

How’s that? The AAC had a playoff team, Houston is always good and SMU etc have solid programs. Lafayette has been good but that is because of Napier and he’s gone. Quit buying into that narrative. The AAC is a huge step up for us. I thank god every day we were able to get in.

Pretty sure he's talking about SBC being better than C-USA. Hence, why they would want to leave C-USA ASAP.

Arkstfan · February 25, 2022

On 2/21/2022 at 9:26 AM, Wag Tag said:

The first sentence sounds like advice from an attorney. $$$$$$$

And I’m not even charging

Arkstfan · February 25, 2022

On 2/21/2022 at 2:37 PM, keith said:

The argument of simply paying a penalty for leaving before the required 14-month/July 1 notice seems to be based on the premise of there is a price for everything and the old joke of now that we've established what you are, it's just a matter of negotiating the fee.

The problem for the 3 that want to leave early as I see it is the only specific remedies or equitable relief documented in the by-laws (at least the what has been made available) are:

"an injunction requiring the member to comply fully with the notice of withdrawal requirements set forth above, to fulfill all of its obligations as a Conference member, and to remain in the Conference until the earliest permissible date upon which the member could have, under the circumstances, withdrawn with full and proper prior notice as required above."

I'm no expert here and I'm sure there is probably enough wiggle room, but this seems fairly black and white to me. These three (or anyone wanting to leave early) should have known this and by becoming a member agreed to it. Heck, USM and Marshall probably had a hand in crafting the language exactly they way it is because they didn't want members leaving with limited notice. They just never imagined that the by-laws they wrote, voted on and accepted as a condition of membership would actually apply to them.

The relevant bylaw as posted on the Tech board contemplates that schools may wish to leave early, it contemplates that damages are to be paid for any harm caused and I’ve covered what potential damages might exist.

It further contemplates the possible remedies being damages and injunctive relief. The Supreme Court having swung hard right, in a decision written by Thomas in Franchise Tax Board v Hyatt that overturned Nevada v Hall held that states cannot be sued in the courts of another state. There is a very strong argument that none of the CUSA members that are public state universities can be sued for injunctive relief any place other than their home state.

That makes injunctive relief problematic from a jurisdictional standpoint problematic.

Beyond that, as a general principle (which varies by state) courts strongly frown on specific performance as a remedy.

If you agree to sell me the Honus Wagner baseball card and breach, I can probably get specific performance because I can’t get another one. A Willie Mays rookie card? Well you owe me the difference between the price you offered to sell it at and the price I had to pay to go buy one from another seller.

So going in knowing the principles of specific performance in the courts the conference couldn’t reasonably expect to get it unless fare more time critical.

Further there is a duty to mitigate.

If I own a contracting company building a bridge for the state and my contract has a performance penalty if I’m late, and we are preparing for a concrete pour of 1000 yards on April 3 and you are my sub to do the pour and call me today and say I can’t do it and yell at you and say I gotta contract I expect you to be here and hang up and on April 3 you don’t show up and I find another sub but they can’t do it until April 10 and charge me more for it being a rush and that delay results in my being two days later handing over the bridge and penalized $10,000 per day.

I sue you. Claiming the higher cost of the pour and the late penalty. The first thing your attorney is going to say is I should have mitigated damages. If I had called concrete subs I probably would have found one willing to do it close to your price instead of the rush price and my failure to mitigate by waiting until you didn’t show is why I got hit with the late penalty and you will argue (likely successfully) that you don’t owe the late penalty and only a reasonable amount for the concrete.

Likewise if I hung up from your call and ran to the courthouse and sued you for specific performance the court is likely going to say, call some subs get quotes and order you to pay the difference and send me on my way.

EDIT

Forgot an actual case. Louisville had a football contract with one of the ACC privates, I think it was Duke, and Duke backed out. Louisville sued for specific performance because they were an AQ (BCS era, Louisville was CUSA) and Duke’s counter was we suck in football and any opponent is a suitable replacement so we owe the cancellation fee and nothing else and the judge agreed.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Arkstfan

97and03 · February 28, 2022

Downvote for being a lawyer.

Tom McKrackin · February 28, 2022

On 2/15/2022 at 11:38 AM, Rudy said:

Yes, those schools signed a contract, however the conference also has a responsibility to do it's best to be productive and prosperous for the member institutions. Judy has a responsibility to lead this conference and make it better. Those two have failed miserably, and it was evident long before the realignment began.

I agree that the schools who are bolting have no interest in hanging around in a lame duck for the next 3 years. I am assuming that their respective legal counsels determined they have just cause.

keith · February 28, 2022

37 minutes ago, Tom McKrackin said:

I agree that the schools who are bolting have no interest in hanging around in a lame duck for the next 3 years. I am assuming that their respective legal counsels determined they have just cause.

It would not be 3 more years. It would be 1 more year (technically, July 1, 2023) in a conference with the exact same makeup they have played in since 2014 and then they move on to their new home. I think the fact that the conference itself is not changing during the 2022/2023 academic and athletic year makes it hard for them to claim immediate an irreparable harm if they don't leave in July.

97and03 · March 2, 2022

I just have one request: can we please spell “defectors” properly in the thread title? It’s been driving me crazy.

Arkstfan · March 3, 2022

On 2/28/2022 at 12:29 PM, keith said:

It would not be 3 more years. It would be 1 more year (technically, July 1, 2023) in a conference with the exact same makeup they have played in since 2014 and then they move on to their new home. I think the fact that the conference itself is not changing during the 2022/2023 academic and athletic year makes it hard for them to claim immediate an irreparable harm if they don't leave in July.

The “harm” for the SB3 is if they stay they don’t get the CUSA payment for 2022-2023 while playing in Sun Belt they get a distribution that equals or exceeds what they would get had they not defected and certainty exceeds what they would get having given notice and that amount will certainly cover any damages they owe CUSA and leave them with more revenue than if they had stayed.

That’s what I’d be explaining to the court.