Sun Belt schedule includes Marshall, ODU, USM

[Arkstfan]

12 hours ago, keith said:

If the conference by-laws are immaterial here then what if the conference parted ways with the three today and cancelled all remaining conference winter/spring sports schedules/championships with the three universities immediately? 

The conference bylaws are not immaterial. They contemplate teams leaving early and payment of damages for any loss caused. The three have asked CUSA to estimate those damages so they can pay and go. It’s CUSA ignoring the bylaws not the SB3

[Arkstfan]

9 hours ago, keith said:

I'm sure there is a lot none of us know about in terms what's going on behind closed doors or in private conversations.  The problem I see with respect to just getting them to pay penalties is that is not included as a remedy in the conference bylaws.  The "remedy" documented is that any member wishing to depart the conference may only do so on July 1 of a given year provided that they first provide notice 14 months in advance of July 1.  Basically, there is no remedy.  You must abide by the rules set forth.  I think someone here said "performance" (i.e. doing what you agreed to do) cannot be enforced as part of a contract dispute.  I don't know if that's what this really is.  The whole conference and conference membership agreement seems to be a little murky on the legal front.  

Regardless, it seems that if the Conference leadership entered into a settlement negotiation, then it would be violating its own bylaws since there is no provision for that as a remedy.  These are same bylaws all the member institutions are holding the Conference accountable for (as well as fellow members), so I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as everyone thinks it is.  

This is wrong. The text provided on the LaTech board says schools leaving before 14 month notice must pay damages caused by leaving and the league may seek remedy for the damages up to and including injunction. 
 

You and ask for injunctions but courts aren’t obligated to give them to you and the Supreme Court since those bylaws were drafted has said you can’t make a state a defendant in another state’s court and the 11th Amendment says you can’t make them a defendant in Federal Court. 
 

SB3 have made it clear they are willing to pay said damages if they exist. CUSA has refused to comply with its bylaws to assess damages (I suspect because they know said damages are nominal). 
 

Injunctive relief might have been viable if the schools had said today hey we want to shift early but they said that in December and anyone with reading comprehension knew it was possible if not likely back in October. 
 

CUSA is the one not following the bylaws. The bylaws DO NOT say thou must stay 14 months. They say if you leave and give 14 month notice you merely forego league revenue for that time. If you leave sooner you forego revenue AND owe for damages caused. 

[Arkstfan]

8 hours ago, Mean Green Matt said:

I’m sure there are provisions for making exceptions to the by-laws via agreement by the members. 

No agreement required. Leave early it’s forego revenue and reimburse league for losses caused by early departure. 

[NT80]

12 hours ago, Green Otaku said:

 ....You do realize CUSA has an entire legal team that is deciding the direction they go. 

[Mean Green Matt]

6 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

No agreement required. Leave early it’s forego revenue and reimburse league for losses caused by early departure. 

I was just talking generally about any situation. It’s not like the by-laws are signed in blood. They can always be change if the members want them changed. 

[PlummMeanGreen]

16 hours ago, ADLER said:

I still think it's sad that Southern Miss is having to go down to the Sunland. I know they're financially strapped, but USM was a great program just a couple decades back. So sad.

The other two I couldn't care less about.

You are right, ADLER.

If Southern Miss had had our geographical location, ie, population they’d be in the Southwest Conference today well ahead of Cincinnati & UCF who are about as much a geographical fit for that league as a big toe would be in place of your pinkie finger.  
They are the G5 program that took the biggest hit with all this NCAA shuffling which has taken place.
 Couple decades back seems USM were averaging around 35,000 per home game? 

I feel sorry for USM today.
Life is not fair, but most of us remember what our Mama’s said about that.  

https://youtu.be/l-dX3yFkLVE

 

🦅

Edited March 2, 2022 by PlummMeanGreen

[keith]

8 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

The conference bylaws are not immaterial. They contemplate teams leaving early and payment of damages for any loss caused. The three have asked CUSA to estimate those damages so they can pay and go. It’s CUSA ignoring the bylaws not the SB3

Before anyone gets weirded out by the back-and-forth between me and Arkstfan, the two of us go back a long way (30 years?).  We've actually met and had several conversations in person back in the day when he attended a game or two at Fouts Field (although he may not remember).  Anyway, I have great respect for Arkstfan and for his knowledge and insight into the inner workings of college athletics.  This is all about improving our shared understand of what's going on and what the potential outcomes might be.  I think the bylaws are poorly written and probably add to the confusion around the current disagreement, but unfortunately these are the only words that have been made available to us.

 

Perhaps it's the legalize language that's throwing me, but below is the relevant excerpt from the LaTech board - Section 3.06 Withdrawal From Conference.  

The first few sentences lay out the condition for withdrawal (i.e. written notice, 14 months in advance, leave on July 1, 3/4 vote of members could substitute for written notice, etc.).

The first highlighted part says what happens if a member attempts to leave without fully complying with the requirements.  This is where the it says the Conference is entitled to "equitable relief."  It does not fully define equitable relief.  The only thing it mentions in any detail is that it includes an injunction requiring the member to fully comply with the requirements of withdrawal which basically means fulfilling its membership options until withdrawal can be accomplished within the confines of the requirements (14-month notice, July 1st).

It's my understanding that in legal parlance, "equitable relief" usually means non-monetary remedies.   Equitable relief means an injunction or a temporary restraining order or specific performance under the contract.  Not always the case, but where I see "equitable relief," I think non-monetary. 

What I read the final section to say is that there is no monetary judgment (in arbitration or otherwise) that would compensate the conference for the problems created by the breaching member.  In other words, there is no option to pay for monetary damages.  This is probably why they balked so fiercely at the request for arbitration.  It specifically says that there is no adequate remedy where the conference could be compensated by a monetary penalty and therefore the only option is equitable relief - a non-monetary remedy.

Where specifically are you finding reference to an option that would allow for the payment of monetary damages to the conference for violating the conference bylaws? 

-----

3.06 Withdrawal From Conference. 
No member of the Conference may withdraw from the Conference except pursuant to and as allowed by this Section 3.06. No member may withdraw from the Conference without providing the Conference prior written notice. Any and all withdrawals from the Conference shall be effective on July 1 of the year specified in the notice of withdrawal; provided, however, that the withdrawing member must afford the Conference notice at least fourteen months prior to the effective date of the withdrawal (i.e. no later than May 1 of the prior year). However, if a Member makes statements or takes actions that evidence intent of such Member to withdraw from the Conference either currently or in the future, such actions will be determined as notice of withdrawal by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of the remaining Members of the Board of Directors.

In the event that a member attempts to leave the Conference without fully complying with the notice of withdrawal requirements set forth above, the Conference shall be entitled to equitable relief without having to prove actual injury, irreparable or otherwise, including, but not limited to, 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. 

The members agree that any attempted withdrawal of a member without full compliance with the prior notice requirements set forth above would cause a disruption in the scheduling of competitions among the members for which there is no adequate remedy at law which would cause harm that would not in any respect be compensated by payment of a withdrawal fee, and for which, therefore, equitable relief is appropriate.

[Rudy]

On 3/1/2022 at 9:22 AM, untbowler said:

shots fired by Sun Belt and Judge Judy still only has a BB Gun. Nerf Gun

FIFY.

[Arkstfan]

5 hours ago, keith said:

Before anyone gets weirded out by the back-and-forth between me and Arkstfan, the two of us go back a long way (30 years?).  We've actually met and had several conversations in person back in the day when he attended a game or two at Fouts Field (although he may not remember).  Anyway, I have great respect for Arkstfan and for his knowledge and insight into the inner workings of college athletics.  This is all about improving our shared understand of what's going on and what the potential outcomes might be.  I think the bylaws are poorly written and probably add to the confusion around the current disagreement, but unfortunately these are the only words that have been made available to us.

 

Perhaps it's the legalize language that's throwing me, but below is the relevant excerpt from the LaTech board - Section 3.06 Withdrawal From Conference.  

The first few sentences lay out the condition for withdrawal (i.e. written notice, 14 months in advance, leave on July 1, 3/4 vote of members could substitute for written notice, etc.).

The first highlighted part says what happens if a member attempts to leave without fully complying with the requirements.  This is where the it says the Conference is entitled to "equitable relief."  It does not fully define equitable relief.  The only thing it mentions in any detail is that it includes an injunction requiring the member to fully comply with the requirements of withdrawal which basically means fulfilling its membership options until withdrawal can be accomplished within the confines of the requirements (14-month notice, July 1st).

It's my understanding that in legal parlance, "equitable relief" usually means non-monetary remedies.   Equitable relief means an injunction or a temporary restraining order or specific performance under the contract.  Not always the case, but where I see "equitable relief," I think non-monetary. 

What I read the final section to say is that there is no monetary judgment (in arbitration or otherwise) that would compensate the conference for the problems created by the breaching member.  In other words, there is no option to pay for monetary damages.  This is probably why they balked so fiercely at the request for arbitration.  It specifically says that there is no adequate remedy where the conference could be compensated by a monetary penalty and therefore the only option is equitable relief - a non-monetary remedy.

Where specifically are you finding reference to an option that would allow for the payment of monetary damages to the conference for violating the conference bylaws? 

-----

3.06 Withdrawal From Conference. 
No member of the Conference may withdraw from the Conference except pursuant to and as allowed by this Section 3.06. No member may withdraw from the Conference without providing the Conference prior written notice. Any and all withdrawals from the Conference shall be effective on July 1 of the year specified in the notice of withdrawal; provided, however, that the withdrawing member must afford the Conference notice at least fourteen months prior to the effective date of the withdrawal (i.e. no later than May 1 of the prior year). However, if a Member makes statements or takes actions that evidence intent of such Member to withdraw from the Conference either currently or in the future, such actions will be determined as notice of withdrawal by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of the remaining Members of the Board of Directors.

In the event that a member attempts to leave the Conference without fully complying with the notice of withdrawal requirements set forth above, the Conference shall be entitled to equitable relief without having to prove actual injury, irreparable or otherwise, including, but not limited to, 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. 

The members agree that any attempted withdrawal of a member without full compliance with the prior notice requirements set forth above would cause a disruption in the scheduling of competitions among the members for which there is no adequate remedy at law which would cause harm that would not in any respect be compensated by payment of a withdrawal fee, and for which, therefore, equitable relief is appropriate.

Some agreements aren’t enforceable, no matter what you write down. 
 

For example many non-compete agreements are voided as against public policy because they are too broad or too onerous. 
 

If I lost our bet on the Stanley Cup you can’t get garnish me or get a lien because it’s not a legal wager, a casino with sports book could enforce it. 
 

In most jurisdictions specific performance is difficult to get because courts don’t like the idea of an unwilling party being forced to take actions, they’d rather reduce that to monetary damages. A court isn’t equipped to adjudicate the quality of specific performance so it’s held in disfavor. 
 

You can’t get the relief unless a judge says you get it. 
 

The Supreme Court has muddied the water even more with the conference having to go to each state to seek specific performance. 
 

Based on case law in Arkansas, if you filed for injunctive relief to force Arkansas State to stay in the Sun Belt you probably wouldn’t get it. The Arkansas Supreme Court is aggressive about separation of powers. We have a constitutional amendment from like the 30’s that basically says once the state establishes an agency governed by a board the only control is the power of the purse, appoint new people when vacancies occur or sue them if they violate a state or federal constitutional provision or law. 
 

Arkansas courts would hold where to field athletic teams is a decision of the Arkansas State University System Board of Trustees and unless the decision violates the state or federal constitution or laws, it is exclusively their decision and cannot be reviewed by anyone else. 
 

If the SB3 have similar separation of powers doctrines an injunction forcing specific performance would not just be against public policy but unconstitutional under state law. 

[Arkstfan]

8 hours ago, keith said:

Before anyone gets weirded out by the back-and-forth between me and Arkstfan, the two of us go back a long way (30 years?).  We've actually met and had several conversations in person back in the day when he attended a game or two at Fouts Field (although he may not remember).  Anyway, I have great respect for Arkstfan and for his knowledge and insight into the inner workings of college athletics.  This is all about improving our shared understand of what's going on and what the potential outcomes might be.  I think the bylaws are poorly written and probably add to the confusion around the current disagreement, but unfortunately these are the only words that have been made available to us.

Meant to add I remember meeting for a game when I was in Dallas for Sun Belt basketball officials conference. I was doing a presentation on tax issues for them as independent contractors and since I was in town caught up with Harry to go to the game. But I’d not be able to pick ya out of a line up but then again I’m horrid at matching names and faces. Once ran into a woman at a store talked to her for a bit and soon as she left asked me wife who the hell was that. Girl I had gone to high school with at a school of 350 students K12. 
 

Yall were playing the Cajuns and it was one awful football game. Remember Cajuns scored on one play where QB heaved it as hard as he could. WR had blasted past UNT secondary, he saw the ball was short. Came back and still had five yards on the nearest defender.  Cajun defense wasn’t any better. 
 

If Preds, Cubs, Broncos or Sporting KC are in the area some time when y’all are home and I don’t have a home football game I’m going to check out the new stadium.