(08-11-2020 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Kevin Warren didn't answer the question about Big Ten programs going rogue when he was interviewed live right after the decision, but he answers it here:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-play-fall

Quote:Asked Tuesday about Nebraska's statement, commissioner Kevin Warren told ESPN's Heather Dinich, "We have 14 schools in the Big Ten conference. I appreciate the passion of all of our schools. I didn't expect all of our coaches to be ecstatic that the decision was made, so I understand they're passionate. ... My expectation is that when you're in a conference, you can't be in a conference and be an independent. That's where we are. I expect for our 14 members to go forward together."

Boom. Your move, Huskers.

I'm not sure that 10 schools voting not to fulfill a contract has a legal leg to stand on in trying to make the 4 who choose to play pay them an exit fee. And I don't think any court would rule that the 4 wanting to play were contractually bound to not perform, or that by playing they owed damages to those who didn't.

There is a lot here that Warren may not want to bite on.

Hypothetically speaking if Ohio State wanted to play and could contractually relieve themselves from the Big 10 would the SEC consider them? Sankey said it would be very difficult, a very astute legal answer to avoid liability, but for the revenue that would generate, I would have to think that behind the scenes the SEC would be all ears.

Quote:Boom. Your move, Huskers.

From NU's point-of-view, it must to good to have a good option.

You sowed your wild oats; now its time to come home, Cornhuskers. Family matters more.

(08-11-2020 06:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Kevin Warren didn't answer the question about Big Ten programs going rogue when he was interviewed live right after the decision, but he answers it here:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-play-fall

Quote:Asked Tuesday about Nebraska's statement, commissioner Kevin Warren told ESPN's Heather Dinich, "We have 14 schools in the Big Ten conference. I appreciate the passion of all of our schools. I didn't expect all of our coaches to be ecstatic that the decision was made, so I understand they're passionate. ... My expectation is that when you're in a conference, you can't be in a conference and be an independent. That's where we are. I expect for our 14 members to go forward together."

Boom. Your move, Huskers.

I'm not sure that 10 schools voting not to fulfill a contract has a legal leg to stand on in trying to make the 4 who choose to play pay them an exit fee. And I don't think any court would rule that the 4 wanting to play was contractually bound to not perform.

There is a lot here that Warren may not want to bite on.

Warren can only do what the Big Ten presidents want to do.

He's not talking about an exit fee, probably doesn't even care about any fee. He's talking about whether a school can choose to play a schedule outside the conference, and saying there would be consequences (without saying what they are) for going outside the conference.

It's like telling an employee, "Our company's expectation is that while you're in our company, you will only work for our company." What's going to happen when that employee takes another job on the side? Is the employee going to take a chance and then find out?

(08-11-2020 06:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Kevin Warren didn't answer the question about Big Ten programs going rogue when he was interviewed live right after the decision, but he answers it here:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-play-fall

Quote:Asked Tuesday about Nebraska's statement, commissioner Kevin Warren told ESPN's Heather Dinich, "We have 14 schools in the Big Ten conference. I appreciate the passion of all of our schools. I didn't expect all of our coaches to be ecstatic that the decision was made, so I understand they're passionate. ... My expectation is that when you're in a conference, you can't be in a conference and be an independent. That's where we are. I expect for our 14 members to go forward together."

Boom. Your move, Huskers.

I'm not sure that 10 schools voting not to fulfill a contract has a legal leg to stand on in trying to make the 4 who choose to play pay them an exit fee. And I don't think any court would rule that the 4 wanting to play was contractually bound to not perform.

There is a lot here that Warren may not want to bite on.

Warren can only do what the Big Ten presidents want to do.

He's not talking about an exit fee, probably doesn't even care about any fee. He's talking about whether a school can choose to play a schedule outside the conference, and saying there would be consequences (without saying what they are) for going outside the conference.

[b]It's like telling an employee, "Our company's expectation is that while you're in our company, you will only work for our company." What's going to happen when that employee takes another job on the side? Is the employee going to take a chance and then find out?[/b]

No it's not. It's like saying that while the company is closed and you are laid off you have no right to gainful employment elsewhere and that when the Big 10 reopens you are not welcome to your old job if you support yourself while we are closed.

Make your analogies at least appropriate!

(08-11-2020 06:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Kevin Warren didn't answer the question about Big Ten programs going rogue when he was interviewed live right after the decision, but he answers it here:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-play-fall

Quote:Asked Tuesday about Nebraska's statement, commissioner Kevin Warren told ESPN's Heather Dinich, "We have 14 schools in the Big Ten conference. I appreciate the passion of all of our schools. I didn't expect all of our coaches to be ecstatic that the decision was made, so I understand they're passionate. ... My expectation is that when you're in a conference, you can't be in a conference and be an independent. That's where we are. I expect for our 14 members to go forward together."

Boom. Your move, Huskers.

I'm not sure that 10 schools voting not to fulfill a contract has a legal leg to stand on in trying to make the 4 who choose to play pay them an exit fee. And I don't think any court would rule that the 4 wanting to play was contractually bound to not perform.

There is a lot here that Warren may not want to bite on.

Warren can only do what the Big Ten presidents want to do.

He's not talking about an exit fee, probably doesn't even care about any fee. He's talking about whether a school can choose to play a schedule outside the conference, and saying there would be consequences (without saying what they are) for going outside the conference.

[b]It's like telling an employee, "Our company's expectation is that while you're in our company, you will only work for our company." What's going to happen when that employee takes another job on the side? Is the employee going to take a chance and then find out?[/b]

No it's not. It's like saying that while the company is closed and you are laid off you have no right to gainful employment elsewhere and that when the Big 10 reopens you are not welcome to your old job if you support yourself while we are closed.

Make your analogies at least appropriate!

What you just said is Nebraska's argument. Will the Big Ten presidents agree? If Nebraska plays this fall, we'll find out.

Kirk Herbstreit was on SportsCenter and he said he can't imagine the Big Ten permitting one of its members to play in another conference this fall.

Kevin Warren has lost any respect I had for him. He is the face of the Presidents and their respective schools. His avoidance of topics during conversations has been a huge sign of weakness.

The BIG is now divided and both Kevin Warren and Gene Smith can kiss my a$$!

Schools like Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, Penn State, Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin are the ones I'm passionate about. I could care less what the name of that umbrella is that covers them all. I would want to remain in a conference with those I listed so if any leave, please bring the Buckeyes along for the ride, lol.

Also, I'm not saying canceling/delaying a season is right or wrong. I'm saying that I'm completely pissed as to how it was managed! Leadership is lacking from everything I've come across so far.

I'm curious to what the conversation is among the Board of Trustees at tOSU. If I dig anything up I'll post in the BIG forum.

As for Gene Smith, you are nothing more than a puppet these days.

End of rant!

(08-11-2020 07:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Kevin Warren didn't answer the question about Big Ten programs going rogue when he was interviewed live right after the decision, but he answers it here:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-play-fall

Boom. Your move, Huskers.

I'm not sure that 10 schools voting not to fulfill a contract has a legal leg to stand on in trying to make the 4 who choose to play pay them an exit fee. And I don't think any court would rule that the 4 wanting to play was contractually bound to not perform.

There is a lot here that Warren may not want to bite on.

Warren can only do what the Big Ten presidents want to do.

He's not talking about an exit fee, probably doesn't even care about any fee. He's talking about whether a school can choose to play a schedule outside the conference, and saying there would be consequences (without saying what they are) for going outside the conference.

[b]It's like telling an employee, "Our company's expectation is that while you're in our company, you will only work for our company." What's going to happen when that employee takes another job on the side? Is the employee going to take a chance and then find out?[/b]

No it's not. It's like saying that while the company is closed and you are laid off you have no right to gainful employment elsewhere and that when the Big 10 reopens you are not welcome to your old job if you support yourself while we are closed.

Make your analogies at least appropriate!

What you just said is Nebraska's argument. Will the Big Ten presidents agree? If Nebraska plays this fall, we'll find out.

Kirk Herbstreit was on SportsCenter and he said he can't imagine the Big Ten permitting one of its members to play in another conference this fall.

What is really being tested here, besides GOR's which were the provenance of the entertainment industry, until football realignment found a new use for them, is whether an Athletic Conference can mandate what a member institution can do when the conference prohibits that sport from being played. The test here is not of the will of Nebraska, but the authority of the Big 10 and by example the authority of any conference to prohibit a legal action when they choose not to participate.

This argument is going to spread into many other areas. Should the ACC prohibit Notre Dame from playing hockey in the Big 10 because ACC schools choose not to offer hockey? Permission and prohibition are two vastly different powers to wield and in most contracts that which is not constrained is permitted. So the Big 10 is going to say they have constrained, but they have constrained activity in which they will not be participating which can be argued to become the right of those who wish to participate. Now the Big 10 can prohibit Nebraska from participating in the Big 12 if the Big 10 is playing. But if it isn't and play is not prohibited by the State of Nebraska then I'm not sure the Big 10 has a defensible position. Does Nebraska's play damage the Big 10? No.

(08-11-2020 06:24 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:22 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  From the Big XII: (Un)Official Invite to NU and one other!

Let's talk! :-)

And let's consider doing round-robin forever, not just this year, to eliminate an old issue.

CU -- don't wait too long to call as well; you snooze, you lose (to Iowa, Utah, Penn State, or ???).

Neb and Col back to the Big 12 would return life back to normal. Miz and A&M are where they belong.

SEC is 3rd in cultural fit for Mizzou. Columbia, MO is a different world than Fayetteville, AR.

(08-11-2020 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm not sure that 10 schools voting not to fulfill a contract has a legal leg to stand on in trying to make the 4 who choose to play pay them an exit fee. And I don't think any court would rule that the 4 wanting to play was contractually bound to not perform.

There is a lot here that Warren may not want to bite on.

Warren can only do what the Big Ten presidents want to do.

He's not talking about an exit fee, probably doesn't even care about any fee. He's talking about whether a school can choose to play a schedule outside the conference, and saying there would be consequences (without saying what they are) for going outside the conference.

[b]It's like telling an employee, "Our company's expectation is that while you're in our company, you will only work for our company." What's going to happen when that employee takes another job on the side? Is the employee going to take a chance and then find out?[/b]

No it's not. It's like saying that while the company is closed and you are laid off you have no right to gainful employment elsewhere and that when the Big 10 reopens you are not welcome to your old job if you support yourself while we are closed.

Make your analogies at least appropriate!

What you just said is Nebraska's argument. Will the Big Ten presidents agree? If Nebraska plays this fall, we'll find out.

Kirk Herbstreit was on SportsCenter and he said he can't imagine the Big Ten permitting one of its members to play in another conference this fall.

What is really being tested here, besides GOR's which were the provenance of the entertainment industry, until football realignment found a new use for them, is whether an Athletic Conference can mandate what a member institution can do when the conference prohibits that sport from being played. The test here is not of the will of Nebraska, but the authority of the Big 10 and by example the authority of any conference to prohibit a legal action when they choose not to participate.

This argument is going to spread into many other areas. Should the ACC prohibit Notre Dame from playing hockey in the Big 10 because ACC schools choose not to offer hockey? Permission and prohibition are to vastly different powers to wield and in most contracts that which is not constrained is permitted. So the Big 10 is going to say they have constrained, but they have constrained activity in which they will not be participating which can be argued to become the right of those who wish to participate. Now the Big 10 can prohibit Nebraska from participating in the Big 12 if the Big 10 is playing. But if it isn't and play is not prohibited by the State of Nebraska then I'm not sure the Big 10 has a defensible position. Does Nebraska's play damage the Big 10? No.

As a general rule of contract law, an aggrieved party (the Big Ten) cannot restrain the activity of the aggrieving party (Nebraska) if the dispute can reasonably be resolved through the payment of monetary damages. For instance, this principle was the basis for West Virginia being released early from the Big East when it sought to restrain them from moving the the Big 12.

It is hard to imagine how the Big Ten would be damaged since it has decided not to play. They may claim some sort of intangible damage, like damage to their brand or something. Hard to imagine that would have much legs either, but if it could be demonstrated, it could be addressed through monetary damages.

Nebraska with the B1G is in the same position as Air Force with the MWC. When the conference shut down, it meant conference sanctioned activities shut down. Individual members are free to do as they please while it's shut down.

A real non issue, nothing to enforce.

But I don't think it matters. The reason the SEC can continue is the union organizing has not yet surfaced in the SEC. (the key word is "yet"). This, as well as political pressure, is why the SEC continues for now. If Union organizing shows up, they covid-19 crisis may suddenly become too severe to play football.

(08-11-2020 07:26 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Warren can only do what the Big Ten presidents want to do.

He's not talking about an exit fee, probably doesn't even care about any fee. He's talking about whether a school can choose to play a schedule outside the conference, and saying there would be consequences (without saying what they are) for going outside the conference.

[b]It's like telling an employee, "Our company's expectation is that while you're in our company, you will only work for our company." What's going to happen when that employee takes another job on the side? Is the employee going to take a chance and then find out?[/b]

No it's not. It's like saying that while the company is closed and you are laid off you have no right to gainful employment elsewhere and that when the Big 10 reopens you are not welcome to your old job if you support yourself while we are closed.

Make your analogies at least appropriate!

What you just said is Nebraska's argument. Will the Big Ten presidents agree? If Nebraska plays this fall, we'll find out.

Kirk Herbstreit was on SportsCenter and he said he can't imagine the Big Ten permitting one of its members to play in another conference this fall.

What is really being tested here, besides GOR's which were the provenance of the entertainment industry, until football realignment found a new use for them, is whether an Athletic Conference can mandate what a member institution can do when the conference prohibits that sport from being played. The test here is not of the will of Nebraska, but the authority of the Big 10 and by example the authority of any conference to prohibit a legal action when they choose not to participate.

This argument is going to spread into many other areas. Should the ACC prohibit Notre Dame from playing hockey in the Big 10 because ACC schools choose not to offer hockey? Permission and prohibition are to vastly different powers to wield and in most contracts that which is not constrained is permitted. So the Big 10 is going to say they have constrained, but they have constrained activity in which they will not be participating which can be argued to become the right of those who wish to participate. Now the Big 10 can prohibit Nebraska from participating in the Big 12 if the Big 10 is playing. But if it isn't and play is not prohibited by the State of Nebraska then I'm not sure the Big 10 has a defensible position. Does Nebraska's play damage the Big 10? No.

As a general rule of contract law, an aggrieved party (the Big Ten) cannot restrain the activity of the aggrieving party (Nebraska) if the dispute can reasonably be resolved through the payment of monetary damages. For instance, this principle was the basis for West Virginia being released early from the Big East when it sought to restrain them from moving the the Big 12.

It is hard to imagine how the Big Ten would be damaged since it has decided not to play. They may claim some sort of intangible damage, like damage to their brand or something. Hard to imagine that would have much legs either, but if it could be demonstrated, it could be addressed through monetary damages.

All Warren has done is to invite Nebraska to open Pandora's Box, and to do so under the only circumstance that could have arisen to highlight this vulnerability. It's a highly irresponsible move in my opinion. The Big 10 retains its unity by granting permission, not by withholding it. E.G. Of course N.D. may play hockey in a hockey league inasmuch as it doesn't impact their relationship with the ACC.

I can guarantee you this, any chance they had at landing an Oklahoma or Texas just left the building for good!

What about the TV contracts with Fox and ESPN? Is it not breach of contract? How do the distributors get compensated for this? It’s not like business is thriving at the moment.

Nebraska wouldn't be leaving the Big10, no.

However, would the Big12 ALLOW them in for a short season to play, after Nebraska left them? DOUBT IT.

The only way I could see B12 bringing Nebraska in for a short season would be them (and Ohio State?) coming in to convince Texas to keep the wheels churning.

Of course, would the B12 want Ohio State to come in and win their conference? DOUBT IT.

(08-11-2020 07:37 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  Nebraska wouldn't be leaving the Big10, no.

However, would the Big12 ALLOW them in for a short season to play, after Nebraska left them? DOUBT IT.

The only way I could see B12 bringing Nebraska in for a short season would be them (and Ohio State?) coming in to convince Texas to keep the wheels churning.

Of course, would the B12 want Ohio State to come in and win their conference? DOUBT IT.

9 games ain’t enough. So who on the sideline can round out the schedule? SEC is intra only... Nebraska? Fits the bill. Iowa? You think Ferentz wants to sit out at his age and the drama going on there? OSU won’t go but the others mentioned will.

(08-11-2020 07:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:24 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:22 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  From the Big XII: (Un)Official Invite to NU and one other!

Let's talk! :-)

And let's consider doing round-robin forever, not just this year, to eliminate an old issue.

CU -- don't wait too long to call as well; you snooze, you lose (to Iowa, Utah, Penn State, or ???).

Neb and Col back to the Big 12 would return life back to normal. Miz and A&M are where they belong.

SEC is 3rd in cultural fit for Mizzou. Columbia, MO is a different world than Fayetteville, AR.

I didn’t mean culturally. I meant they reap what they sowed:)

(08-11-2020 07:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Nebraska with the B1G is in the same position as Air Force with the MWC. When the conference shut down, it meant conference sanctioned activities shut down. Individual members are free to do as they please while it's shut down.

It's different because the Big Ten said it's different, and because what Nebraska said is different. And that's why Nebraska vs. the Big Ten is the most interesting thing that happened today.

The Air Force AD said only that he hopes AFA could still play Army and Navy. He didn't say that AFA disagreed with the MW decision. The AFA commandant didn't disagree with the MW. No one at AFA has said, "We're going to play a full season any way we can as long as it can be done." The MW didn't say,"We expect every MW member to not play football this fall."

(08-11-2020 07:36 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  What about the TV contracts with Fox and ESPN? Is it not breach of contract? How do the distributors get compensated for this? It’s not like business is thriving at the moment.

The Big Ten's TV partners can probably claim the rights to Nebraska's home games, as Notre Dame's is. They are primarily the same partners that the Big 12 have, Fox and ESPN. It's not clear whether BTN could grab one or two games. They would have to pay Nebraska, of course.

(08-11-2020 07:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:26 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No it's not. It's like saying that while the company is closed and you are laid off you have no right to gainful employment elsewhere and that when the Big 10 reopens you are not welcome to your old job if you support yourself while we are closed.

Make your analogies at least appropriate!

What you just said is Nebraska's argument. Will the Big Ten presidents agree? If Nebraska plays this fall, we'll find out.

Kirk Herbstreit was on SportsCenter and he said he can't imagine the Big Ten permitting one of its members to play in another conference this fall.

What is really being tested here, besides GOR's which were the provenance of the entertainment industry, until football realignment found a new use for them, is whether an Athletic Conference can mandate what a member institution can do when the conference prohibits that sport from being played. The test here is not of the will of Nebraska, but the authority of the Big 10 and by example the authority of any conference to prohibit a legal action when they choose not to participate.

This argument is going to spread into many other areas. Should the ACC prohibit Notre Dame from playing hockey in the Big 10 because ACC schools choose not to offer hockey? Permission and prohibition are to vastly different powers to wield and in most contracts that which is not constrained is permitted. So the Big 10 is going to say they have constrained, but they have constrained activity in which they will not be participating which can be argued to become the right of those who wish to participate. Now the Big 10 can prohibit Nebraska from participating in the Big 12 if the Big 10 is playing. But if it isn't and play is not prohibited by the State of Nebraska then I'm not sure the Big 10 has a defensible position. Does Nebraska's play damage the Big 10? No.

As a general rule of contract law, an aggrieved party (the Big Ten) cannot restrain the activity of the aggrieving party (Nebraska) if the dispute can reasonably be resolved through the payment of monetary damages. For instance, this principle was the basis for West Virginia being released early from the Big East when it sought to restrain them from moving the the Big 12.

It is hard to imagine how the Big Ten would be damaged since it has decided not to play. They may claim some sort of intangible damage, like damage to their brand or something. Hard to imagine that would have much legs either, but if it could be demonstrated, it could be addressed through monetary damages.

All Warren has done is to invite Nebraska to open Pandora's Box, and to do so under the only circumstance that could have arisen to highlight this vulnerability. It's a highly irresponsible move in my opinion. The Big 10 retains its unity by granting permission, not by withholding it. E.G. Of course N.D. may play hockey in a hockey league inasmuch as it doesn't impact their relationship with the ACC.

I can guarantee you this, any chance they had at landing an Oklahoma or Texas just left the building for good!

From a cultural standpoint, Yinzers and Central Pa folks are very similar to Southerners. The south ends of Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio have been southernizing over the last 60 years.

Indiana, Ohio State, and Penn State could all fit in the ACC.

IMHO if a conference votes not to sponsor football this fall, anyone who wants to should be free to either play as an independent or affiliate with another conference.

If Nebraska and Iowa want to play they should be free to do so.

Frankly I’m disappointed that Ohio St voted to cancel. I never did have much respect for the clowns running the place though.

(08-11-2020 06:29 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:24 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:22 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  From the Big XII: (Un)Official Invite to NU and one other!

Let's talk! :-)

And let's consider doing round-robin forever, not just this year, to eliminate an old issue.

CU -- don't wait too long to call as well; you snooze, you lose (to Iowa, Utah, Penn State, or ???).

Neb and Col back to the Big 12 would return life back to normal. Miz and A&M are where they belong.

Colorado doesn’t fit the culture of the big 12 anymore

They never really did to begin with. Even in the Big 8 days Colorado was known for having a bunch of Californian hippies on campus. That was part of the fun of the Nebraska-Colorado rivalry, to be honest.

Missouri doesn't fit in the SEC. Big 10 or Big 12, yes, but not SEC. The only part of the state that feels southern is the sliver down by the Ozarks. They'd never leave the SEC behind, even if they're stuck jobbing out to Georgia and Florida for the rest of their time in the conference.