Just release the schedule


…..

(02-15-2022 08:14 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:06 PM)Johns1124 Wrote:  Ok...Let's face it..

In order to get out of this early:

One Rep. of the SB3 is going to have to "slump bust" Judy.

Now, who is volunteering?

That sounds like a job for a sailor. ODU....

(02-15-2022 09:52 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  This is.... not going to end well.

This is getting uglier than I really thought it would..

...you mean this thread? ...or the SBC/CUSA saga?

...I believe you are right on both counts...

(02-15-2022 11:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 07:24 PM)VNova Wrote:  Just because someone breaches a contract or by-law, doesn't automatically put them in the wrong. Just because its in a constitution / contract / by-law doesn't automatically mean it's correct or enforceable. All it does is set up the legal battle.

So CUSA will take the SBC3 to court in hopes of specific performance, based on the belief that there is no adequate remedy (as stated in the by-laws). Someone mentioned before specific performance has been successfully ordered against another public school in a D1 conference, but I couldn't find that case. Will a judge believe specific performance is the only remedy? With every realignment in the past 15 years seeing early departure fees/other damages being paid out vice specific performance, I don't think so. If CUSA wins this case, without it being settled outside of court, it could cause a ripple effect across conferences to put the exact same language in theirs for future departures.

CUSA is going to say it’s too late to change the schedule because of the tv contracts.
The three will say the only reason you are in this mess is because you refused to negotiate a departure.

Typically not a situation where a judge is going to be sympathetic when someone had an opportunity to mitigate, refused to do so then demands specific performance. Again I presume Texas law controls and I don’t know Texas precedents on specific performance but generally courts don’t like it.

I guess the question will be which side will be believed. CUSA claims they communicated, SBC3 claims they were ignored.

I feel like the schedule was released in an effort to get more money out if the schools. If the SBC3 communicated and CUSA ignored until they released a schedule....seems quite vindictive.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

(02-16-2022 01:12 AM)hburg Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 11:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  [quote='VNova' pid='18075781' dateline='1644971095']

I guess the question will be which side will be believed. CUSA claims they communicated, SBC3 claims they were ignored.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

Both statements can be true. The SBC3 sent a formal statement to CUSA announcing their intentions to leave in 2022. CUSA did not directly respond to the individual institutions. Instead, the make a public response saying they have expectations all members will be present through the 22-23 season.

So 1) Does a lack of direct response to one party's intent to breach or change a contract indicate tacit approval because the lack of direct response (not negotiation, just a response) shows they don't care? 2) Is the public response they issued delivered in a timely manner? Assuming that response is valid to begin with.

This assumes the SBC3 were directly ignored and asks what is a reasonable amount of time for CUSA to respond* before their neglect of the matter releases the SBC3 without fault.

*Not negotiate for all the "CUSA isn't required to negotiate" people. Just a response saying "no, we aren't in agreement to this change."

Judy will probably get some county magistrate in Portague County, Texas to issue an injunction. Then she can send out the appropriate enforcement officials to compel specific performance.

Oomph, CUSA is really taking it on the chin in the social media circles. They would have been much better off quietly letting us leave and add teams back next year. This crazy ex girlfriend vibe they are giving out has even further their reputation in the court of public opinion.

On top of that, the SBC3 is getting a lot of publicity out of this. Which only further drives home the point that the SBC is stealing teams from CUSA. Thus, leading the perception nationally that the SBC is the superior conference (which it is), but a lot of casual college football fans would have not had an opinion about that kind of stuff until now.

I still do not understand what CUSA gains from making us stay? IF we stayed another year, would they not get LESS money when we leave in 2023? If I was commissioner, I would have settled this quite and quickly and then taken that extra money from us leaving early to split less ways and the remaining schools come out ahead. Is us playing one last year there really worth that much money to them? They are acting like if we leave a year early their league will completely die. It is so strange to me, but then again everything CUSA has ever done usually leaves me scratching my head. Bless Judy’s heart.

Who would've thought that 3 deadweight schools would have so many people pulling for them?

Not yet mentioned but I actually think this hurts their reputation publicly and subsequently recruiting. This is already playing out in the court of public opinion. C-USA will be viewed as so bush league that ultimately recruits and there families will see them as the lowest of the low on the FBS totem pole and look at other G5 schools further up in the hierarchy.

If this gets too nasty, I can see this doing real long term damage to C-USA.

(02-16-2022 08:07 AM)herdftblfan21 Wrote:  Not yet mentioned but I actually think this hurts their reputation publicly and subsequently recruiting. This is already playing out in the court of public opinion. C-USA will be viewed as so bush league that ultimately recruits and there families will see them as the lowest of the low on the FBS totem pole and look at other G5 schools further up in the hierarchy.

If this gets too nasty, I can see this doing real long term damage to C-USA.

Amd most important, the future medial deal.

I'm not sure if the hand from Liberty would be able to help much, but then again, you never know.

Again, CUSA has zero f***s left to give as far as what people will think of them. You can’t damage a conference that’s already asked Tarleton State if they were ready to move up.

That said, if they don’t even want to see comments on social media, wait until they make us stay and ESPN’s commentary team roasts their a** in front of a national audience every time one of us sneaks onto the Mother Ship, 2, or U.

(02-16-2022 08:55 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm not sure if the hand from Liberty would be able to help much, but then again, you never know.

That works both ways.

ESPN could call up Liberty and say, “Hey, we just want to let you know if your new friends don’t stop playing games with our football schedule, you’re not going to like the baggage you’re marrying into.”

(02-15-2022 06:51 PM)DrGonzo Wrote:  This is going to make all SBC members scheduling for the upcoming football season tenuous. How can we make the last minute arrangements necessary to provide a SBC schedule to these schools if there’s even a small chance they’ll ultimate be precluded from doing so?

I hope we’re able to read the complaint and I hope some legit journalism covers it. I want to know if something like an injunction is possible or whether these three schools are just looking at $$ damages in a worst case scenario.

What damages Gonzo? Their by-laws specify nothing if the contract is broken. C-USA has contributed to the spiraling of the situation by refusing to respond to requests by the programs, they released a schedule with the knowledge the three programs have no intent to play it, and they were already offered the full payment for exit.

Any damage inflicted beyond that initial announcement of joining the Sun Belt in 2022 has been caused by contributory negligence on behalf of C-USA.

(02-16-2022 07:37 AM)FairwayEagle Wrote:  Judy will probably get some county magistrate in Portague County, Texas to issue an injunction. Then she can send out the appropriate enforcement officials to compel specific performance.

Not Bufford T Justice!

Could you imagine what would happen if any of the incoming programs backed out of their move to CUSA, saying “we don’t want to be involved with this clown show”?

(02-16-2022 10:30 AM)APPdiesel Wrote:  Could you imagine what would happen if any of the incoming programs backed out of their move to CUSA, saying “we don’t want to be involved with this clown show”?

Yeah, but they’ll always have Tarleton . . . waiting in the wings.

(02-16-2022 10:30 AM)APPdiesel Wrote:  Could you imagine what would happen if any of the incoming programs backed out of their move to CUSA, saying “we don’t want to be involved with this clown show”?

That’s not gonna happen because those schools have nowhere else to go to do what they want to do.

Maybe when those four enter CUSA they will have enough vote to fire Judy.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

(02-15-2022 09:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  C-USA’s actions of late make we fear for the 5 schools left behind. Maybe the judge should award custody of them to the SBC so Judy can’t hurt them anymore.

It's their fault. 75% of the remaining schools are pulling the strings. Let them rot.