(02-15-2022 10:10 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 07:52 PM)HerdFanGuest Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 07:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Yes it will include all 14

Do you think it'll get nastier in publicnor will all the juicy parts be behind closed doors?

Marshall and Southern Miss, especially USM may very well go Scorched Earth and drag the conference's business in public. Probably depends what their legal team advises them to do.

(02-15-2022 10:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 09:34 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  ESPN gave the go ahead for the addition of the 4 to the SBC. Wonder what they think of CUSA s actions. Haha. CUSA is not doing itself any favors with their idiocy

Funny, seems to me you have three breachers struggling furiously to get out of a contract. And they simply cannot do so at this point.

And, you have three parties who already agreed to the equitable remedies in that agreement that they are in as proper.

So, to get out of that contract, they either have to offer a lot more than they have previously, or they have to convince a judge that the remedy that was apparently all copacetic to them and to which they agreed to not so long ago is actually now wholly unacceptable. Even though they accepted it previously. Sounds like a fun position to take.

And who are the idiots in this case?

In a professional sense, I hope they opt to convince a judge that a term that they previously all jumped on board with and was perfectly agreeable to them as acceptable previously, is now wholly unacceptable at this point in time.

That would be neat move to try there. Kind of like putting the Super Bowl and the "Dancing with the Stars" cha cha cha moves together to dance that dance.

Maybe it will work. Maybe it wont.

I doubt this ever ends up in court however. If it does go to court, the 3 schools will have to go out and air out CUSA's dirty laundry so they can prove that they have a reason to get out of the contract early.

My most honest guess is that a Judge tells the parties to go to Mediation. They'll probably pay a couple million each and leave.

But the big question is:

Will the Sun Belt Conference itself 'go to the mattresses' for the SB3 and actively put them in their conference schedule before the issues with the CUSA are settled?

Sun Belt *could* have offered a 'yes they will be with us in 2022' today as a response to the CUSA double barrel of the threat of legal action against the SB3 and publishing their FB schedule with the SB3 members in it today.

Looks like they had no comment to directly refute that, or even a pubic comment to give aid and comfort to ODU, Marshall, and SoMiss in their mission to break away early.

If the CUSA is wholly wrong, and wholly evil, one might think the Sun Belt might give added support, jump in the deep end with their brethren to be, grab a rifle and post a brothers in arms style communication.

Maybe the idea of being tagged with an tortious interference lawsuit is a little more than they are willing to risk at this point.

(02-15-2022 10:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the big question is:

Will the Sun Belt Conference itself 'go to the mattresses' for the SB3 and actively put them in their conference schedule before the issues with the CUSA are settled?

Sun Belt *could* have offered a 'yes they will be with us in 2022' today as a response to the CUSA double barrel of the threat of legal action against the SB3 and publishing their FB schedule with the SB3 members in it today.

Looks like they had no comment to directly refute that, or even a pubic comment to give aid and comfort to ODU, Marshall, and SoMiss in their mission to break away early.

If the CUSA is wholly wrong, and wholly evil, one might think the Sun Belt might give added support, jump in the deep end with their brethren to be, grab a rifle and post a brothers in arms style communication.

Maybe the idea of being tagged with an tortious interference lawsuit is a little more than they are willing to risk at this point.

The Sun Belt won't say a darn thing. Even after March 1st.

What will happen is a full schedule will be released by all 14 SBC schools that happen to include 8 Sun Belt games for the SBC3. There will be no statement about them joining the league. For all anyone knows they are playing as independents next year against the entire Sun Belt.

Can't prove interference if you say nothing.

(02-15-2022 10:36 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the big question is:

Will the Sun Belt Conference itself 'go to the mattresses' for the SB3 and actively put them in their conference schedule before the issues with the CUSA are settled?

Sun Belt *could* have offered a 'yes they will be with us in 2022' today as a response to the CUSA double barrel of the threat of legal action against the SB3 and publishing their FB schedule with the SB3 members in it today.

Looks like they had no comment to directly refute that, or even a pubic comment to give aid and comfort to ODU, Marshall, and SoMiss in their mission to break away early.

If the CUSA is wholly wrong, and wholly evil, one might think the Sun Belt might give added support, jump in the deep end with their brethren to be, grab a rifle and post a brothers in arms style communication.

Maybe the idea of being tagged with an tortious interference lawsuit is a little more than they are willing to risk at this point.

The Sun Belt won't say a darn thing. Even after March 1st.

What will happen is a full schedule will be released by all 14 SBC schools that happen to include 8 Sun Belt games for the SBC3. There will be no statement about them joining the league. For all anyone knows they are playing as independents next year against the entire Sun Belt.

Can't prove interference if you say nothing.

If the dates conflict with the CUSA schedule they certainly are saying something, good sir. Its the details that matter.

(02-15-2022 10:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the big question is:

Will the Sun Belt Conference itself 'go to the mattresses' for the SB3 and actively put them in their conference schedule before the issues with the CUSA are settled?

Sun Belt *could* have offered a 'yes they will be with us in 2022' today as a response to the CUSA double barrel of the threat of legal action against the SB3 and publishing their FB schedule with the SB3 members in it today.

Looks like they had no comment to directly refute that, or even a pubic comment to give aid and comfort to ODU, Marshall, and SoMiss in their mission to break away early.

If the CUSA is wholly wrong, and wholly evil, one might think the Sun Belt might give added support, jump in the deep end with their brethren to be, grab a rifle and post a brothers in arms style communication.

Maybe the idea of being tagged with an tortious interference lawsuit is a little more than they are willing to risk at this point.

It could be that right now this is not their fight.

I wonder what we’re not seeing behind the scenes.

I don’t know what the lawyers know for either side either. Pending on who you are that’s how your view is skewed it seems. I mean I’m hoping for my alma mater and that they know what they’re doing. But the other aisle makes a compelling statement. Yea the bylaws state this. But is there another part we haven’t seen. I dunno. Let’s see what tomorrow’s episode of As the Conference Turns brings

(02-15-2022 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:36 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the big question is:

Will the Sun Belt Conference itself 'go to the mattresses' for the SB3 and actively put them in their conference schedule before the issues with the CUSA are settled?

Sun Belt *could* have offered a 'yes they will be with us in 2022' today as a response to the CUSA double barrel of the threat of legal action against the SB3 and publishing their FB schedule with the SB3 members in it today.

Looks like they had no comment to directly refute that, or even a pubic comment to give aid and comfort to ODU, Marshall, and SoMiss in their mission to break away early.

If the CUSA is wholly wrong, and wholly evil, one might think the Sun Belt might give added support, jump in the deep end with their brethren to be, grab a rifle and post a brothers in arms style communication.

Maybe the idea of being tagged with an tortious interference lawsuit is a little more than they are willing to risk at this point.

The Sun Belt won't say a darn thing. Even after March 1st.

What will happen is a full schedule will be released by all 14 SBC schools that happen to include 8 Sun Belt games for the SBC3. There will be no statement about them joining the league. For all anyone knows they are playing as independents next year against the entire Sun Belt.

Can't prove interference if you say nothing.

If the dates conflict with the CUSA schedule they certainly are saying something, good sir. Its the details that matter.

Dates don't matter. As far as the Sun Belt is aware the 3 schools have said they will not be CUSA members after June 30th. It is not the SBC's job to guess whether or not that is a legal or true statement.

In addition, neither USM, Marshall, or ODU has released its football schedule yet. The SBC Schedule was sent to ESPN on Monday, prior to any CUSA schedule being released. Contractually, the league can't pull the schedule back from ESPN after Monday...

(02-15-2022 10:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Yea the bylaws state this. But is there another part we haven’t seen. I dunno.

There are only 15 entities who really know what the bylaws really say in their entirety: the 14 members and the office. I highly doubt any of their key & privileged representative have spent much time posting here in the past few weeks.

I’m not saying the people supposedly quoting the bylaws are full of s*** or even intentionally misleading anybody, but until I get a credible link to each & every page, I’m taking everything stated here as fact in regard to the bylaws with a grain of salt.

There’s zero chance the 3 schools’ legal teams haven’t studied every word, and again, they seem awfully confident for people about to get their own hineys handed to them.

CUSA just likes to burn bridges and probably has burnt the bridge with ESPN.

Coach Helton said today we will be going to 1 of the new eastern teams and have 2 at home. He wouldn t specify but it is clear he fully expects the Belt to include them next year

(02-15-2022 10:44 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:36 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the big question is:

Will the Sun Belt Conference itself 'go to the mattresses' for the SB3 and actively put them in their conference schedule before the issues with the CUSA are settled?

Sun Belt *could* have offered a 'yes they will be with us in 2022' today as a response to the CUSA double barrel of the threat of legal action against the SB3 and publishing their FB schedule with the SB3 members in it today.

Looks like they had no comment to directly refute that, or even a pubic comment to give aid and comfort to ODU, Marshall, and SoMiss in their mission to break away early.

If the CUSA is wholly wrong, and wholly evil, one might think the Sun Belt might give added support, jump in the deep end with their brethren to be, grab a rifle and post a brothers in arms style communication.

Maybe the idea of being tagged with an tortious interference lawsuit is a little more than they are willing to risk at this point.

The Sun Belt won't say a darn thing. Even after March 1st.

What will happen is a full schedule will be released by all 14 SBC schools that happen to include 8 Sun Belt games for the SBC3. There will be no statement about them joining the league. For all anyone knows they are playing as independents next year against the entire Sun Belt.

Can't prove interference if you say nothing.

If the dates conflict with the CUSA schedule they certainly are saying something, good sir. Its the details that matter.

Dates don't matter. As far as the Sun Belt is aware the 3 schools have said they will not be CUSA members after June 30th. It is not the SBC's job to guess whether or not that is a legal or true statement.

The only issues tilt against Sun Belt.

There is an existing contract between the SB3 and the other members of the CUSA, and CUSA entity itself.

Sun Belt is aware of this contract, and aware of its terms. Including an explicit notice period to depart from CUSA.

If the Sun Belt were to say, or in any way indicate, absent clearance from both CUSA and the individual SB3 member, that such SB3 member were to be a member in the time frame of the notice period, that would be a pretty clear inducement to breach.

If any member, after that point, left the CUSA without clearance from CUSA, most notably during the known notice period --- kind of hard not to note that as a direct breach of that contract.

Those 4 above kind of paint a pretty clear picture of an inducement to breach an existing contract.

So, your last sentence is dead wrong. They do have a duty under those circumstances to investigate.

Quote:In addition, neither USM, Marshall, or ODU has released its football schedule yet. The SBC Schedule was sent to ESPN on Monday, prior to any CUSA schedule being released. Contractually, the league can't pull the schedule back from ESPN after Monday...

Well, if they included members that they knew or had reason to know were already in a contract, that is Sun Belt's oopsie moment. And makes it kind of a tad harder for them to jump up and down and claim that the three aren't members at that time. And again, they actually have to do some due diligence.

Sticking one's head into the sand like a sand crane really isnt a defense, nor is mumbling like Sgt Schultz in Hogans Heroes that 'they knew nothink'. A meaningful defense, that is.

(02-15-2022 10:57 PM)hburg Wrote:  CUSA just likes to burn bridges and probably has burnt the bridge with ESPN.

Technically, Memphis set that bridge on fire, but CUSA made no attempt to put it out. Question is does ESPN value Liberty enough to come back to the table?

(02-15-2022 10:55 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Yea the bylaws state this. But is there another part we haven’t seen. I dunno.

There are only 15 entities who really know what the bylaws really say in their entirety: the 14 members and the office. I highly doubt any of their key & privileged representative have spent much time posting here in the past few weeks.

I’m not saying the people supposedly quoting the bylaws are full of s*** or even intentionally misleading anybody, but until I get a credible link to each & every page, I’m taking everything stated here as fact in regard to the bylaws with a grain of salt.

There’s zero chance the 3 schools’ legal teams haven’t studied every word, and again, they seem awfully confident for people about to get their own hineys handed to them.

The section on how you leave is pretty clear on its own. Many seem to want to magically erase the section on 'equitable remedies' though.

(02-15-2022 11:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:44 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:36 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the big question is:

Will the Sun Belt Conference itself 'go to the mattresses' for the SB3 and actively put them in their conference schedule before the issues with the CUSA are settled?

Sun Belt *could* have offered a 'yes they will be with us in 2022' today as a response to the CUSA double barrel of the threat of legal action against the SB3 and publishing their FB schedule with the SB3 members in it today.

Looks like they had no comment to directly refute that, or even a pubic comment to give aid and comfort to ODU, Marshall, and SoMiss in their mission to break away early.

If the CUSA is wholly wrong, and wholly evil, one might think the Sun Belt might give added support, jump in the deep end with their brethren to be, grab a rifle and post a brothers in arms style communication.

Maybe the idea of being tagged with an tortious interference lawsuit is a little more than they are willing to risk at this point.

The Sun Belt won't say a darn thing. Even after March 1st.

What will happen is a full schedule will be released by all 14 SBC schools that happen to include 8 Sun Belt games for the SBC3. There will be no statement about them joining the league. For all anyone knows they are playing as independents next year against the entire Sun Belt.

Can't prove interference if you say nothing.

If the dates conflict with the CUSA schedule they certainly are saying something, good sir. Its the details that matter.

Dates don't matter. As far as the Sun Belt is aware the 3 schools have said they will not be CUSA members after June 30th. It is not the SBC's job to guess whether or not that is a legal or true statement.

The only issues tilt against Sun Belt.

There is an existing contract between the SB3 and the other members of the CUSA, and CUSA entity itself.

Sun Belt is aware of this contract, and aware of its terms. Including an explicit notice period to depart from CUSA.

If the Sun Belt were to say, or in any way indicate, absent clearance from both CUSA and the individual SB3 member, that such SB3 member were to be a member in the time frame of the notice period, that would be a pretty clear inducement to breach.

If any member, after that point, left the CUSA without clearance from CUSA, most notably during the known notice period --- kind of hard not to note that as a direct breach of that contract.

Those 4 above kind of paint a pretty clear picture of an inducement to breach an existing contract.

So, your last sentence is dead wrong. They do have a duty under those circumstances to investigate.

Quote:In addition, neither USM, Marshall, or ODU has released its football schedule yet. The SBC Schedule was sent to ESPN on Monday, prior to any CUSA schedule being released. Contractually, the league can't pull the schedule back from ESPN after Monday...

Well, if they included members that they knew or had reason to know were already in a contract, that is Sun Belt's oopsie moment. And makes it kind of a tad harder for them to jump up and down and claim that the three aren't members at that time. And again, they actually have to do some due diligence.

Sticking one's head into the sand like a sand crane really isnt a defense, nor is mumbling like Sgt Schultz in Hogans Heroes that 'they knew nothink'. A meaningful defense, that is.

I think everyone here knows that CUSA isn't going to sue the Sun Belt. Otherwise the Big East should have sued the Big 12 when West Virginia told them to go to hell a few years back.

The upside is that either the 3 leaving make offers that pique the interest of CUSA more than the previous ones, and this all goes away, or CUSA marches down and files a suit for specific performance, and they will have to provide the public with a full copy of their bylaws attached to their complaint.

And, getting a full copy of those bylaws is a bear of a task. It really isnt readily available like some others (SEC, B12 are easy to find).

The link to the bylaws the other day (iirc on the CUSA conference board) was a nice get -- those portions spelled out the how and when a school can depart pretty much in detail.

(02-15-2022 11:04 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 11:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:44 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:36 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The Sun Belt won't say a darn thing. Even after March 1st.

What will happen is a full schedule will be released by all 14 SBC schools that happen to include 8 Sun Belt games for the SBC3. There will be no statement about them joining the league. For all anyone knows they are playing as independents next year against the entire Sun Belt.

Can't prove interference if you say nothing.

If the dates conflict with the CUSA schedule they certainly are saying something, good sir. Its the details that matter.

Dates don't matter. As far as the Sun Belt is aware the 3 schools have said they will not be CUSA members after June 30th. It is not the SBC's job to guess whether or not that is a legal or true statement.

The only issues tilt against Sun Belt.

There is an existing contract between the SB3 and the other members of the CUSA, and CUSA entity itself.

Sun Belt is aware of this contract, and aware of its terms. Including an explicit notice period to depart from CUSA.

If the Sun Belt were to say, or in any way indicate, absent clearance from both CUSA and the individual SB3 member, that such SB3 member were to be a member in the time frame of the notice period, that would be a pretty clear inducement to breach.

If any member, after that point, left the CUSA without clearance from CUSA, most notably during the known notice period --- kind of hard not to note that as a direct breach of that contract.

Those 4 above kind of paint a pretty clear picture of an inducement to breach an existing contract.

So, your last sentence is dead wrong. They do have a duty under those circumstances to investigate.

Quote:In addition, neither USM, Marshall, or ODU has released its football schedule yet. The SBC Schedule was sent to ESPN on Monday, prior to any CUSA schedule being released. Contractually, the league can't pull the schedule back from ESPN after Monday...

Well, if they included members that they knew or had reason to know were already in a contract, that is Sun Belt's oopsie moment. And makes it kind of a tad harder for them to jump up and down and claim that the three aren't members at that time. And again, they actually have to do some due diligence.

Sticking one's head into the sand like a sand crane really isnt a defense, nor is mumbling like Sgt Schultz in Hogans Heroes that 'they knew nothink'. A meaningful defense, that is.

I think everyone here knows that CUSA isn't going to sue the Sun Belt. Otherwise the Big East should have sued the Big 12 when West Virginia told them to go to hell a few years back.

Then it sure would be fun to see the Sun Belt act in that manner if it was so sure as we are that there will be no suit, wouldnt it?

(02-15-2022 11:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:55 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Yea the bylaws state this. But is there another part we haven’t seen. I dunno.

There are only 15 entities who really know what the bylaws really say in their entirety: the 14 members and the office. I highly doubt any of their key & privileged representative have spent much time posting here in the past few weeks.

I’m not saying the people supposedly quoting the bylaws are full of s*** or even intentionally misleading anybody, but until I get a credible link to each & every page, I’m taking everything stated here as fact in regard to the bylaws with a grain of salt.

There’s zero chance the 3 schools’ legal teams haven’t studied every word, and again, they seem awfully confident for people about to get their own hineys handed to them.

The section on how you leave is pretty clear on its own. Many seem to want to magically erase the section on 'equitable remedies' though.

We’re all going off of message board fodder. I know there was something on a Tech board that was supposed to be the bylaws but it was a partial. I doubt the bylaws are that short. Maybe I’m wrong

What does C-USA gain other than spite?

(02-15-2022 11:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:55 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Yea the bylaws state this. But is there another part we haven’t seen. I dunno.

There are only 15 entities who really know what the bylaws really say in their entirety: the 14 members and the office. I highly doubt any of their key & privileged representative have spent much time posting here in the past few weeks.

I’m not saying the people supposedly quoting the bylaws are full of s*** or even intentionally misleading anybody, but until I get a credible link to each & every page, I’m taking everything stated here as fact in regard to the bylaws with a grain of salt.

There’s zero chance the 3 schools’ legal teams haven’t studied every word, and again, they seem awfully confident for people about to get their own hineys handed to them.

The section on how you leave is pretty clear on its own. Many seem to want to magically erase the section on 'equitable remedies' though.

But if everyone knows that they don’t really want that then is it really a factor? If they want cash then arbitration might not be the best path.

(02-15-2022 11:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:55 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Yea the bylaws state this. But is there another part we haven’t seen. I dunno.

There are only 15 entities who really know what the bylaws really say in their entirety: the 14 members and the office. I highly doubt any of their key & privileged representative have spent much time posting here in the past few weeks.

I’m not saying the people supposedly quoting the bylaws are full of s*** or even intentionally misleading anybody, but until I get a credible link to each & every page, I’m taking everything stated here as fact in regard to the bylaws with a grain of salt.

There’s zero chance the 3 schools’ legal teams haven’t studied every word, and again, they seem awfully confident for people about to get their own hineys handed to them.

The section on how you leave is pretty clear on its own. Many seem to want to magically erase the section on 'equitable remedies' though.

Yeah, you completely missed the point, but since you’re here, if you wouldn’t mind providing proof that what’s being quoted is the actual section from the actual CUSA bylaws and not just something an anonymous poster on the internet claims to be the CUSA bylaws, that would be helpful.