Text of the Big 12's Letter to the SEC
by Year2 on Sep 7, 2011 9:31 AM EDT
in Conference Realignment
Email
PrintHere is the text of the letter from Dan Beebe that the SEC alluded to in its statement:
Dear Mike:
This is to confirm our discussion yesterday during which I informed you that the Big 12 Conference Board of Directors unanimously authorized me to convey to you and their colleagues in the Southeastern Conference that the Big 12 and its members will not take any legal action for any possible claims against the SEC or its members relating to the departure of Texas A&M University from the Big 12 and the admission of Texas A&M into the SEC; provided, however, that such act by the SEC to admit Texas A&M is publicly confirmed by 5:00 p.m. (CDT) on September 8, 2011.
Such admission of Texas A&M will result in the withdrawal of Texas A&M from the Big 12 Conference effective June 30, 2012. We both agreed it is in the best interests of each of our conferences and our member institutions of higher education to waive any and all legal actions by either conference and its members resulting from admission of Texas A&M into the SEC, as long as such admission is confirmed publicly by September 8, 2011.
If any of your presidents and chancellors have concerns about this commitment of the Big 12 Conference, they may contact me or Brady Deaton, Big 12 Board of Director chairman and chancellor of the University of Missouri, Columbia.
Sincerely,
Dan Beebe
Commissioner
According to numerous reports this morning, the institution that withdrew its consent was Baylor. I don't know what exactly will happen if the 5:00 pm CDT deadline tomorrow passes without Baylor waiving its right to sue, but one very likely outcome is the SEC rescinding its acceptance of the acceptance of A&M. While Baylor doesn't look good going back on its pledge not to sue, I can't blame it too much. No one else is looking out for them.
77 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No one else looks out for anyone else in conference realignment. Tough.
Baylor needs to realize that it no longer has an alumnus as governor and the reason no one wants it is that its sports programs are not traditionally any good
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
Right
Everyone’s looking out for themselves, so Baylor’s going to do what it thinks is best for Baylor. It’s no different than Texas A&M doing what it thinks is best for itself by trying to leave the Big 12.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
Except A&M isn't trying to keep anybody else from doing anything else
That’s the difference
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
Baylor is just refusing to waive their legal rights.
They are not keeping A&M from joining the SEC. The SEC is keeping A&M from joining by only accepting them if all Big XII members waive their legal rights. The SEC could still accept A&M and see what happens.
semantics
“It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.” –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair
by Mark Mandingo on Sep 7, 2011 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Semantics?
When you contract with someone, you have certain rights. When the person with whom you’ve contracted with attempts to sever those contractual bonds, they are committing what we call “harm.” If “attempting to protect oneself from harm committed by a contractual partner” is the same as “preventing someone from doing something,” then you’re right. It is semantics.
the problem is
Baylor’s complaint is with A&M and more importantly Texas, as it was their actions that created an unhealthy environment, not the SEC. Baylor is shitting in the wrong lawn.
If the SEC made overtures,
then they are also potentially perpetrators of harm. Intentional Interference with a Contractual Obligation is a real thing, regardless of what you would like to believe.
As I wrote below Texas has done nothing, in an extra-contractual sense, to harm Baylor or anyone else in the Big 12-infinty. They said they would start a network and they did. Everyone agreed to stay in the conference with that knowledge. You might not like what Texas did, and its actions may have caused the implosion of the conference, but it did nothing outside of its contractual relationship to do so. Ergo, there is nothing for Baylor to sue Texas about.
IF(the SEC made overtures)?
IF you are going to base a lawsuit on that then. IF Texas had previous knowledge that creating a cable network would in essence become the downfall of the B12 conference then Baylor has a wonderful suit against Texas and possibly ESPN. Mind you, Texas had a very good understanding of what might possibly occur, see Nebraska and Colorado? In all honesty we all know what caused the B12’s demise and it wasn’t the SEC was it mnHorn? It was the arrogance of an underachieving Texas University.
Look:
If you and I enter into a contract, and one provision of the contract says I get to sleep with your wife once a week, but you get jealous after two weeks of my sleeping with her, I’m not at fault if you decide to pull out of the contract. You are.
If you would prefer to take my perfectly reasonable (and factual) statements, and turn them into a personal attack, fine. If you would like to engage in an actual discussion about this, that’s fine too.
I didn't make a personal attack
I stated facts.
1) Texas is an arrogant underachieving university. If the majority of people know this statement to be true then it is factual.
2) Baylor has a better possibility of winning a suit against Texas than the SEC with the facts we have at the moment.
Facts
do not depend on people’s beliefs. They depend on whether they can be proven. Once upon a time, the majority of people believed the Earth was flat. That didn’t make it a fact.
If you paid attention to the facts I stated, you’d realize that your point number 2 is wrong.
mnHorn is right...
That Baylor has the right to sue, and Baylor’s case against A&M is significantly better than it would be against Texas… legally speaking.
But A&M does have plenty of few avenues of defense regarding breaking the contract… and if they accept whatever penalties were provided for in the contract, then Baylor won’t have any leg to stand on in trying to keep them in against their will.
You keep using that word, I do not think you know what it means
“Underachieving?” I’m not a Texas fan at all, but let’s get our facts straight. Texas brings in more money nationally than any other program, has won a MNC in the last decade, and is essentially the only other program in the country outside of Notre Dame that could possibly pull off Independence in this modern period. Underachievers, they are not.
Assholes who are full of themselves? That’s another matter, however.
DawgSports/Falcaholic/Talkin' Chop
by blackertai on Sep 7, 2011 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's not true:
“IF Texas had previous knowledge that creating a cable network would in essence become the downfall of the B12 conference then Baylor has a wonderful suit against Texas and possibly ESPN.”
Texas told everyone last year that they were going to create a network shortly. If A&M had come in last year and said that they were going to go to the SEC next year, then the situations would be more similar.
I wish I had a contract
to be the supplier of burnt orange colored glasses. I’d be a gozillionaire. And yes, it’s semantics. That’s what 90% of the legal profession is.
by Mark Mandingo on Sep 7, 2011 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Right,
because it’s so clear that my statement was informed solely by my particular fandom.
As for the semantics bit, I’ll try to explain it to you in simple terms:
I have two rocks. You want one of them, so we enter into a contract whereby you’ll get a rock provided I get to throw it at your head. I throw the rock at your head, but then—while you’re still disoriented—I pick it up and refuse to give it to you. You’re now entitled to the rock or the equal value, and possibly the medical expenses from your head injury. Why? Because I harmed you by not giving you the rock.
Semantics, as discussed above, would say that there is no difference between the following statements:
1. By suing me, you are just trying to prevent me from keeping my rock.
2. By suing me, you are trying to get what you have coming based on our agreement.
Do you really think those are the same?
Hmmm. Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
mnHorn, I agree with you completely and appreciate your analogies and the rising frustration I seem to sense. Please visit more often.
"Lattimore, as the kids can say, can ball, and sometimes does it to the extent one might say [he] is out of control in his balling." - Spencer Hall
by GwinnettGamecock on Sep 7, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
You, sir, are a gem.
If I could dumb it down any more for you, believe me I would.
by mnHorn on Sep 7, 2011 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I somewhat agree with your analogy with one exception
Texas A&M’s contract was not with Baylor. Texas A&M’s contract was with the BIG12. The BIG12, as a representative of all teams involved, signed a waiver not to bring forth suit. In order for your analogy to hold water then Baylor and Texas A&M would have needed to have a contract independent of A&M and the BIG12. Is that what you are trying to imply?
Wasn't aware they "signed" a waiver...
And anyways, they are all party to the same contract… and A&M leaving could disrupt Baylor’s reason for entering into the contract in the first place. Therefore Baylor would have the right to seek damages.
Unless the Big 12 was given the right to represent each school legally, that letter doesn’t mean a whole lot.
possibly
but then the complaint wouldn’t be with A&M it would be with the BIG12. Unless A&M has a contract with Baylor that they would remain in the 12 until a certain time then the effect A&M leaving has on Baylor is not relevant. mmHorn’s entire theory is built on a contract. A contract with whom? Between each independent school or each school with the BIG12? My guess is it is between each school and the BIG12. Then A&M’s contractual obligations would be to the BIG12 as an organization, not each independent school. The BIG12 as an organization has waived all rights to litigation over A&M leaving.
There is an obligation to every party...
Baylor could sue to force A&M to remain in the conference at least in theory.
Trust me, there is a reason the SEC is taking this seriously instead of laughing at Baylor.
Cmon, really?
Baylor knows that SEC won’t let A&M in as long as lawsuit is possible. That’s the equivalent of saying the bullet killed someone, not the person with then gun pulling the trigger
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
Is it Baylor's fault that the SEC doesn't want A&M enough to fight for them in court?
The ACC got Miami that way.
Why should Baylor waive their legal rights?
When Baylor agreed a week ago to not sue?
Yeah, it’s their fault
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on Sep 7, 2011 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
agreed,
don’t allude to one thing and do another. That is why the BIGwhatever is where it is right now. Because of all the BS.
by David Story on Sep 7, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
When Baylor agreed not to sue TAMU, OU hadn’t announced that they were looking into going to the PAC-whatever and completely destroying the Big-12. Baylor didn’t care when it looked like they had a home. Now they’re starting to care again.
If OU goes to the PAC-whatever you better believe those crazy baptists in Waco will start suing the pants off of everything in sight.
Baylor never agreed to sign a waiver.
The Big XII agreed to the waiver. The Big XII cannot bind its member institutions in that manner. The Big XII waived their legal rights, but the SEC wants each school to also waive their rights.
Its called "externalities"
and it effects Baylor. Hey, if you want a big state school in a populated state, this is the downside.
Google's homepage celebrates too much shit.
Could someone explain Baylor's standing to sue?
I understand that the BIG12 might have had standing but with all the public “A&M leaving will not be the end of the BIG12” talk by Bebe I don’t see where Baylor’s standing for suit would come from. Now if TX, Tech, OK, Ok St suddenly exit I can see where Baylor would have standing to sue them but I would think Baylor’s agreement when just A&M was leaving and their sudden spin once the rumors of a PAC group exodus would eliminate their basis of standing for suit against A&M. I’m no attorney but would love for someone like Clay Travis (or any attorney) to explain this one to me.
My guess is that the contract to be in the Big 12
is also a contract between schools. So A&M could have contracted both with the Big 12 and with the individual schools. regardless, Obviously Baylor would be harmed by relying on the contract A&M signed last year and may have a claim that way
I'm proud of my damn strong football team. Have a great day!
by Mikethetiger on Sep 7, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
MIke's right
No one questions that Baylor has the right to sue here; that’s why the waiver was needed in the first place. And even if Baylor doesn’t have standing, it might not matter; organizations like the SEC prefer to avoid even frivolous lawsuits
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
Right - Baylor's not suing anyone (at least not yet).
All they are doing is refusing to promise that they won’t sue anyone.
IT Appears there are questions about Baylor's right to sue
Travis has already posted on it. Not only is there no contract between individual schools but the contract each school has is only with the Big 12. Further, to prove their claim against A&M then (1) the whole Big 12 has to implode and (2) Baylor has to land in a conference where they receive less than what they were getting from the Big 12. Check out OUTKICKTHECOVERAGE. He breaks it down pretty well and it’s like i thought, Baylor (individually) does not have standing for a claim against A&M, BUT if the BIG 12 implodes and all the other teams join other conferences and Baylor gets snubbed by all BCS conferences and winds up in Conference USA or whatever then they would standing to sue ALL those teams who left as well as the BIG 12, but only for the difference in what they are getting from their new conference vs. what they were getting for being in the BIG 12.
Also, one guy (can’t remember where I read it) says that this is TExas yanking Baylor’s chain bc they can and because Baylor being the one school who will probable be left out, so it lets Texas use Baylor to try and keep the BIG 12 together without making theirselves look even worse than they already do.
I was under the impression that it had to do with the ESPN contract.
If I remember correctly, if A&M leaves then the ESPN-Big 12 contract is voided because they fall to 9 members. This is why the Big 12 is already eyeballing schools like Houston and SMU.
Ask me about the death of five hookers and how Craig James was allegedly involved.
by IsayPetrinoYouSayPaterno on Sep 7, 2011 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
This is the one angle that I keep seeing come up but I'm sure there are others.
For clarification, Baylor can claim that the SEC is interfering with the contract by supposedly luring Texas A&M away from the Big 12 thereby costing Baylor the money it would make from the ESPN contract that is being voided.
http://businessofcollegesports.com seems to do a good job of breaking down the legal aspects of this whole ordeal.
Ask me about the death of five hookers and how Craig James was allegedly involved.
by IsayPetrinoYouSayPaterno on Sep 7, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I would argue that it is
Texas that Baylor should consider suing, not A&M. In all reality Texas is the driving force behind the entire fiasco.
Except no one is considering suing A&M - only the SEC.
I suppose Baylor could try to sue ESPN, but that might be counterproductive for them.
I am of the opinion
it would be very difficult to win a suit against the SEC. It is easy to sue, I can go down to the courthouse and file a suit in less than 30 minutes but to win a case Baylor needs to make a case. A case that the SEC was instrumental in creating a loss of revenue to Baylor or B12. That becomes a very difficult case to prove. As I said previously, Baylor has a better lawsuit against Texas than they do A&M or the SEC. It was Texas’ actions that has created this mess, not the SEC. My guess is Baylor’s Admins are too cowardly to go after the real perpetrator though. We didn’t create the monster, we only provided a safe house from the monster.
But Baylor does NOT need to make a case.
All Baylor has to do is fail to agree to waive their right to sue and apparently the SEC gets cold feet.
Unless the SEC accepts A&M without such a concession, Baylor doesn’t need to do anything.
But that's the point
Texas hasn’t actually done anything contractually wrong. We may all agree that the LHN was a horrible idea that has lead directly to the dissolution of the Conference, but it wasn’t contractually a problem. TAMU leaving the conference, on the other hand, does actually hurt Baylor in a contractual way. As much as Texas is completely responsible for this (in some sense, although that’s debatable as well considering the news that A&M turned down an opportunity to create a statewide network), Texas A&M would be the one contractually in the wrong. Baylor can’t sue Texas for doing something that isn’t against the rules, while it can sue A&M to prevent them from breaking a contract.
DawgSports/Falcaholic/Talkin' Chop
Makes sense,
but you forgot to end it properly this time with,
Assholes who are full of themselves? That’s another matter, however.
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
Texas has done exactly what it said it would.
And what everyone knew would happen. Driving force or no, everyone agreed to this, and suing Texas would get them nowhere.
OK guys,
Who’s the 14th team going to be?
Frankly, some of the speculation I’ve run across is terrifying, frankly.
TCU? Really? Really?
Missouri?
FSU? Die screaming.
I’d take VT or Oklahoma, that’s about it as far as my top-of-the-list.
STR 11 DEX 14 CON 10 INT 16 WIS 14 CHA 16
Rice
We need to complement Vandy in the SEC West.
kidding.
by AuburnMisfit on Sep 7, 2011 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Rice vs. Vandy
They can run out onto the field and have a spelling bee as the pregame show (or in place of the game)
The latest rumors, for whatever they’re worth, are that Slive was authorized to negotiate with West Virginia and Missouri for the 14th team. OU will only go to the Pac if it leaves the Big 12.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
I don’t want Mirssouri or WVU, im still hoping this whole deal falls through but it would seem im probably going to have to come to terms with it at this point.
Missouri isn't a good fit
WVU or VaTech is. They’re not sexy, but they would make a good 14th member.
I have no interest in allowing WVU into the conference
The school isn’t great, it’s small and the only reason it’s nationally relevant at all is that it’s a big fish in a small pond.
DawgSports/Falcaholic/Talkin' Chop
#38 in the Director's Cup...
ahead of a healthy chunk of the SEC.
Good basketball, football, and competent baseball… and they are only 3 spots behind Virginia Tech in total AD income. They are certainly no worse than a lot of programs already in the SEC.
statement
http://www.aggieathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=27300&ATCLID=205267581
Statement Regarding Conference Situation
“We are certainly pleased with the action taken last night by the presidents and chancellors of the Southeastern Conference to unanimously accept Texas A&M as the league’s 13th member. However, this acceptance is conditional, and we are disappointed in the threats made by one of the Big 12 member institutions to coerce Texas A&M into staying in Big 12 Conference. These actions go against the commitment that was made by this university and the Big 12 on Sept. 2. We are working diligently to resolve any and all issues as outlined by the SEC.”
Simple solution...
A&M, Texas, and Oklahoma leave… rest of Big 12 stays intact with their BCS bid, and brings in Boise State for an 8 team league that gives them a much better chance of getting into a BCS bowl.
This is a really terrible time for New Mexico, and New Mexico State to be as terrible as they are.
End result of Baylor's actions over the past few days
A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall.
Vince Lombardi
Counter-suit
as mentioned on twitter…
Why couldn’t the threat of a counter-suit against the Big12 and each of the 5 schools on the Big12 expansion committee be enough to put Baylor in their place.
A&M approached SEC.. SEC didn’t approach A&M.
But.. Big12 most certainly approached Arkansas who politely laughed in their face. SEC’s case appears to be so much more rock solid, that it seems the threat alone should get each Big12 school to sign a waiver.
What are the SEC's damages from the Big XII talking to Arkansas and having them "laugh in their face."
What contract was breached? None of the elements of a tortious interference with contract claim are present.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Team Speed Kills
Related FanShots on Team Speed Kills
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
