92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
226
uta and atm want this. It allows them to cheat like they always have. This agreement is going back prior to nil.
Unless you have jail time/prison terms associated with this agreement it does nothing from stopping the blue bloods to keep cheating.
Why would they be against teetech not signing? Think about it. Teetech and its benefactor is simply putting themselves at the same level as the blue bloods. Moreover, who spent the most last year?
Who won the cfp National championship last year?
The answer will be ohio state.
No, TECH opposes this because they want their sugar daddy Campbell to be able to keep buying players, with no enforcement mechanism to stop them.
Nearly everybody else wants it this far.
Just say NO to Tech.
1 Like
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
228
I can’t stand teetech but you are hypocrite. Here is why.
Did you come out swinging like you are for teetech when uta, atm and countless have done for decades? Were you?
Moreover, who is in favor of this agreement?
Bluebloods. Did you even ask yourself why they would be in favor it?
When aTm and UT take the same position on this as UT, then maybe I’ll reassess.
For now, it looks as though only Tech and, strangely enough, Baylor, don’t want to play by the rules.
To Hell with them.
Let them die on that hill.
We’ll avoid it as best as we can.
For now, it’s TECH that’s trying to avoid enforcement provisions.
NOT UT and aTm.
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
230
You did not even read how this agreement might be going through. All P4’s have to sign on it otherwise it will never take effect. So far already two teams are against it.
Spare us with these so called rules. These so called rules will allow the blue bloods to cheat as they always did.
That’s what I am thinking as well. A&M and UT have the political power to where they will be taken care of. I’m afraid UH does not have that.
Now, in Campbell’s case, he’s only looking out for his Alma mater. I cant blame him for that.
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
234
Good read to enlighten a few…
Schools Are Pushing Back
Amanda Christovich of Front Office Sports reported that at least two schools have some reservations about signing the agreement. One of those schools is Texas Tech, whose General Counsel penned a opinion about the legal issues and advised the school not to sign it. Some of the issues he raised that Amanda shared in his memo on X include:
Section 3 requires the University, its representatives (which is defined too broadly), student-athletes and associated entities and individuals to comply with not only the current rules, policies, and procedures, but the University must also agree to comply with “any other policies and procedures that the CSC may from time to time adopt.” Under this agreement, the CSC could adopt a rule or penalty that would apply retroactively to the University or its student athletes, impose severe penalties against the University or its student athletes, and the University would have contractually agreed to not take any action against CSC. CSC could even fail to provide prior notice of any changes and the Agreement says such failure does not alter the University’s obligations to comply.
Section 5: Potentially imposes penalties for behavior of a wide range of individuals including student-athletes. The fines, penalties, and sanctions are unclear and have no basis in amount. This may be considered a contract for an unknown debt of the state, which would be in violation of Texas law. See also Section 10.
Section 9-Does not elaborate on the review process for Participant objections.
Section 10-CSC may impose an unspecified degree of “fines, penalties, or other sanctions as appropriate,” which similar to Section 5, would be considered an unknown debt of the state in violation of Texas law.
Sections 11 and 12 – This is an overreach on enforcement. The dispute resolution process is also unclear and requires inclusion in coach contracts.
Section 14 – The certification should not be required from employees who do not possess signature authority.
Section 17 The records retention requirements that go beyond legal requirements is an overreach.
Section 18 This places penalties if CSC makes the decision, in its sole discretion, that the University has not cooperated. It also requires the University to suspend the school official if CSC makes the decision that such school official has not cooperated. This would raise numerous legal issues including Due Process issues.
Section 19 Would require the University to amend each of its third party agreements to impose overly broad investigative authority of CSC on the University’s third party partners. This is not workable and would likely not be agreed to by third parties. The University should not be penalized for this.
Section 24 and throughout the Agreement – If each entity’s compliance is limited by state law, the Agreement will not be evenly applied to each member
Section G (21-28) This appears to provide complete deference to CSC on the conduct of investigations, burdens, and manner in which they are conducted with apparently very little right to appeal. The only appeal right is limited to the penalty determination and not the violation itself. This is not acceptable.
Sections 23 and 25 As a Texas State Entity, we cannot agree to binding arbitration.
Section 24 and throughout the Agreement – If each entity’s compliance is limited by state law, the Agreement will not be evenly applied to each member…
This article will be updated as more schools weigh in on the agreement.
This agreement is so full of “holes” that Swiss cheese can’t even come close.
Joining Tech in going rogue is NOT a risk worth taking.
It is what it is.
See if anyone with more clout than Tech agrees, and then maybe we’ll reconsider.
But it’s stupid to resist as long as it’s only or chiefly Tech that’s doing so.
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
236
You exclude what you want to exclude. It only takes one, just one school for making this agreement a non starter.
Just the following is a non starter:
The agreement asks schools to:
Give up their right to sue. Signatory schools agree not to challenge CSC punishments in court and appeal any enforcement action through the arbitration process agreed on in the House settlement.
What kind of an agreement is this? Dictatorships act this way. For someone in the law industry you should be appalled by this.
Make no mistakes, what you have is the exact same way that the ncaa has “worked” their sanctions over the last decades. This why some schools got the death penalty or close to it and others got a slap on the wrist for the same offense, the exact same offense. Clearly lay wants the blue bloods to keep cheating at the detriment of others.
I’d only one school like Tech resists, then the NCAA and P4 can get around that by simply expelling them.
Everybody else will sign and move forward, and leave Tech to die.
DON’T insist that we die with Tech in that regard.
It takes a lot more weight than Tech to make the NCAA or P4 reconsider.
Again, if UT or aTm say no, then maybe we’ll reassess.
But not for Tech.
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
238
You contradict yourself law. This agreement has to have all p4’s to sign on or it will never be valid. This is black and white. You law, would ignore the basic rule, the first rule that makes this agreement? You are in the law industry right?
Go ahead and try to expel teetech. They would welcome that. Not only they will win but they will win the biggest sports damages ever rendered.
Then everybody else (at that point, the ENTIRE P4 of which Tech is no longer a member) signs it and moves forward.
Don’t get us kicked out and blackballed as well by siding with Tech.
If someone with more power like aTm or UT protests, then we’ll reassess.
As long as it’s just Tech and another nobody like Baylor, the P4 will simply kick them out and move forward without them.
You’re right. The entire P4 has to sign.
But if Tech and Baylor get kicked out of the P4, and everybody else signs, then that’s it.
Tech blackballed.
We don’t want the same outcome for UH, so DON’T insist that we stupidly risk that outcome by siding with Tech and its sugar daddy.
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
240
Kicked out?
On what legal ground?
They are not breaking any rules. In fact this agreement stipulates that all p4’s have to sign it. There is a reason why it was “framed” that way.
teetech has every legal rights to not sign this agreement. You, you want to take that right away from them?
“At the offices of piss off law we are on your side”
As I’ve said before, as a general rule, every association (such as the Big 12) has the power to expel members that refuse to comply with its organizational rules and requirements.
Don’t assume that Tech won’t get kicked out in that basis.
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
243
You have no ground law, none and you know it.
You want the blue bloods to keep cheating. That is your prerogative. I find it highly immoral. But you evidently do not care.
Come back with a real legal argument. So far you have none.
Make it a great rest of your day.