It doesn't work that way. Once you set the market, its extremely difficult to get the horses back into the barn. Given that MU signed onto a 12 team league that is missing 25% of the original signees, and its extremely unlikely that they will be able to collect anywhere near $25 million.

Well, the contract doesn't say $25MM, it is based on a percent of their share for the last 2 years, and in the contract they signed they agreed ahead of time that if they leave without notice, then they admit that they will have damaged the conference and they agreed, ahead of time, that they have no defense. They can try to worm their way out of it by whining about Colorado, but you can't easily claim they would win.

I read the bylaws (applicable part starts on page 13), and there is nothing remotely specific regarding damages. In fact, it goes so far as to say that the specific damages can't be determined in the bylaws.

Throw in the fact that the bylaws spell out the members (including Neb, Col, and aTm), and you've got a pretty flimsy case if you're the conference, IMO.

You were confused by the legal language. When all parties agree that someone will be damaged when something bad happens, but they also agree that the amount of damage will be hard to determine, it is common to agree ahead of time to something that the law refers to as "liquidated damages". That is what was done here. Often you will sign a contract saying "we agree that if *bad thing* happens, rather than fight about the proper penalty, which we also agree that the amount would be tough to determine, we'll just simply agree ahead of time to a fine of $X"

Mizzou agreed that if they left with notice less than a year but greater than 6 months, then they forfeit 90% of what they made for the last 2 seasons they were in the conference. The Big 12 would then refuse to pay Mizzou anything for the last part of this season (which is more than 10% at this point) and send Mizzou a bill for what they owe, which would be 90% of 2010, plus 90% of 2011 less what was withheld.

One of the blogs out there, I can't remember which one, broke down the BIG XII by-laws and showed that they were very poorly worded, and that it would be difficult to win in court. It made sense at the time, as many were wondering why CU and NU got such good buyout deals. If that is the case, I expect Mizzou to get a similar deal, since the BIG XII is not so confident in its legal standing. I tend to agree with Saul, if the BIG XII did not get the max out of CU and NU when the conference was at its strongest, I don't see how they get 25 mil out of aTm and Mizzou.

ChipBrownOB Chip Brown Sources tell Orangebloods.com #BYU is no longer a candidate to join the #Big12 because BYU wants to be independent.

That is also reportedly true, I've read stories on that too. I am by no means confidently predicting that Mizzou will ultimately be held to the full penalty. High-dollar lawyers smarter than any of us can judge that better than us. I'm just saying the Big 12 has a contract that they can try to enforce, that contract does not look crazy on its face, and that the Big 12 commissioner appears to be signalling that this time they will enforce it.

It also makes sense in light of the fact that there may have been some objection from OU, based on their comments, to heavily penalizing a school that wants to leave. That, and a court fight never looks good.

Now that OU has no options and the stakes are much higher though, you can imagine a scenario where the conference decides to let CU and NU go, but digs in on MU.

screw them and their strange hieroglyphic underwear.

More like crabs.

Seriously tiggers shit or get off the pot

It's getting old

Why? The Big 12 will wait.

Dungeon crabs?...

SEC schools received $18.3MM in revenue from Tier 1 and 2 contracts last year.

As has been stated ad nauseam in this thread, the SEC is not adding teams just to have more mouths to feed. Slive has even stated publicly that the contracts contain look-in provisions to renegotiate if the conference adds new members.

The ACC has publicly acknowledged that renegotiating their contract with ESPN was a key reason that they expanded. Take a look:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...leges/ACC.aspx

The agreement does not permit the ACC to take its rights to the open market. But the addition of two schools does create the opportunity for a new negotiation and, undoubtedly, more money. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, the deal would go to an arbitrator.

Post 4556