collapse

Resources

Stud of Wisconsin Game

No Stud when we lose.
2025-26 Season SoG Tally
Ross4
James Jr1

'24-25 * '23-24 * '22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

Big East Standings

Recent Posts

Psyched about the future of Marquette hoops by JakeBarnes
[Today at 03:48:55 PM]


2025-26 NET Rankings by NCMUFan
[Today at 03:47:16 PM]


What would make you show Shaka the door in March? by Pakuni
[Today at 03:24:49 PM]


2025-26 Big East Thread by Johnny B
[Today at 03:24:39 PM]


Amadou in the portal by tower912
[Today at 03:23:44 PM]


Marquette vs Purdue by Shooter McGavin
[Today at 10:58:04 AM]


2025-26 College Hoops Thread by brewcity77
[Today at 10:39:37 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!

Next up: @ Purdue

Marquette
76
Marquette @
Purdue
Date/Time: Dec 13, 2025, 1:00pm
TV: Peacock
Schedule for 2025-26
Wisconsin
96

T-Bone

I think this, if contested, would be thrown out.  One could argue that the relationship between the school-conference is similar to an employee-business relationship.  Under right-to-work law/Taft-Hartley, this would seem to be an ambiguous situation. 
It also has a bit of being similar to a non-compete agreement, but somewhat more draconian in taking future profits from the "employee." 
If the right lawyer makes the connection school-conference/employee-business to the right judge, this could be negated.

It'll be interesting to see when the first team leaves one of these conferences. 
I'm like a turtle, sometimes I get run over by a semi.

GGGG

Quote from: T-Bone on April 23, 2013, 01:55:13 PM
I think this, if contested, would be thrown out.  One could argue that the relationship between the school-conference is similar to an employee-business relationship. 


One could argue that...if they want to be laughed out of court.

T-Bone

Quote from: Terror Skink on April 23, 2013, 01:58:00 PM
One could argue that...if they want to be laughed out of court.

And.... Why not?  So, you can't see that could be a possibility?  Open your eyes to the litigious society we have.

Essentially, you have a union - conference.  You have a member of that union - the school.  It's a similar arrangement and one that has not been put on trial.  So what do you have?  
I'm like a turtle, sometimes I get run over by a semi.

GGGG

Quote from: T-Bone on April 23, 2013, 02:13:55 PM
And.... Why not?  So, you can't see that could be a possibility?  Open your eyes to the litigious society we have.

Essentially, you have a union - conference.  You have a member of that union - the school.  It's a similar arrangement and one that has not been put on trial.  So what do you have? 


Because employment law is very different than contract law.

T-Bone

Quote from: Terror Skink on April 23, 2013, 02:20:18 PM

Because employment law is very different than contract law.

I don't disagree that in certain areas they are very different.  But there are a lot of similarities, enough that I think it's entirely possible that something along the employee/union/business relationship could be argued a valid parallel. 
We'll see when a school leaves one of these conferences. 
I'm like a turtle, sometimes I get run over by a semi.


GOO

Quote from: T-Bone on April 23, 2013, 01:55:13 PM
I think this, if contested, would be thrown out.  One could argue that the relationship between the school-conference is similar to an employee-business relationship.  Under right-to-work law/Taft-Hartley, this would seem to be an ambiguous situation. 
It also has a bit of being similar to a non-compete agreement, but somewhat more draconian in taking future profits from the "employee." 
If the right lawyer makes the connection school-conference/employee-business to the right judge, this could be negated.

It'll be interesting to see when the first team leaves one of these conferences. 

Isn't this more like a partnership business arrangement?  I'd much rather be on the side of trying to uphold this agreement as it was unanimously entered into. 

Previous topic - Next topic