Zagsblog -- Temple Can't Stop Dissolution

[brewcity77]

Even though it is a full voting member of the Big East, Temple cannot stop the Catholic dissolution of the conference, a source with direct knowledge told SNY.tv.

"They could not stop it," the source said. "There's language within the bylaws or the contracts that basically they or the football group could not stop that from happening. There's some kind of clause pertaining to the dissolution of the league where it doesn't apply. There's a loophole there somewhere."

http://zagsblog.com/temple/temple-can-stop-catholic-dissolution-of-big-east/

----------

I think this is great news. We finally have control of our own destiny, assuming Zagoria is right, and he's usually on top of stuff on the East Coast. I suppose now the only question is when. I think the best thing to do is take our time and announce a decision right after the NCAA Tournament wraps up. Temple becomes a full voting member in July, so that gives us about 7-8 months. Let this year's TV contract and schedule play out, make all the plans for what we'll do, then once the Dance is done, announce the new Big East. You can probably even have all the invites and acceptances in place ahead of schedule so when the news breaks it's from a position of strength.

Also a lot of good bites from LW in the full article. Nothing we haven't seen here in the past 24 hours, but I like that he's taking a leadership role and getting his name out there. It's good to establish Marquette as one of the leaders in this move, especially as our Big East tradition doesn't have the longevity you find with Providence or Seton Hall. Basically, him taking a leadership role publicly should help tie us even tighter to the rest of the C7.

[Abode4life]

I will feel more confident when the source says a little more confidently than "There's a loophole there somewhere".

[The Equalizer]

The other warning sign here is that Temple is on record from their AD claiming they do have a full vote. 

So even if the C7 beleive there is a "loophole or something", that loophole doesn't appear to be recognized by Temple, who likely takes this to court.

[wiscwarrior]

The other warning sign here is that Temple is on record from their AD claiming they do have a full vote. 

So even if the C7 beleive there is a "loophole or something", that loophole doesn't appear to be recognized by Temple, who likely takes this to court.

You can negotiate with Temple on this: "we'll invite your basketball team and other sports to our conference if you don't fight us on football. Otherwise you take the chance of being left out completely."

[jsglow]

Two good elements to this.  First, it appears that the C7 controls the BEast at this juncture and will for as long as they need to in order to facilitate creation of the new BEast after the NCAA tourney.  (Maybe Temple has a colorable argument, maybe not.)  Second, LW emphatically states that the remaining C7 are the basketball power brokers (led by national Champs GT and MU) and aren't about to join the A10.  Put another way, we're the freakin' star quarterback and we'll take the girl of our choice to homecoming, not the other way around.

Like it.

[brewcity77]

After WVU sued the Big East, the bylaws became public documents.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34636.msg424594#msg424594

Here's the loophole:

4) The conference can be dissolved via a 2/3 majority vote.  If so dissolved, the assets of the conference (including the name, tournament shares, etc.) are liquidated/allocated by a simple majority vote of the members present at such meeting.

7) Although Tulane, Memphis, etc. have been voted in, a member does not become a member until it "competes within the Conference in each varsity sport sponsored by the conference for which the Member has a Division I team."  Therefore, Memphis and Tulane do not currently have a seat on the Board of Directors (i.e. a voting interest).

Temple has not yet competed within the conference in each varsity sport for which they have a D1 team as they haven't yet played basketball here (and other sports). Until they play all the sports, they don't get a vote. Benny's quote was also from an earlier Zagsblog article.

[Benny B]

The other warning sign here is that Temple is on record from their AD claiming they do have a full vote. 

So even if the C7 beleive there is a "loophole or something", that loophole doesn't appear to be recognized by Temple, who likely takes this to court.

This is going to court one way or the other.

I think it's a good sign for the C7 that Temple has gone on record stating that they have a vote... that means they're scared.  If you have a vote and you're confident that it counts, you needn't say anything.  But if you don't have a vote or you're not sure it counts, you scream from the mountaintop.

[The Equalizer]

After WVU sued the Big East, the bylaws became public documents.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34636.msg424594#msg424594

Here's the loophole:

Temple has not yet competed within the conference in each varsity sport for which they have a D1 team as they haven't yet played basketball here (and other sports). Until they play all the sports, they don't get a vote. Benny's quote was also from an earlier Zagsblog article.

And the loophole on the loophole:

" . . .unless that participation is waved in accordance with the Big East Conference Stratgic Plan adopted by the CEO's in 1999."

If the Temple AD is stating publicly that they have full voting rights, I think its more likely to be based on a waiver of their all-sport participation requrement as opposed to them not reading the bylaws.

[jficke13]

This is going to court one way or the other.

This. Or at least threat of this.

[MUMountin]

After WVU sued the Big East, the bylaws became public documents.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34636.msg424594#msg424594

Here's the loophole:

Temple has not yet competed within the conference in each varsity sport for which they have a D1 team as they haven't yet played basketball here (and other sports). Until they play all the sports, they don't get a vote. Benny's quote was also from an earlier Zagsblog article.

I mostly agree with the analysis based on the bylaws found in the WVU lawsuit.  That said, I do have two concerns that give me pause as to whether it is that simple:

1. I'm not entirely convinced that 4.01(b) creates a condition precedent to membership.  I think it is a pretty strong argument (and probably why the BE 7 lawyers feel confident, as well as the certainty of the sources cited), but Temple and the other three will probably argue otherwise--if nothing else, for possible leverage in the divorce.

2.  The bylaws in the WVU lawsuit were as of October 17, 2011.  It is possible that those bylaws have since been amended, and there may be other operative language or loopholes that we don't have the benefit of seeing.  Given all of the unrest in conference realignment, it isn't unreasonable to think that they may have tweaked the language of the bylaws to strengthen conference unity.

[Benny B]

I mostly agree with the analysis based on the bylaws found in the WVU lawsuit.  That said, I do have two concerns that give me pause as to whether it is that simple:

1. I'm not entirely convinced that 4.01(b) creates a condition precedent to membership.  I think it is a pretty strong argument (and probably why the BE 7 lawyers feel confident, as well as the certainty of the sources cited), but Temple and the other three will probably argue otherwise--if nothing else, for possible leverage in the divorce.

2.  The bylaws in the WVU lawsuit were as of October 17, 2011.  It is possible that those bylaws have since been amended, and there may be other operative language or loopholes that we don't have the benefit of seeing.  Given all of the unrest in conference realignment, it isn't unreasonable to think that they may have tweaked the language of the bylaws to strengthen conference unity.

Absolutely agree on both parts.  Though as it pertains to the latter, I'm not sure that amending bylaws (to strengthen unity or otherwise) when you have a lawsuit pending against you is the greatest idea in the world, especially if you're planning to use those by-laws as part of your defense at trial.

That said, it certainly is possible they've amended or perhaps instituted other governing policy that is not included in the bylaws.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is going to court one way or the other.

I think it's a good sign for the C7 that Temple has gone on record stating that they have a vote... that means they're scared.  If you have a vote and you're confident that it counts, you needn't say anything.  But if you don't have a vote or you're not sure it counts, you scream from the mountaintop.

Consider the source...Bill Bradshaw.  Not a fan. At. All.

[Dawson Rental]

The other warning sign here is that Temple is on record from their AD claiming they do have a full vote. 

So even if the C7 beleive there is a "loophole or something", that loophole doesn't appear to be recognized by Temple, who likely takes this to court.

I think that you're giving Bradshaw too much credit. 

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Heres the thing, even if Temple can stop this from happening (I dont think they can) the Big East is going to have to do something tremendous because the C7, from the sound of it, will not be happy in the slightest. Does the Big East really want 7 very unhappy members including the likes of Georgetown and MU.

[Lennys Tap]

Consider the source...Bill Bradshaw.  Not a fan. At. All.

1000% agree.