Eight Husker Football Players Sue the Big Ten
- Thread starter knapplc
- Start date
Husker in WI
All-Conference
I don't think this ends with us playing in the fall, but we were set for a conference only schedule anyway. I'd assume at least a handful of other big ten teams would also play - there's no way they could allow us and prevent the others. Again I don't think it's going to happen, but if it did I think we'd scrape together an 8 game schedule of mostly big ten and a few others who have cancellations on their schedules.
WyoHusker56
Starter
[No message]
floridacorn
Five-Star Recruit
Is this a National Security or Pandora's Box argument? Perhaps there's an angle I'm not considering, but seriously, outside of destroying the reputation and credibility of people, what "harm" could actually be created by transparency?
Wistrom Disciple
Starter
The reputation and credibility angle is a big factor as most of these chancellors and university presidents have huge egos to maintain. However, should this be allowed through, it could open up the possibility of other requests for information being passed along. < Thinking the Big Ten had quite a few discussions regarding the Penn State scandal that they would prefer to keep private and forgotten.
luvthecorn
Walk-on
This whole "transparency" argument is ridiculous. Do you really think that the experts who provided the medical information upon which the postponement of the season was based provided that information only to the Big 10 and no one else? That the information they had is some sort of top secret, confidential, not-to-be disclosed false research? The information the Big 10, and the other conferences/organizations had to postpone sports and activities is out there for all of us to see. It's been used by all of the other conferences and organization that decided to postpone activities and mass gatherings. You may not like it or agree with it, but it's there. If "transparency" is code for " tell us who voted against the fall season?," then your quest for transparency has nothing to do with the validity of the decision and everything to do with anger at those who voted to postpone. And why aren't these players also suing the other teams and conferences who canceled and prevented a full slate of nonconference games? Aren't they complicit in this "breach of contract?"
First, the players are not exclusively arguing for transparency. Their exact argument is outlined in the affidavit and they draw attention to what they believe is faulty research.
Second, the Big 10 has NOT been as forthcoming with the evidence and rationale that led to their conclusion and that's a bone of contention that players want more clarity on. That's a reasonable request given that this has a massive impact on their collegiate and potential professional future.
Lastly, there's no legal reason to file a lawsuit against anyone else but the Big 10 conference in this scenario. It makes no legal sense to loop other conferences or entities into the mix because those entities have no direct impact on Nebraska's ability to play football.
MyBloodIsRed16
All-Conference
I'll put my 39 years of humor, two law classes I took in college and the 3 smiley faces I recieved for my post over your 30yrs of lawyering
WyoHusker56
Starter
krc1995
Heisman Trophy Winner
Roundball Shaman
Four-Star Recruit
Three counts against the Big Ten:
First count: “Wrongful interference with business expectations.”
Conference can argue that athletes are students first and they are providing the access to education that students were promised. The Conference does not guarantee employment or opportunities after college to other areas of study so why should they be held responsible to treat this one group differently.
Second count: “Breach of contract. The league... has established it exists in part to benefit its student-athletes. It potentially violated that contract by not holding an actual vote within its Council of Presidents and Chancellors.”
If one is arguing how best to “benefit the student-athletes”, the Conference can argue that out of an abundance of caution, cancelling the fall season benefits the student athletes more than a potential risky decision to play games during a pandemic. Two different interpretations of what actually benefits the student athletes more. And even if a vote was taken, the Conference may have some Force Majeure powers that would override any voting requirement.
Third count: “Declaratory judgment. The Big Ten not actually voting on the decision, or at least being unwilling and/or unable to produce records of such a vote, violates its governing documents. The decision should be invalid and unenforceable.”
Here again, back to the idea that the Conference may have some Force Majeure powers that would override any voting requirement or need to declare results of a vote. Or maybe the governing documents will be determined not to affect this issue at all.
Bottom Line:
The Husker players could have swung for the fences and done some much deeper, more radical arguments. Maybe they’ll get somewhere with this or maybe they won’t. But even if they get everything they asked for in these limited counts, they could have gone for so much more. And this all will make the Huskers EVEN MORE popular with the old Rust Belt Powers-That-Be that run this conference with the same heavy hand that the Good Old Boys in Austin do as when the Red was in the Texas Conference.
Better keep your future Conference options open, boys.
First count: “Wrongful interference with business expectations.”
Conference can argue that athletes are students first and they are providing the access to education that students were promised. The Conference does not guarantee employment or opportunities after college to other areas of study so why should they be held responsible to treat this one group differently.
Second count: “Breach of contract. The league... has established it exists in part to benefit its student-athletes. It potentially violated that contract by not holding an actual vote within its Council of Presidents and Chancellors.”
If one is arguing how best to “benefit the student-athletes”, the Conference can argue that out of an abundance of caution, cancelling the fall season benefits the student athletes more than a potential risky decision to play games during a pandemic. Two different interpretations of what actually benefits the student athletes more. And even if a vote was taken, the Conference may have some Force Majeure powers that would override any voting requirement.
Third count: “Declaratory judgment. The Big Ten not actually voting on the decision, or at least being unwilling and/or unable to produce records of such a vote, violates its governing documents. The decision should be invalid and unenforceable.”
Here again, back to the idea that the Conference may have some Force Majeure powers that would override any voting requirement or need to declare results of a vote. Or maybe the governing documents will be determined not to affect this issue at all.
Bottom Line:
The Husker players could have swung for the fences and done some much deeper, more radical arguments. Maybe they’ll get somewhere with this or maybe they won’t. But even if they get everything they asked for in these limited counts, they could have gone for so much more. And this all will make the Huskers EVEN MORE popular with the old Rust Belt Powers-That-Be that run this conference with the same heavy hand that the Good Old Boys in Austin do as when the Red was in the Texas Conference.
Better keep your future Conference options open, boys.
84HuskerLaw
All-Conference
Did the Big Ten secretly vote on something with regard to Penn State. If so I don't recall. If so, then public meetings laws would likely apply as well. Public officials do not have the right to hide their public actions from public view, scrutiny, and or criticism. That is a part of the job description. In fact, there is a possibility that the Board members, or some of them, may have conspired to violate and evade the 'sunshine' aspects of public meetings and records laws. The reason for such laws, which are practically universal across the country, is to expressly prohibit public officials from doing what it appears they may have done. Such conspiracy and actions in furtherance of it is criminal.
IF, and we don't know what the actual vote was, in fact there was an official vote at all (leaked reports and public statements by university officials from several member schools actually call this into question, the actual vote tally is critical to the action taken by the Commissioner. The by laws, (the latest version I could find on the internet was 2018, requires a 60% majority of the 14 members' Presidents/Chancelors (= 9 of the 14) to cancel or make other major scheduling changes. A subsequent reported leak had the vote tally as 8-6 and a number of schools' representatives, have indicated they did not vote to cancel. Another leak stated the initial vote was 12-2 and NU and Iowa were the lone votes to not cancel or postpone until spring.
If the true vote was 8-6, then the vote to cancel fall sports FAILED! This tally is suggested as there have been numerous 'plans' or proposals by Ohio State and others to form an abbreviated schedule of the 6 schools in favor of playing this fall.
This is why the public, not just the disappointed players who sued, have a right to know who did what and when and how. . Articles of incorporation and by laws and other records of public organizations are public records. This was not an insignificant action such as the decision to postpone the Easter Egg Hunt due to rain. The reasoning for the voters' decisions are not important to the legality of the meeting and or vote(s) of course, unless an explicit unlawful purpose was being decided upon. But it is very important that the public is aware of the actions taken which have a dramatic, long term consequence for the players, fans, universities, their employees, families, and the communities and entire states they represent. This was a multibillion dollar decision. Apparently, there were some members of the Board who expected a big outcry over their action and rather than face the music, they sought to hide and pretend they didn't do it.
Last edited by a moderator:
