A-State to sue Miami if payment not made for cancelled game

We made a commitment to show up, and we reneged on our commitment.

It’s not just a “game,” it’s a business. Our not showing up caused them financial harm.

Not to mention that it greatly inconvenienced me....I had tickets and a hotel room and was ready to drive out there from Dallas. So they don’t have my sympathy in this case.

But the bottom line is the hurricane never hit, and they could have played the game that same weekend. The argument that the players needed to be released so that they could go home and hug their mommies is spurious....that crybaby stuff has nothing to do with Miami’s CONTRACTUAL obligations.

We owe them an away game. Now whether offering them a game in 2023 is good enough, I don’t know.

You are an idiot.

First, there were 99 mile per hour wind gusts recorded at Miami International Airport. Coral Gables recorded wind gusts of 90 mph. And MIA also recorded sustained winds over 50 mph. But regardless, Fischer Island and Fowey Rocks Lighthouse (near Biscayne Bay) each reported sustained winds over 74 mph. So although much of Miami-Dade County experienced (only?) tropical storm winds, some parts of Miami-Dade absolutely experienced sustained category 1 hurricane conditions. Your statement that the "hurricane never hit" Miami is thus uninformed. And if I was the attorney litigating the case for UM, I would welcome any argument that a tropical storm or category 1 hurricane is not an "unforeseen disaster or catastrophe." Good luck convincing a trial judge or jury of that.

Secondly, the force majeure clause at issue (see below) expressly references "unforeseen catastrophes or disasters . . . ," which clearly include hurricanes and tropical storms. As is standard in these types of clauses, the contract provides a non-exclusive list of "sample" catastrophes (that, rather oddly for a school bearing the name "hurricanes," does not expressly list hurricanes), and you will note that "flooding" (parts of Miami-Dade experienced between 2 and 3.5 feet of flooding) is an independent force majeure, as is an impossibility created by an "order of government." And on September 4, 2017, Governor Scott signed Executive Order 17-235, which declared a state of emergency "in every county in the State of Florida."
1518559209790.webp


In light of the foregoing, a strong argument can be made that it became "impossible" for the 70+ scholarship athletes, the coaches, and other essential staff to travel to Arkansas to play the game as scheduled. Although the game could arguably be rescheduled for some future date, you will note the force majeure clause does not provide any guidance to when the game must/shall be rescheduled. On this point, and as commented above, UM could not reschedule to its bye week (f$u took that spot and rescheduling a conference match-up takes precedence over rescheduling a non-conference match-up) or the conference championship week (we were in the ACCCG) like some other schools listed did.

Interestingly, Ark-State's letter (which, incidentally, is posturing... because the overwhelming majority of demand letters are just posturing) notes UM has offered to reschedule at its convenience. Although Arkansas State may wish to argue the game needs to be rescheduled within X amount of years, there is no contractual support for that position (feel free to review the contract, and not just some advocate's letter, if you don't believe me). UM's offer to reschedule in 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, and 2028 (according to Ark State) arguably satisfies the rescheduling obligation in the force majeure clause.

And if the force majeure clause is triggered and the terms contained therein are satisfied, payment of the $650k (liquidated damages) shall not be made pursuant to the contract (see below).
1518560253507.webp

So it seems to this UM fan that a strong case can be made that UM is trying its best to live up to its contractual obligations, but Ark State is unreasonably attempting to add additional terms to the contract concerning the rescheduling obligation.

Again, you are an idiot.
 
Advertisement
I'm not reading through all of this because nobody's paying me. But a couple of quick points.

A hurricane obviously qualifies as a force majeure event, but how a ******' contract for the University of Miami Hurricanes doesn't explicitly reference hurricanes in such a clause is beyond me.

Also, that force majeure clause should not have employed the word "impossible." That's a difficult standard to meet in any circumstance. Some really lazy lawyering by our attorneys.

We'll settle for a lesser sum and call it a day, IMO. **** second rate Arkansas State.

I found these two points baffling as well.
 
I'm going to be polite, which I am not famous for when dealing with garbage like this.

Here's why you are being ridiculous. You are inventing "manly" standards to apply to a situation that has nothing to do with "manliness", and you are dismissing equally valid displays of "manliness", such as protecting the family home, and protecting one's actual family.

And, quite frankly, I don't care if you are a UM fan or a rival troll, but when using "run and hide" and "ducking", quite frankly, I think you should just burn all your UM gear and find another program to root for. Heck, you live in Dallas, I'm sure there are plenty of manly Texas teams to root for, since you are belittling the issues that Floridians face during a major hurricane.

Your entire "manly" argument falls apart upon consideration of a few simple issues. As I have pointed out before, Arkansas State was the second-easiest game on our schedule. If you honestly believe that we "ducked" the second-easiest game on our schedule, when it is already well-established that the consideration for playoff teams is DATA-POINTS, then you are being moronic. Setting aside personal safety, OF COURSE Miami would have wanted to play the game and run up the score. I already mentioned how UCF lost out on the Final Four due to playing Austin Peay instead of Georgia Tech and Maine. If you are insane enough to believe that Miami was "ducking" the second-easiest game on the schedule, then we need to cancel football, because there are 10 harder games out there each year.

As for your ridiculous assumptions about how the players feel, or what lessons they gather, or what they believe about UM's actions versus, say, FAU's actions, you don't have to guess, you don't have to use your own idiotic perspective. Dozens of players spoke freely, and I can tell you this for a fact - the FAU players were NOT happy with FAU's decisions, and the actual results of those decisions, and the UM players WERE happy with UM's decisions.

The fact that you actually typed "We need to man up and prove that we can go to their house and beat them" is indicative of your brain-dead assessment. No, we don't "need" to "man up" and "prove that we can go to their house and beat them". There are over 100 Division I-A teams. We can't play them all on the road just to establish manliness. What's next, that Maine will start trash-talking UCF? That UMass will start trash-talking USF? That Northern Colorado will start trash-talking Florida? And that all three of those Florida schools have to "man up" and "prove that they can beat them"?

Oh, but you think you can coast by trying to blame Blake James and Mark Richt. Insane. They made the same decision that multiple other schools made, and we are not the only school to cancel a game during the 2017 season.

I'm not saying that we should not pay A-State because we didn't play the game and I want the contract voided. I'm saying that we should not pay A-State because they were the ONLY program out of two dozen impacted programs to complain and try to humiliate a Florida-based school that was looking out for the families of its student body.

If you really want to analyze this mess with "manly" terminology, then why don't you focus on what a ***** A-State was both before and after the hurricane. Sure, it's disappointing that the game wasn't played, but A-State is the only school in the country that made it ALL ABOUT THEM and whined about it.

Complain about THAT, Meat.

F A-State.

LOL

I tip my cap to your tact as well your surgical use of the language to eviscerate @Meat with the precision of a scalpel. If only I had the patience and skill to ditch my sledgehammer.
 
Good lord...lots of people (particularly the...uneducated ones...like Meat) are arguing about stuff they don't understand.

Yes, there's a force majeure clause. But the word "void" doesn't mean you stop reading. There are things called "savings clauses" which can save the outcome from being the most drastic. Clearly, there is language on rescheduling when possible.

If (and let's change the natural disaster to, say, FIRE) a massive fire had burned down Jonesboro (please, please, please hear my prayers, sweet Jesus), there would have been no way to play the game. It would have been an impossibility, and if there were no exigencies that would have allowed for rescheduling, THEN the contract would have been void.

However, our situation is different, but that DOES NOT MEAN that you can't invoke the force majeure clause. Let's say that a fire was bearing down on Jonesboro (please, please) and all of a sudden it made a 90 degree turn at the last minute. Technically, it was not IMPOSSIBLE to play the game, but there may have been evacuations, etc. The concept of force majeure is an old one. The concept of how a city, county, and/or state prepares for natural disasters is more recent. If you honestly believe that a court would get super-technical on this issue, I believe you are misguided.

A hurricane was coming. Florida's governor declared an emergency situation. Interstates were turned one-way. Airports closed. Some areas were required to evacuate. We can act like players are just students to boss around, but they have families too, not all of them live on campus, some even have dependent children.

Furthermore, let's kick around the whiny A-State claim about the "Jonesboro community". Not all of the tickets were sold to hillbillies, right? Some of that "economic impact" that was going to rain down on Jonesboro was coming from...oh, that's right, people who were going to be no-shows due to...A MAJOR HURRICANE HITTING FLORIDA.

I understand that A-State is going to write (and more importantly, PUBLICIZE) a crybaby letter with a litany of horribles that puts all of the blame on selfish old Miami, while citing NON-legal precedents such as the case of FAU v. Wisconsin. Fine.

But keep in mind, there was a RANGE of reactions. In fact, it is possible to argue that UCF was denied a spot in the College Football Playoffs because they lacked a data point (a win over BCS foe Georgia Tech) that one extra game would have given them. And that is a MUCH MORE POWERFUL argument than "oh, Jonesboro lost out on some tourism dollars from people who weren't going to show up anyhow".

And let's not pretend that game cancellations and/or reschedulings were limited to ONE weekend. They were not. UCF had to cancel the Maine game in order to reschedule conference foe Memphis. UCF ended up adding Austin Peay in place of Maine, which means that UCF played AUSTIN PEAY instead of (essentially) BOTH Ga-Tech and Maine. It is a solid argument to make that the school MOST DAMAGED by the hurricane was UCF.

And UM and F$U had to reschedule our own game. F$U only rescheduled La-Mo to get bowl eligible.

And UF would have rescheduled Northern Colorado if it would have made a difference in bowl eligibility.

And USF cancelled the UMass game to reschedule conference games.

So this RIDICULOUS laser-focus on ONLY ONE WEEKEND of games is wrong. The hurricane impacted more than one weekend. OTHER games were cancelled by other Florida teams, not just poor, poor Arkansas State.

And, sure, maybe some other schools paid buyouts. I get it. But you don't get to say "hey, judge, Florida Gators", and then go home with your $650K check. That's not how things work.

Miami offered to reschedule. A-State doesn't like the dates offered. But the contract doesn't have a "satisfaction" clause that allows A-State to veto a reasonable offer to reschedule.

And as much as A-State is going to whine about what Miami did (versus what other schools did), Miami is just as easily going to show how A-State (and their fan websites) waged a multi-day "hurricane-shaming" effort to claim that Miami was pulling out of the game for non-hurricane reasons.

One more consideration for some of you. After the FIU-UM brawl, Miami "cancelled" upcoming games. Oh, wait, not quite. We are resuming those games now, after the bad blood has cooled. And I would argue that is EXACTLY what Blake James is doing with A-State.

Honestly, what are those hillbillies going to do when we show up? Hold a meaningless and cynical "hurricane relief fundraiser" to show what good people they are?

Every single A-State administrator, employee, alumnus, and fan who has blamed Miami for this fiasco are the scum of the earth. More than just 14 schools with games that weekend were impacted by a hurricane that weekend. I have pointed out "innocent" schools such as Maine and UMass who lost games on OTHER WEEKENDS too.

So when you figure out that almost two dozen schools either had games cancelled or rescheduled, from September to December, all because of one hurricane...and when you compare that to the fact that ONLY ARKANSAS STATE is still whining...

It's a pretty easy conclusion to draw. Sure, we will be in Arkansas, but it will be federal court. A lot of those guys are Clinton appointees, not triggered right-wingers who are going to freak out because some blacks and Hispanics from Miami caused some economic uncertainty to the innocent Christian virgins of Arkansas.

And I don't care about any fans who want to argue "just pay them the money". Most of you didn't even go to UM. It's my university, and when we are struggling to get the last $1.5 million for the IPF, I don't want to see any fund-raising pleas for another $650K for the poor, poor economically distressed hillbillies of Arkansas.

We have attorneys on staff. We have six years between now and 2024. Fight these hillbillies for as long as it takes. Little known fact, the "highest honor attainable at UM", Iron Arrow, fought a case all the way to the US Supreme Court, because they didn't want to be forced to tap women into the honor society. Yeah, Iron Arrow lost. I know people from UM who QUIT IRON ARROW because they were going to have to admit women, like a certain nasty old cracker who was a professor in the Religion department.

So, yeah, I would fully support UM offering to play again in 2024 or beyond...or a set of steak knives.

F A-State, F A-State's AD, and F A-State's whiny fanbase. They wanted to play UM, with zero-point-zero UM fans coming in from out-of-town to patronize Jonesboro establishments, simply because the A-State fans were feeling their oats after ALMOST beating a historically bad Nebraska team.

And THAT last sentence is the most accurate assessment every written about why A-State is still crying over this issue.

This is not about some lost revenue for Jonesboro restaurants and hotels. It never was.
We made a commitment to show up, and we reneged on our commitment.

It’s not just a “game,” it’s a business. Our not showing up caused them financial harm.

Not to mention that it greatly inconvenienced me....I had tickets and a hotel room and was ready to drive out there from Dallas. So they don’t have my sympathy in this case.

But the bottom line is the hurricane never hit, and they could have played the game that same weekend. The argument that the players needed to be released so that they could go home and hug their mommies is spurious....that crybaby stuff has nothing to do with Miami’s CONTRACTUAL obligations.

We owe them an away game. Now whether offering them a game in 2023 is good enough, I don’t know.

The hurricane never hit?

Why is this guy posting here? He has no idea about anything.
 
Advertisement
I'm not reading through all of this because nobody's paying me. But a couple of quick points.

A hurricane obviously qualifies as a force majeure event, but how a ******' contract for the University of Miami Hurricanes doesn't explicitly reference hurricanes in such a clause is beyond me.

Also, that force majeure clause should not have employed the word "impossible." That's a difficult standard to meet in any circumstance. Some really lazy lawyering by our attorneys.

We'll settle for a lesser sum and call it a day, IMO. **** second rate Arkansas State.
That contract is junk. No jurisdiction provision, no choice of law provision (strike through), no jury waiver etc. A first year associate could draft something better.
 
Last edited:
That contract is junk. No jurisdiction provision, no choice of law provision (strike through), no jury waiver etc. A first year associate could draft something better.

Agreed. We really couldn’t have negotiated venue? Cmon. And they confused force majeure with impossibility by adding that in there. Not the same.
 
Advertisement
Agreed. We really couldn’t have negotiated venue? Cmon. And they confused force majeure with impossibility by adding that in there. Not the same.

Surely Miami has an attorney review the final contract before it is executed. But with this one I'm thinking maybe not. If so, the attorney should have his @ss handed to him if he gave the OK for some of these provisions. Who just deletes the governing law section. At the very least just change the state instead of a total deletion. I just find it hard to believe that this contract was actually executed in this shape. But maybe these contracts are so standard and everyone thinks there is little chance a game won't be played that they just sign it.
 
As much as I hate Paul Dee, I don't think he would have let this contractual language get past his (huge) desk.
 
Biggest news in Arkansas state athletic history is issuing a 3rd invoice to Miami’s athletic department.

Miss me with that bull****
 
Had time to look at the letters by counsel.

First, the ACC needs to be ****-slapped for that being their form football competition agreement.

Then somebody in the athletic department needs to volunteer a single hand as tribute for not strengthening the **** thing, especially the force majeure language, especially as a Florida school that should be keenly aware of the threat of hurricanes.

Even the ASU lawyer had the sense to add "epidemic" (lol, wut?) to the force majeure language because he's keenly aware of the threat the deadly strains of gonorrhea in Arkansas pose.

Unfortunately, the agreement states that "[t]he contract shall be void with respect to any of the games in an event that it becomes impossible to play such game(s) by reason of an unforeseen catastrophe or disaster..." (emphasis added). A hurricane certainly qualifies as an unforeseen disaster, but the threshold for voiding the contract with respect to the Jonesboro game is that it needed to be impossible for us to play the game.

We can certainly make a case that it was impossible, my boy @No_Fly_Zone did an admirable job, and we have common sense on our side, but contracts are contracts, and the interpretation by a court will likely be restricted to the words on the page because the universities are "sophisticated parties" and "impossible" is not ambiguous language. And even if it's somehow considered ambiguous, courts generally interpret ambiguous terms against the drafter of the agreement -- in this case, the ACC, which includes us. "Impossible" is a difficult (and crazy!) standard. It's not favorable language.

If we somehow won the "impossible" argument, then yeah, we win. The force majeure clause allows us to reschedule the game as "such exigencies may dictate or permit," without any limitation on how many years down the road. But again, we're in trouble because of the ACC's ****-poor form agreement.

Like I said before, I think we settle and call it a day.

Regardless of the legal interpretation, I'm genuinely shocked that Arkansas State is making this play. They're angry we're not trying harder to make it work, but it's an indecent thing to do given the circumstances. We don't have an opening until 2024 -- who cares? Get your money then. And I hope it discourages other big time programs from scheduling them.

Backwoods mother****ers.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Reading too deep into this. Will not make it to court. Probably will be settled for $100,000.
 
Your anger is misplaced. Miami does this because we're a small private university and can't afford to pay a decent school 1.5mil to come to Miami and play. So we do a trade off i.e. Appy, Arky St., Toledo. If not, all you're going to see is bottom of the barrel programs that will take any payday like Savannah St.. I'd almost guarantee you that's one of the main reason we agreed to schedule FIU

I will properly place my anger once you show me TCU, Vanderbilt or Stanford dates at Owensboro for an away game. I'll take App State as well....since this is common practice for private schools.

FIU is very close. I did not like the away game at FAU either except for Coach Schnelly...and that didn't smooth it over for me so much.
 
Had time to look at the letters by counsel.

First, the ACC needs to be ****-slapped for that being their form football competition agreement.

Then somebody in the athletic department needs to volunteer a single hand as tribute for not strengthening the **** thing, especially the force majeure language, especially as a Florida school that should be keenly aware of the threat of hurricanes.

Even the ASU lawyer had the sense to add "epidemic" (lol, wut?) to the force majeure language because he's keenly aware of the threat the deadly strains of gonorrhea in Arkansas pose.

Unfortunately, the agreement states that "[t]he contract shall be void with respect to any of the games in an event that it becomes impossible to play such game(s) by reason of an unforeseen catastrophe or disaster..." (emphasis added). A hurricane certainly qualifies as an unforeseen disaster, but the threshold for voiding the contract with respect to the Jonesboro game is that it needed to be impossible for us to play the game.

We can certainly make a case that it was impossible, my boy @No_Fly_Zone did an admirable job, and we have common sense on our side, but contracts are contracts, and the interpretation by a court will likely be restricted to the words on the page because the universities are "sophisticated parties" and "impossible" is not ambiguous language. And even if it's somehow considered ambiguous, courts generally interpret ambiguous terms against the drafter of the agreement -- in this case, the ACC, which includes us. "Impossible" is a difficult (and crazy!) standard. It's not favorable language.

If we somehow won the "impossible" argument, then yeah, we win. The force majeure clause allows us to reschedule the game as "such exigencies may dictate or permit," without any limitation on how many years down the road. But again, we're in trouble because of the ACC's ****-poor form agreement.

Like I said before, I think we settle and call it a day.

Regardless of the legal interpretation, I'm genuinely shocked that Arkansas State is making this play. They're angry we're not trying harder to make it work, but it's an indecent thing to do given the circumstances. We don't have an opening until 2024 -- who cares? Get your money then. And I hope it discourages other big time programs from scheduling them.

Backwoods mother****ers.

Contract interpretation is a funny thing in practice. The "four corners" approach is a lovely idea in theory, but it is a quite frequent and unfortunate reality how many judges decide to read into contracts what they want to see.

The veil threat here is forum. Arkansas is conservative and the South, and they believe filing suit in Arkansas will ensure a huge home court advantage and a strict interpretation of contract terms. They are probably dead on correct.

Unfortunately, this thing likely plays out with a settlement of some kind and a lesson hopefully for our AD.

UM
 
Advertisement
I found these two points baffling as well.

not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if a hurricane does involve "catastrophe" or "disaster" which is language in the contract, why do you have to specify every single possible event that could lead to that in a contract? The language seems to give examples but is not meant as some exhaustive list. What about an asteroid hit? Not mentioned. Certainly possible. And would be catastrophic as well.

Also "impossible" could mean other things like "not feasible" or "impractical", etc. Seems you can quibble about words all day long as lawyers seemingly do, no matter what. Changing the language would not necessarily eliminate frivolous lawsuits like this one in my opinion.
 
I will properly place my anger once you show me TCU, Vanderbilt or Stanford dates at Owensboro for an away game. I'll take App State as well....since this is common practice for private schools.

FIU is very close. I did not like the away game at FAU either except for Coach Schnelly...and that didn't smooth it over for me so much.

I have no idea what you're trying to convey here? Owensboro? Take App St.?...what?
 
Color guard BS at App State
Being sued by Ark State

What will happen this year at Toledo? My guess is some heroin addict tries to rob one of our players and gets the **** kicked out of them. Media will portray our players as thugs for picking on the “good guy with a substance abuse problem”
 
I'm not reading through all of this because nobody's paying me. But a couple of quick points.

A hurricane obviously qualifies as a force majeure event, but how a ******' contract for the University of Miami Hurricanes doesn't explicitly reference hurricanes in such a clause is beyond me.

Also, that force majeure clause should not have employed the word "impossible." That's a difficult standard to meet in any circumstance. Some really lazy lawyering by our attorneys.

We'll settle for a lesser sum and call it a day, IMO. **** second rate Arkansas State.

The fact that "hurricane" wasn't expressly stated isn't a deal killer here. The clause doesn't limit it to those events listed. The way the clause is written it's not an all inclusive list. It appears to allow for other unforeseen events not listed. On the part of "impossible" I agree with you. This game wasn't impossible for Miami to play but it was impractical to have us fly out there and play a game when a cat. 5 was coming right at us.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top