McConnico argued that agreements in perpetuity, such as the one with the BAA, are not valid and can be terminated at will. He also told the judge that the terms of the agreement between Baylor and the BAA are too vague to be enforced. McConnico argued that so much has changed at Baylor since the 1994 agreement was signed and that it would handicap Baylor’s progress for the vague agreement to be upheld.

“Baylor has a fiduciary duty and they can’t be bound by agreements made decades ago that tie their hands to where they can’t do what’s best for the university,” McConnico said.

Austin attorney Shannon Ratliff, one of several attorneys who represent the BAA, countered that it is hard to imagine that when former Baylor President Herbert Reynolds signed the agreements with the BAA that he didn’t intend them to be enforceable.

“The courts are here to enforce agreements between parties and are not here to nullify solvent agreements between people,” Ratliff said. “Baylor says the agreements are not enforceable because it improperly binds future administrations and board of regents. I suspect Baylor has numerous contracts that extend beyond the life of the current regents and President Ken Starr. Are they going to argue that those are not valid?”