Clay Travis can be an arrogant idiot sometimes but he does actually have a law degree and this is an interesting theory about ESPN "advising" leagues. I can't help but wonder if the Big East could sue ESPN and the ACC for SU and Pitt's move to the ACC if they can prove ESPN told them who to invite. If ESPN deliberately injured the Big East and helped the ACC, there may be a case.

Frank? Any thoughts on this?

http://outkickthecoverage.com/espn-fox-a...e-dame.php

I have been saying a long time BE needs to seriously pursuing lawsuit against ESPiN if BE is left out of the artificial "power" conference and get less money in whatever structure they will propose. BE was clearly damaged by the action of ACC and the B12. ESPiN played a major role in this. Once BE get a new TV deal with NBC, I seriously hope BE look into a massive lawsuit against ESPiN, ACC and B12. I like to see BCU AD on the stand lying so they can go after him for perjury.

I wonder if NBC Sports could also be a plaintiff since it is arguable that ESPN's actions were also motivated by a desire to deny them access to a "power conference" affiliation.

Can it? Yes. But the Big East has to weight the collteral damage of a loss of coverage as a result.

(06-28-2012 11:27 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  I have been saying a long time BE needs to seriously pursuing lawsuit against ESPiN if BE is left out of the artificial "power" conference and get less money in whatever structure they will propose. BE was clearly damaged by the action of ACC and the B12. ESPiN played a major role in this. Once BE get a new TV deal with NBC, I seriously hope BE look into a massive lawsuit against ESPiN, ACC and B12. I like to see BCU AD on the stand lying so they can go after him for perjury.

The Big East would win too. It would never ever go to court. The discovery process would be absolutley deveastating to ESPN. They would never want all those emails unearthed or all those executives to give depositions. Nope, intead, a 19 million dollar a team Big East contract with ESPN would quickly be inked and quiet settlemet would be made. Suddenly the Big East would have a solid Sturday game on ESPN (nont ESPN2 or ESPNU) and and Big East vs ACC Orange Bowl matchup would suddedly seem like a great idea to all parties. Well----it a cool fantasy anyway.

We have discussed this before. Frank has stated in the past he does not think the Big East has a case and any filing would be considered frivolous in nature. Like Clay Travis I disagree with Mr. Tank. I think the statements made by the BC AD on its own is enough to support the lawsuit would be filed on a good-faith basis.

(06-28-2012 11:27 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  I have been saying a long time BE needs to seriously pursuing lawsuit against ESPiN if BE is left out of the artificial "power" conference and get less money in whatever structure they will propose. BE was clearly damaged by the action of ACC and the B12. ESPiN played a major role in this. Once BE get a new TV deal with NBC, I seriously hope BE look into a massive lawsuit against ESPiN, ACC and B12. I like to see BCU AD on the stand lying so they can go after him for perjury.

The Big East would win too. It would never ever go to court. The discovery process would be absolutley devastating to ESPN. They would never want all those emails unearthed or all those executives to give depositions. Nope, instead, a 19 million dollar a team Big East contract with ESPN would quickly be inked and a quiet settlemet would be made. Suddenly the Big East would have a solid Saturday game on ESPN (not ESPN2 or ESPNU) and and Big East vs ACC Orange Bowl matchup would suddenly seem like a great idea to all parties. Well----I know it sounds like fantasy, but I suspect theres more to this ESPN stuff than many may think.

(06-28-2012 12:06 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  We have discussed this before. Frank has stated in the past he does not think the Big East has a case and any filing would be considered frivolous in nature. Like Clay Travis I disagree with Mr. Tank. I think the statements made by the BC AD on its own is enough to support the lawsuit would be filed on a good-faith basis.

Of course Frank does not think BE has a case. People that believe apartheid type of college football system is the right system won't give you anything easy unless you fight for it.

One might argue new BE schools don't have a case, but UCONN, RU, USF, Cincy and UL do have a case if those schools are somehow "lessen" by those actions. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars at stake here.

Let's see what happens with the revenue distribution model and upcoming television contracts.

Litigation is not going to solve our problems and I don't think we want the discovery process to unearth what most of our current and former conference members have been doing behind closed doors.

(06-28-2012 12:06 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  We have discussed this before. Frank has stated in the past he does not think the Big East has a case and any filing would be considered frivolous in nature. Like Clay Travis I disagree with Mr. Tank. I think the statements made by the BC AD on its own is enough to support the lawsuit would be filed on a good-faith basis.

Frank has said there was no case against the other schools and leagues and he is probably right. I think the case is against ESPN because they are the "invisible hand" guiding all these moves. If they intentionally help one of their
partners, who they have locked up for the next 13 years, at the expense of another partner whose deal expires soon, I could see a claim against them for tortious interference.

Antitrust law is a looming issue for ABC/Disney and ESPN.

(06-28-2012 12:40 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  Let's see what happens with the revenue distribution model and upcoming television contracts.

Litigation is not going to solve our problems and I don't think we want the discovery process to unearth what most of our current and former conference members have been doing behind closed doors.

I agree there's just too many moving parts and too much going on behind closed doors. Let's wait for this merry-go-round to stop and then see where we are.

(06-28-2012 01:05 PM)Delin Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 12:40 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  Let's see what happens with the revenue distribution model and upcoming television contracts.

Litigation is not going to solve our problems and I don't think we want the discovery process to unearth what most of our current and former conference members have been doing behind closed doors.

I agree there's just too many moving parts and too much going on behind closed doors. Let's wait for this merry-go-round to stop and then see where we are.

+1. There are a lot of conflicting info out there so none of us really knows what's really happening behind close doors. I will just wait until the whole thing settles before making any judgement. If certain schools are "damaged", there is cause for lawsuits.

The porblem with suing ESPN is that you need ESPN to bid on Big East sports to drive the price up. Thus it would be hard for the Big East to sue ESPN at this time.

(06-28-2012 12:06 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  We have discussed this before. Frank has stated in the past he does not think the Big East has a case and any filing would be considered frivolous in nature. Like Clay Travis I disagree with Mr. Tank. I think the statements made by the BC AD on its own is enough to support the lawsuit would be filed on a good-faith basis.

It's not a one size fits all scenario. As with any case, it depends upon the facts.

The comments by the BC AD are certainly not enough to support a lawsuit. The comments themselves could be interpreted in different ways (e.g. was ESPN saying to go get Pitt or Syracuse specifically or were they just saying that they're just paying for football?). Now, if ESPN is dumb enough to have a bunch of emails going back and forth talking about how much the ACC would get if they specifically added Big East teams, then you might have something.

The Big 12 memo goes further than that, although it's still a pretty tough case. What Travis is saying is that there's a conflict of interest (as opposed to suggesting that there is some type of concrete actionable claim outside of a possible breach of fiduciary duty), which I'd certainly agree with. ESPN has conflicts of interest all over the place. The fact that there are conflicts of interest, though, doesn't automatically mean that there's some type of legal action. It's no different than a supplier that provides hardware for both iPhones and Andriod-based phones. That supplier is dealing with two parties that are direct competitors and has a conflict of interest when it comes to who gets the first shipment, best deals, etc. Every grocery store has a conflict of interest when it sells 5 different brands of corn flakes (including a brand that the store itself owns). None of those conflicts mean that there are legal actions involved, even though the placement of Kellogg's Corn Flakes at the eye level shelf in the grocery store translates into greater sales than the Post corn flakes on the bottom shelf. (That's not a hypothetical. Kellogg's pays grocery stores extra money so that they're on the "best shelf".)

Could you fish around for a legal claim? In theory, yes, although it would take some really stupid emails or written documents to get anywhere. (It doesn't mean that such emails or documents don't exist, but you need more than this Big 12 memo or the BC AD comments to get to the discovery stage.)

In practicality (and even as a lawyer myself, I look to practical business considerations), does the Big East really want to go down the road of angering ESPN? You can state, "We're leaving them for NBC," but the way to maximize your revenue from NBC is to ensure that ESPN is a legitimate bidder. Like it or not, the Big East *needs* ESPN to at least put in its own bid in the next couple of months. So, if you're wondering why conferences don't sue ESPN all of the time, it's because they need ESPN around to make the most TV money (whether they actually have a contract with ESPN or not).