(09-18-2013 01:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 09:29 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 01:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That's my point. No school has paid the full amount or waited as long to exit as the bylaws stated. Maryland will be no different. No conference can afford to lose a case and thier case is simply not very good. Exit fees are not really a very good way to keep schools from leaving a conference.

I don't fully disagree, but UMD is in the spot to now say something they initially endorsed (an exit fee) is now punitive. They have to say the one they endorsed wasn't, but the one that was questionably passed is. That's possible, should UMD have some materials that show the schools were acting in league with each other.

...but, again, why didn't UMD do anything after the vote happened? Why wasn't it more of an issue to them to either "fight or flight" it than bide time, work out the Big Ten arrangements, announce, get sued, THEN counter-sue? That makes it sound like UMD would have had no problem staying in the ACC if the Big Ten didn't pan out.

I think its fairly reasonable to say that Maryland left the conference at the first opportunity they had and that these types of move cannot be done in a few days.

As to why the first exit fee was reasonable and the second was not---its very simple. Its between 2 to 3 times the original amount agreed to just a year earlier. What changed in that year? Did values more than double? Or is that the ACC was more threatened? I'd say the higher number has far more to do with the latter than the former. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I don't really see how the ACC has a very good case here.

Coog - you are missing the point regarding what is "value" to the ACC. The fact of the matter is that "values" in the early exit fees were far below real "value" for schools like UNC and FSU in the ACC. There is more to a school regarding it's value than just the record of the football team. Value includes media coverage, travel distance to other schools, recruiting territory, EXCLUSIVE territorial coverage, demonstrated national ratings and media coverage, good will, long-term relationship, etc., etc.

Maryland and Louisville are not interchangeable parts no matter how much you want them to be, because the size of the ACC is not finite. In an environment where conferences can grow, the loss of a territory in location A is not cured by adding another school in location B.

The ACC has lost the value of the following:

1. A team in the Baltimore metro
2. Exclusive conference footprint inside Maryland and the District of Columbia
3. Exclusive media coverage in the DC metro
4. The value of long-term rivalries with Duke, UNC, NC State, etc.

None of these things is cured by adding Louisville and the loss is continuing, not a one time, one year loss.

Obviously the Big 10 thinks UM is worth at least $45-$50 million a year to them. The Big 10 thinks UM is worth a huge loan and a medium term travel subsidy.

Nearly all of Maryland's arguments are rebutted by their own actions or the actions of the B10. Maryland and FSU agreed to the exit formula when they joined the ACC and agreed to abide by ACC votes. Their ONLY recourse against a vote of the whole by a member school is to notice an exit.

Maryland's move was triggered by the ACC's action to invite ND.

It's that simple.

Once the B10 knew they could not force ND into the B10, they turned their attention to the killing off the Big East and taking a bit out the ACC in the middle of the new ACC footprint - retaliation for the ACC taking a bite out of the middle of the B10 footprint - tit for tat.

Finally, you need to understand this case will be tried in NC, then the 4th Circuit in Richmond. UNC, UVa, Wake Forest, and Duke ALL have top lawyers and judges imbedded tighter than ticks in these jurisdictions. You should also know that a Wofford attorney is often a Clemson undergraduate and you should check out the Wofford folks of the 4th Circuit.

While UNC, WF, Duke, or UVa might lose an occasional case - the brain trust of all is not going to lose this case for their alma maters.

Maryland might as well be fighting the Devil in Hell.

(09-18-2013 01:33 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 01:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 09:29 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 01:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That's my point. No school has paid the full amount or waited as long to exit as the bylaws stated. Maryland will be no different. No conference can afford to lose a case and thier case is simply not very good. Exit fees are not really a very good way to keep schools from leaving a conference.

I don't fully disagree, but UMD is in the spot to now say something they initially endorsed (an exit fee) is now punitive. They have to say the one they endorsed wasn't, but the one that was questionably passed is. That's possible, should UMD have some materials that show the schools were acting in league with each other.

...but, again, why didn't UMD do anything after the vote happened? Why wasn't it more of an issue to them to either "fight or flight" it than bide time, work out the Big Ten arrangements, announce, get sued, THEN counter-sue? That makes it sound like UMD would have had no problem staying in the ACC if the Big Ten didn't pan out.

I think its fairly reasonable to say that Maryland left the conference at the first opportunity they had and that these types of move cannot be done in a few days.

As to why the first exit fee was reasonable and the second was not---its very simple. Its between 2 to 3 times the original amount agreed to just a year earlier. What changed in that year? Did values more than double? Or is that the ACC was more threatened? I'd say the higher number has far more to do with the latter than the former. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I don't really see how the ACC has a very good case here.

Coog - you are missing the point regarding what is "value" to the ACC. The fact of the matter is that "values" in the early exit fees were far below real "value" for schools like UNC and FSU in the ACC. There is more to a school regarding it's value than just the record of the football team. Value includes media coverage, travel distance to other schools, recruiting territory, EXCLUSIVE territorial coverage, demonstrated national ratings and media coverage, good will, long-term relationship, etc., etc.

Maryland and Louisville are not interchangeable parts no matter how much you want them to be, because the size of the ACC is not finite. In an environment where conferences can grow, the loss of a territory in location A is not cured by adding another school in location B.

The ACC has lost the value of the following:

1. A team in the Baltimore metro
2. Exclusive conference footprint inside Maryland and the District of Columbia
3. Exclusive media coverage in the DC metro
4. The value of long-term rivalries with Duke, UNC, NC State, etc.
None of these things is cured by adding Louisville and the loss is continuing, not a one time, one year loss.

Obviously the Big 10 thinks UM is worth at least $45-$50 million a year to them. The Big 10 thinks UM is worth a huge loan and a medium term travel subsidy.

Nearly all of Maryland's arguments are rebutted by their own actions or the actions of the B10. Maryland and FSU agreed to the exit formula when they joined the ACC and agreed to abide by ACC votes. Their ONLY recourse against a vote of the whole by a member school is to notice an exit.

Maryland's move was triggered by the ACC's action to invite ND.

It's that simple.

Once the B10 knew they could not force ND into the B10, they turned their attention to the killing off the Big East and taking a bit out the ACC in the middle of the new ACC footprint - retaliation for the ACC taking a bite out of the middle of the B10 footprint - tit for tat.

Finally, you need to understand this case will be tried in NC, then the 4th Circuit in Richmond. UNC, UVa, Wake Forest, and Duke ALL have top lawyers and judges imbedded tighter than ticks in these jurisdictions. You should also know that a Wofford attorney is often a Clemson undergraduate and you should check out the Wofford folks of the 4th Circuit.

While UNC, WF, Duke, or UVa might lose an occasional case - the brain trust of all is not going to lose this case for their alma maters.

Maryland might as well be fighting the Devil in Hell.

All that is true. I'm not arguing that Maryland is not unique. Every school is unique. Every plot of real estate is unique. However, that doesn't mean two pieces of unique real estate cant have roughly the exact same value.

By the way, Maryland didn't select their replacement. The AAC selected Louisville. If the ACC felt that retaining the Maryland area was such a concern then they should have added Navy. Obviously, the AAC went with the addition that was closest to replacing the value of Maryland (regardless of location). Replicating the footprint was obviously considered less important.

It might be easier for some of you to look at it like MD is compensating 10 teams about $5 million apiece for leaving the ACC forever. Add that to lumberpack4's points and really, the total exit fee does not seem out of hand in the least.

the thing about losing Maryland is they are going to lose a lot of the DC media market. I mean now, when ACC and Big Ten play at same time here in DC, ACC game is shown almost always. Starting next year, that probably won't be the case, unless UVA is playing. Definitely for Baltimore.

(09-18-2013 02:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  It might be easier for some of you to look at it like MD is compensating 10 teams about $5 million apiece for leaving the ACC forever. Add that to lumberpack4's points and really, the total exit fee does not seem out of hand in the least.

Since the TV contract went up and Louisville was "available", I don't see how the ACC will show that they lost anything in "damages" (payable to current members).

The ACC does not "own" Maryland and even if it did, Maryland does not own rights to its surrounding territory. This is just about a fee for exiting, which cannot be punitive.

(09-18-2013 02:56 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 02:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  It might be easier for some of you to look at it like MD is compensating 10 teams about $5 million apiece for leaving the ACC forever. Add that to lumberpack4's points and really, the total exit fee does not seem out of hand in the least.

Since the TV contract went up and Louisville was "available", I don't see how the ACC will show that they lost anything in "damages" (payable to current members).

The ACC does not "own" Maryland and even if it did, Maryland does not own rights to its surrounding territory. This is just about a fee for exiting, which cannot be punitive.

Well I can see that some of us will never agree regarding the damages issue. It's kind of funny that the ACC is actually the one that is arguing that Maryland is worth at least $52+ million to them. Maryland keeps trying to devalue themselves!

Perhaps this illustrates why the ACC has taken the path of asking the courts if the ACC membership can create their own laws and by-laws. That really is all they are asking.

If a conference member is worth $52 million why didn't Louisville, Syracuse and Pitt ask for millions to join?

(09-18-2013 04:12 PM)SeaBlue pidgin='9739313 Wrote:If a conference member is worth $52 million why didn't Louisville, Syracuse and Pitt ask for millions to join?

What is funny about that is one of Loh's arguments against the exit fee was that it would prevent other schools from wanting to join the ACC. We jumped at the chance. He also argued it would prevent schools from leaving the ACC. Yet Maryland has stated that they will join the B1G regardless if they have to pay the entire amount!


Also.....the exit fee isn't $52+ million anymore. It has gone up.

Maryland had the option to leave right after the vote but they did not. If they had, they would have the BC precedent where BC voted against the hike in exit fee and left right after it passed. If memory serves me, they ended up winning the lawsuit against them and paid the lower amount.

If the B1G had already extended an offer when the vote was taken or MD was in negotiations with them, they lose a lot of credibility.

Maryland waited to leave, and by doing so greatly IMHO diminished their case. If it was about the principal, they could have filed suit immediately while they were still a member. Again they didn't. They also admitted that they delayed informing the ACC they were leaving to try to avoid having their disbursements withheld. At no time has MD attempted to negotiate with the ACC. They are trying to weasel out if the conference and escape paying anything at all.

As it is, they will refuse to pay anything above the amount withheld and the ACC will end up suing the B1G or the NCAA to have their revenue paid to the ACC as a collectable debt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

(09-18-2013 04:23 PM)Dasville Wrote:  We jumped at the chance.

You got robbed. You're worth at least 75% of whatever the ACC gets out of Maryland.

(09-18-2013 05:02 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Maryland had the option to leave right after the vote but they did not. If they had, they would have the BC precedent where BC voted against the hike in exit fee and left right after it passed. If memory serves me, they ended up winning the lawsuit against them and paid the lower amount.

If the B1G had already extended an offer when the vote was taken or MD was in negotiations with them, they lose a lot of credibility.

Maryland waited to leave, and by doing so greatly IMHO diminished their case. If it was about the principal, they could have filed suit immediately while they were still a member. Again they didn't. They also admitted that they delayed informing the ACC they were leaving to try to avoid having their disbursements withheld. At no time has MD attempted to negotiate with the ACC. They are trying to weasel out if the conference and escape paying anything at all.

As it is, they will refuse to pay anything above the amount withheld and the ACC will end up suing the B1G or the NCAA to have their revenue paid to the ACC as a collectable debt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

Are you implying that the B1G cosigned with Maryland by accepting them in the B1G before they had negotiated an exit from the ACC?

Is that why the SEC handled the Missouri and Texas AM additions the way they did?
Slive doesn't know what he is doing does he?



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/fo...index.html

(09-18-2013 05:41 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 05:02 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Maryland had the option to leave right after the vote but they did not. If they had, they would have the BC precedent where BC voted against the hike in exit fee and left right after it passed. If memory serves me, they ended up winning the lawsuit against them and paid the lower amount.

If the B1G had already extended an offer when the vote was taken or MD was in negotiations with them, they lose a lot of credibility.

Maryland waited to leave, and by doing so greatly IMHO diminished their case. If it was about the principal, they could have filed suit immediately while they were still a member. Again they didn't. They also admitted that they delayed informing the ACC they were leaving to try to avoid having their disbursements withheld. At no time has MD attempted to negotiate with the ACC. They are trying to weasel out if the conference and escape paying anything at all.

As it is, they will refuse to pay anything above the amount withheld and the ACC will end up suing the B1G or the NCAA to have their revenue paid to the ACC as a collectable debt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

Are you implying that the B1G cosigned with Maryland by accepting them in the B1G before they had negotiated an exit from the ACC?

Is that why the SEC handled the Missouri and Texas AM additions the way they did?
Slive doesn't know what he is doing does he?



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/fo...index.html

I think based on their actions it is a good bet they had an invite in hand when this vote was taken. IMHO, right now they are bluffing with a pair of twos but they are going to have to show soon. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Maryland had the invitation in hand and they were extorting negotiating their travel stipend when the vote was taken.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

(09-18-2013 07:11 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 05:41 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 05:02 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Maryland had the option to leave right after the vote but they did not. If they had, they would have the BC precedent where BC voted against the hike in exit fee and left right after it passed. If memory serves me, they ended up winning the lawsuit against them and paid the lower amount.

If the B1G had already extended an offer when the vote was taken or MD was in negotiations with them, they lose a lot of credibility.

Maryland waited to leave, and by doing so greatly IMHO diminished their case. If it was about the principal, they could have filed suit immediately while they were still a member. Again they didn't. They also admitted that they delayed informing the ACC they were leaving to try to avoid having their disbursements withheld. At no time has MD attempted to negotiate with the ACC. They are trying to weasel out if the conference and escape paying anything at all.

As it is, they will refuse to pay anything above the amount withheld and the ACC will end up suing the B1G or the NCAA to have their revenue paid to the ACC as a collectable debt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

Are you implying that the B1G cosigned with Maryland by accepting them in the B1G before they had negotiated an exit from the ACC?

Is that why the SEC handled the Missouri and Texas AM additions the way they did?
Slive doesn't know what he is doing does he?



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/fo...index.html

I think based on their actions it is a good bet they had an invite in hand when this vote was taken. IMHO, right now they are bluffing with a pair of twos but they are going to have to show soon. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Maryland had the invitation in hand and they were extorting negotiating their travel stipend when the vote was taken.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

Slive DEMANDED that those teams provide an exit notice before the SEC even voted on their entrance. He was just protecting the SEC from getting tangled in any of the exiting issues.

It is also of note that the SEC vote did not have to be unanimous for the addition of the Big 12 teams. It seems that items can be passed and implemented immediately without an unanimous vote in the SEC!