(03-23-2014 02:19 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:13 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 12:38 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  Its way too early to say who can get out for what.

Seems Maryland has some legitimate information they are attempting to present to the courts. It will be interesting to see what does come out from this discovery.

As far as the Big East, that conference doesn't exist anymore, not sure why the BE didn't push for legal remedies from the ACC in the latest round, but individual schools did sue when the earlier realignment happened. They didn't win much other than legal fees and some games though. Don't really think any of that will have anything to do with the present case other than possibly showing the hypocritical nature of the ACC suing Maryland for leaving when the ACC has a long history of poaching schools from other conferences.

The American Athletic Conference is the legal successor to the original Big East - all the conference did was sell the name and intellectual property to a group if schools who withdrew from the conference.

Actually, the Big East is now a basketball conference HQd in Providence RI.

The AAC is a new conference that happens to have a few members from the old Big East conference.

Legally, the AAC is the successor to the old Big East Conference. Therefore, the AAC would inherit any legal claims by the Big East against the ACC. Unfortunately for them, chances are the buyout agreements with Syracuse and Pitt probably blocked any such litigation.

(03-23-2014 09:56 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:33 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 02:22 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 01:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As I have said before Maryland has been involved in the decision making since 1953, so they know where the bodies are buried. The fact that the ACC has been ran like a small town country club is going to bite them in the end, and I highly doubt that even the corrupt NC judicial system can bail them out of this one. This case gets settled for significantly less than what the ACC has pushed for.

Sad thing is the ACC fanboys on this board will still try to claim a victory.

It sounds like a fishing expedition. An attempt to try to push a settlement by making cumbersome requests and/or a try at obfuscating the issues when you don't find the law so clearly on your side. I don't believe it is an uncommon tactic, and to me it reeks more of desperation than of knowing where any bodies are buried.

In court you can't just "know", you have to prove. Maryland probably knows many things about the inner working of the ACC when they took schools from other conferences or moved on their new buyout fees. They still have to prove everything in court though and that's why you would go after documents. Doesn't reflect any desperation, just sound legal maneuvers.

Maryland "knows" because Maryland has their own hands full of any "muck" people think will be uncovered during discovery.

It took part in all of these decisions and voted in favor of them along with all of the other Old Guard ACC schools.

Their hands are full of the same "blood" that other people want them to "expose".

None of that will help them with their legal case. They would have the same "unclean hands" as their court opponent.

Obviously if Maryland is presenting something in court the assumption would be they aren't materially involved in any wrongdoing.

Maryland may not have been directly involved in planning or determining how to take teams from other conferences. Their administration was doubtfully involved in direct meetings with media partners on things like increases or who would be valuable for example. Instead, the ACC office and probably a few members administrators (UNC, Duke?) were involved directly and then disseminated the information to the rest.

Also, reports say that the ACC knew Maryland was talking with the Big Ten, and others might be talking, when they raised the buyout fee a second time. Obviously Maryland wasn't involved in any discussions related to increasing the buyout fee, nor was FSU who also has been reported as being very suprised by it. Maryland has told the court they were unaware and the dissemination of information as required by the bylaws wasn't followed. Someone was involved in such decissions though, and that is the type of info that discovery will show to the court.

First, have you been reading the thread? The subpoenas ask for information going back twelve years.

Your position is that Maryland has been in a fog or locked in a dark room the past twelve years?

The only one "assuming" Maryland is pure as a Vestal Virgin is you, for whatever reason.

Second, Maryland voted in favor of adding all new members and all new media deals during the past twelve years.

You must be kidding about the school not being elbow deep in the sheeet.

Third, Maryland has yet to "present" one damn thing to the court.

They are in the discovery phase. This is info gathering, nothing more.

Nothing is being presented to anyone, yet.

The trial, if any, is still a long way off (a year or two, perhaps?).

(03-23-2014 12:29 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:33 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 02:22 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 01:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As I have said before Maryland has been involved in the decision making since 1953, so they know where the bodies are buried. The fact that the ACC has been ran like a small town country club is going to bite them in the end, and I highly doubt that even the corrupt NC judicial system can bail them out of this one. This case gets settled for significantly less than what the ACC has pushed for.

Sad thing is the ACC fanboys on this board will still try to claim a victory.

It sounds like a fishing expedition. An attempt to try to push a settlement by making cumbersome requests and/or a try at obfuscating the issues when you don't find the law so clearly on your side. I don't believe it is an uncommon tactic, and to me it reeks more of desperation than of knowing where any bodies are buried.

In court you can't just "know", you have to prove. Maryland probably knows many things about the inner working of the ACC when they took schools from other conferences or moved on their new buyout fees. They still have to prove everything in court though and that's why you would go after documents. Doesn't reflect any desperation, just sound legal maneuvers.

Maryland "knows" because Maryland has their own hands full of any "muck" people think will be uncovered during discovery.

It took part in all of these decisions and voted in favor of them along with all of the other Old Guard ACC schools.

Their hands are full of the same "blood" that other people want them to "expose".

None of that will help them with their legal case. They would have the same "unclean hands" as their court opponent.

TerryD, I think you and most of the posters on here are a little off course with the contention Maryland's strategy is nothing more than churn up "muck" and "blood". What is legally significant in this case as it pertains to antitrust and unfair business practices is defining the "market" of schools that the ACC competes.

As for going back 12 years in its discovery requests, I believe Maryland's purpose for doing so is to show the ACC and the B1G compete in the same market for schools in the northeast. It will be hard for the ACC to deny this when they have added VT, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt, while the B1G has added PSU, Rutgers and most significantly, Maryland from the ACC.

Maryland does not need muck or blood from ESPN or the Big East raids to win its case. Maryland needs information to show market, value and competition for schools. It does not need to show ESPN induced any school to move, only that ESPN, if asked, gave honest assessments they would pay more. That is the all important line that ESPN has consistently stated it does not cross, most recently just this weekend, and it would be highly unlikely for ESPN, in my opinion, to have crossed that line. That is corporate business 101.

The only muck Maryland needs is the penal exit fee. The contention the ACC violated its own Bylaws is gravy, albeit delicious gravy for the stuffing Maryland is about to knock out of the ACC.

No, I understand about "market".

It is just, in my opinion, Maryland has as much chance of winning an anti-trust case as I do in hitting the Powerball.

I think that this is just typical discovery stuff I see every day in my legal practice that is just a lead up to a mediation or a direct party settlement.

I think it is mostly just tactical stuff to lead into serious negotiations.

I have never thought for one second that the ACC would win on the $52 million exit fee issue and have so stated here and elsewhere often.



So, here is how I view things:

1) The ACC cannot collect $52 million as an exit fee.

2) The Maryland anti-trust counterclaims are mostly BS.

3) Maryland agreed to the prior $20 million exit fee. In fact, they PUSHED for them. It will be very hard for them to say "Oh, never mind".



So, I see this case as having a value to the ACC somewhere north of $20 million and well south of $52 million.

Throw out the $52 million ACC claims and the Maryland anti-trust claims and where will the settlement fall ?????

I have always thought it will come in around $27 million, plus or minus a million or two.


I have no "dog in this fight". None of this money is going to go into my pocket.

I am no "fanboy" of the ACC. I dislike all conferences, almost equally.

This case has nothing to do with the survival of the ACC and hence a place to park ND's non-football programs.

So, it is no skin off my nose if the ACC has to take less or pay money to Maryland. That money isn't out of my pocket, either.

I am just looking at this case as a lawyer with 27 years of commercial litigation experience.


I am often wrong but never shy with my opinions. :)

(03-23-2014 02:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 12:29 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:33 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 02:22 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  It sounds like a fishing expedition. An attempt to try to push a settlement by making cumbersome requests and/or a try at obfuscating the issues when you don't find the law so clearly on your side. I don't believe it is an uncommon tactic, and to me it reeks more of desperation than of knowing where any bodies are buried.

In court you can't just "know", you have to prove. Maryland probably knows many things about the inner working of the ACC when they took schools from other conferences or moved on their new buyout fees. They still have to prove everything in court though and that's why you would go after documents. Doesn't reflect any desperation, just sound legal maneuvers.

Maryland "knows" because Maryland has their own hands full of any "muck" people think will be uncovered during discovery.

It took part in all of these decisions and voted in favor of them along with all of the other Old Guard ACC schools.

Their hands are full of the same "blood" that other people want them to "expose".

None of that will help them with their legal case. They would have the same "unclean hands" as their court opponent.

TerryD, I think you and most of the posters on here are a little off course with the contention Maryland's strategy is nothing more than churn up "muck" and "blood". What is legally significant in this case as it pertains to antitrust and unfair business practices is defining the "market" of schools that the ACC competes.

As for going back 12 years in its discovery requests, I believe Maryland's purpose for doing so is to show the ACC and the B1G compete in the same market for schools in the northeast. It will be hard for the ACC to deny this when they have added VT, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt, while the B1G has added PSU, Rutgers and most significantly, Maryland from the ACC.

Maryland does not need muck or blood from ESPN or the Big East raids to win its case. Maryland needs information to show market, value and competition for schools. It does not need to show ESPN induced any school to move, only that ESPN, if asked, gave honest assessments they would pay more. That is the all important line that ESPN has consistently stated it does not cross, most recently just this weekend, and it would be highly unlikely for ESPN, in my opinion, to have crossed that line. That is corporate business 101.

The only muck Maryland needs is the penal exit fee. The contention the ACC violated its own Bylaws is gravy, albeit delicious gravy for the stuffing Maryland is about to knock out of the ACC.

No, I understand about "market".

It is just, in my opinion, Maryland has as much chance of winning an anti-trust case as I do in hitting the Powerball.

I think that this is just typical discovery stuff I see every day in my legal practice that is just a lead up to a mediation or a direct party settlement.

I think it is mostly just tactical stuff to lead into serious negotiations.

I have never thought for one second that the ACC would win on the $52 million exit fee issue and have so stated here and elsewhere often.



So, here is how I view things:

1) The ACC cannot collect $52 million as an exit fee.

2) The Maryland anti-trust counterclaims are mostly BS.

3) Maryland agreed to the prior $20 million exit fee. In fact, they PUSHED for them. It will be very hard for them to say "Oh, never mind".



So, I see this case as having a value to the ACC somewhere north of $20 million and well south of $52 million.

Throw out the $52 million ACC claims and the Maryland anti-trust claims and where will the settlement fall ?????

I have always thought it will come in around $27 million, plus or minus a million or two.


I have no "dog in this fight". None of this money is going to go into my pocket.

I am no "fanboy" of the ACC. I dislike all conferences, almost equally.

This case has nothing to do with the survival of the ACC and hence a place to park ND's non-football programs.

So, it is no skin off my nose if the ACC has to take less or pay money to Maryland. That money isn't out of my pocket, either.

I am just looking at this case as a lawyer with 27 years of commercial litigation experience.


I am often wrong but never shy with my opinions. :)

TerryD,

Thanks for your response. My post primarily addressed the prevalence of posts characterizing Maryland's discovery as nothing more than trying to dig up dirt and that it had necessarily cast a stone at ESPN.

Like most long time posters. I'm very aware of your position concerning the likelihood of settlement. As an attorney of 15 years I agree that the safe bet is that there will be a settlement because there usually is one, and that such sum will be between $25 to 30 million crediting Maryland with funds already withheld by the ACC.

But you just never know in litigation until it is over, especially when there are larger entities that might want a school to be less restricted in its ability to maximize its market value. I admit that is conjecture on my part, but even putting aside the massive amount of conspiracy theories promulgated here over the last few years, there would be a lot of value in a consolidated college football upper tier. This is not lost on those who could make many millions on such change.

Maybe, just maybe, there will not be a settlement. If so there very well could be a ruling where universities cannot be unduly restricted in denying there right to join other conferences. Penal exit fees appears to be a no-brainer. Grant of rights, which are not directly at issue in this case, could still be affected. If a court rules an institution cannot be so bound unreasonably then the precedent for grant of rights cases would be the same, with the likely interpretation of the purpose of such provisions being the preservation of the networks' ability to broadcast content. Anything more than either actual damages or reasonable liquidated damages will likewise be struck down.

I understand the challenges in Maryland's antitrust suit, and their less challenging obstacles in its unfair business practices allegations. I guess we will just have to disagree as to the strength of such claims.

Best Wishes,

Lurker Above

(03-23-2014 02:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:19 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:13 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 12:38 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  Its way too early to say who can get out for what.

Seems Maryland has some legitimate information they are attempting to present to the courts. It will be interesting to see what does come out from this discovery.

As far as the Big East, that conference doesn't exist anymore, not sure why the BE didn't push for legal remedies from the ACC in the latest round, but individual schools did sue when the earlier realignment happened. They didn't win much other than legal fees and some games though. Don't really think any of that will have anything to do with the present case other than possibly showing the hypocritical nature of the ACC suing Maryland for leaving when the ACC has a long history of poaching schools from other conferences.

The American Athletic Conference is the legal successor to the original Big East - all the conference did was sell the name and intellectual property to a group if schools who withdrew from the conference.

Actually, the Big East is now a basketball conference HQd in Providence RI.

The AAC is a new conference that happens to have a few members from the old Big East conference.

Legally, the AAC is the successor to the old Big East Conference. Therefore, the AAC would inherit any legal claims by the Big East against the ACC. Unfortunately for them, chances are the buyout agreements with Syracuse and Pitt probably blocked any such litigation.

no, the AAC is a new conference , the Big East rights were retained by the basketball schools

(03-22-2014 12:45 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 11:18 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Maryland is doing some serious bridge burning

Bridge burning? The blew the danged bridge up when they left! So I doubt they care about anything they have to do now to get their money, or mitigate their exit fees.

They need games within 4-6 hours for their home fanbase. It might be good for Hoops but not a tone of BCS schools within 4-6 hours not named ACC.

WVU, UK, ECU, Navy, Army, Temple, UConn, Cincy..... granted the AAC isn't a "BCS" conference now but thats enough to build a half way decent OOC schedule.

(03-23-2014 02:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:56 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:33 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 02:22 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  It sounds like a fishing expedition. An attempt to try to push a settlement by making cumbersome requests and/or a try at obfuscating the issues when you don't find the law so clearly on your side. I don't believe it is an uncommon tactic, and to me it reeks more of desperation than of knowing where any bodies are buried.

In court you can't just "know", you have to prove. Maryland probably knows many things about the inner working of the ACC when they took schools from other conferences or moved on their new buyout fees. They still have to prove everything in court though and that's why you would go after documents. Doesn't reflect any desperation, just sound legal maneuvers.

Maryland "knows" because Maryland has their own hands full of any "muck" people think will be uncovered during discovery.

It took part in all of these decisions and voted in favor of them along with all of the other Old Guard ACC schools.

Their hands are full of the same "blood" that other people want them to "expose".

None of that will help them with their legal case. They would have the same "unclean hands" as their court opponent.

Obviously if Maryland is presenting something in court the assumption would be they aren't materially involved in any wrongdoing.

Maryland may not have been directly involved in planning or determining how to take teams from other conferences. Their administration was doubtfully involved in direct meetings with media partners on things like increases or who would be valuable for example. Instead, the ACC office and probably a few members administrators (UNC, Duke?) were involved directly and then disseminated the information to the rest.

Also, reports say that the ACC knew Maryland was talking with the Big Ten, and others might be talking, when they raised the buyout fee a second time. Obviously Maryland wasn't involved in any discussions related to increasing the buyout fee, nor was FSU who also has been reported as being very suprised by it. Maryland has told the court they were unaware and the dissemination of information as required by the bylaws wasn't followed. Someone was involved in such decissions though, and that is the type of info that discovery will show to the court.

First, have you been reading the thread? The subpoenas ask for information going back twelve years.

yes, i have and i know how far back requests go.

Your position is that Maryland has been in a fog or locked in a dark room the past twelve years?

Of course I did not say that. I said they weren't the instigators or decision makers on things like realignment or buyout increases.

The only one "assuming" Maryland is pure as a Vestal Virgin is you, for whatever reason.

The lawsuits aren't seeking to find out how Maryland moved to the B10 or why, everyone already knows. The suits are about the ACC trying to keep members in their conference by forcing a very high buyout on them, and for Maryland being free to move as they choose. Not sure why you believe everyone would think the ACC is in the right here, they dont and the courts may not either.

Second, Maryland voted in favor of adding all new members and all new media deals during the past twelve years.

This has nothing to do with how those things came to be or why. Maryland isnt being accused of anything in any of that by anyone from the ACC. Not sure why you would try to make it an issue. The only issues are did the ACC violate their bylaws or not, is the buyout legal and have they attempted to interfere and punish Maryland for moving elsewhere.

You must be kidding about the school not being elbow deep in the sheeet.

Still not sure why you are pretending they are, its not in any of the suits.


Third, Maryland has yet to "present" one damn thing to the court.

Theyve presented the lawsuit itself and the ACCs bylaws related to the case. theyve also been granted the right to seek discovery from various ACC schools and media partners. After discovery theyll present their evidence to the court.

They are in the discovery phase. This is info gathering, nothing more.

Its collecting evidence to present their case in court.

Nothing is being presented to anyone, yet.

No one said it is-but it will be unless settled first

The trial, if any, is still a long way off (a year or two, perhaps?).

It doesn't matter, evidence is being collected and there will likely be motions filed as a result much sooner than you imagine.

(03-23-2014 10:21 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:19 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:13 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 12:38 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  Its way too early to say who can get out for what.

Seems Maryland has some legitimate information they are attempting to present to the courts. It will be interesting to see what does come out from this discovery.

As far as the Big East, that conference doesn't exist anymore, not sure why the BE didn't push for legal remedies from the ACC in the latest round, but individual schools did sue when the earlier realignment happened. They didn't win much other than legal fees and some games though. Don't really think any of that will have anything to do with the present case other than possibly showing the hypocritical nature of the ACC suing Maryland for leaving when the ACC has a long history of poaching schools from other conferences.

The American Athletic Conference is the legal successor to the original Big East - all the conference did was sell the name and intellectual property to a group if schools who withdrew from the conference.

Actually, the Big East is now a basketball conference HQd in Providence RI.

The AAC is a new conference that happens to have a few members from the old Big East conference.

Legally, the AAC is the successor to the old Big East Conference. Therefore, the AAC would inherit any legal claims by the Big East against the ACC. Unfortunately for them, chances are the buyout agreements with Syracuse and Pitt probably blocked any such litigation.

no, the AAC is a new conference , the Big East rights were retained by the basketball schools

1). The current C7 version of the Big East is a new conference. It applied for and was granted a new NCAA autobid.

2). The current AAC is a continuation of the old Big East corporate charter, has the old Big East NCAA autobid, recieved exit fees from the C7, and all the NCAA credits earned by the old Big East. The AAC sold the use of the name "Big East" to the C7--but not the corporate charter or autobid.

3). All of this will be irrelevant in the Maryland case.

(03-23-2014 10:38 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:56 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:33 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  In court you can't just "know", you have to prove. Maryland probably knows many things about the inner working of the ACC when they took schools from other conferences or moved on their new buyout fees. They still have to prove everything in court though and that's why you would go after documents. Doesn't reflect any desperation, just sound legal maneuvers.

Maryland "knows" because Maryland has their own hands full of any "muck" people think will be uncovered during discovery.

It took part in all of these decisions and voted in favor of them along with all of the other Old Guard ACC schools.

Their hands are full of the same "blood" that other people want them to "expose".

None of that will help them with their legal case. They would have the same "unclean hands" as their court opponent.

Obviously if Maryland is presenting something in court the assumption would be they aren't materially involved in any wrongdoing.

Maryland may not have been directly involved in planning or determining how to take teams from other conferences. Their administration was doubtfully involved in direct meetings with media partners on things like increases or who would be valuable for example. Instead, the ACC office and probably a few members administrators (UNC, Duke?) were involved directly and then disseminated the information to the rest.

Also, reports say that the ACC knew Maryland was talking with the Big Ten, and others might be talking, when they raised the buyout fee a second time. Obviously Maryland wasn't involved in any discussions related to increasing the buyout fee, nor was FSU who also has been reported as being very suprised by it. Maryland has told the court they were unaware and the dissemination of information as required by the bylaws wasn't followed. Someone was involved in such decissions though, and that is the type of info that discovery will show to the court.

First, have you been reading the thread? The subpoenas ask for information going back twelve years.

yes, i have and i know how far back requests go.

Your position is that Maryland has been in a fog or locked in a dark room the past twelve years?

Of course I did not say that. I said they weren't the instigators or decision makers on things like realignment or buyout increases.

The only one "assuming" Maryland is pure as a Vestal Virgin is you, for whatever reason.

The lawsuits aren't seeking to find out how Maryland moved to the B10 or why, everyone already knows. The suits are about the ACC trying to keep members in their conference by forcing a very high buyout on them, and for Maryland being free to move as they choose. Not sure why you believe everyone would think the ACC is in the right here, they dont and the courts may not either.

Second, Maryland voted in favor of adding all new members and all new media deals during the past twelve years.

This has nothing to do with how those things came to be or why. Maryland isnt being accused of anything in any of that by anyone from the ACC. Not sure why you would try to make it an issue. The only issues are did the ACC violate their bylaws or not, is the buyout legal and have they attempted to interfere and punish Maryland for moving elsewhere.

You must be kidding about the school not being elbow deep in the sheeet.

Still not sure why you are pretending they are, its not in any of the suits.


Third, Maryland has yet to "present" one damn thing to the court.

Theyve presented the lawsuit itself and the ACCs bylaws related to the case. theyve also been granted the right to seek discovery from various ACC schools and media partners. After discovery theyll present their evidence to the court.

They are in the discovery phase. This is info gathering, nothing more.

Its collecting evidence to present their case in court.

Nothing is being presented to anyone, yet.

No one said it is-but it will be unless settled first

The trial, if any, is still a long way off (a year or two, perhaps?).

It doesn't matter, evidence is being collected and there will likely be motions filed as a result much sooner than you imagine.

Those motions will likely be denied or deferred until the trial.

If someone else already mentioned this in the thread, my apologies.

So Maryland says the ACC is already withholding over 20 mil. The ACC hasn't distributed it's spring distributions yet which are much larger than the Fall. There's most likely another 10+ million unaccounted.

(03-23-2014 09:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Maryland "knows" because Maryland has their own hands full of any "muck" people think will be uncovered during discovery.

It took part in all of these decisions and voted in favor of them along with all of the other Old Guard ACC schools.

Their hands are full of the same "blood" that other people want them to "expose".

None of that will help them with their legal case. They would have the same "unclean hands" as their court opponent.

A lot of this is true. And I say this as a MD alum. SMH

(03-23-2014 10:21 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Legally, the AAC is the successor to the old Big East Conference. Therefore, the AAC would inherit any legal claims by the Big East against the ACC. Unfortunately for them, chances are the buyout agreements with Syracuse and Pitt probably blocked any such litigation.

no, the AAC is a new conference , the Big East rights were retained by the basketball schools

The Big East is the new conference. They bought the name and records. It is similar to the Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns. The legal entity that was the Cleveland Browns that was founded in the 1940's moved to Baltimore. They changed their name and their history started fresh. A new entity was established circa 1999 that inherited the records of the old Browns before they left town. The Browns are the new entity legally speaking. But records-wise, the Ravens are the new team as their records only go back to 1996.

The Big East is a new conference with a new corporate charter. However they retained the basketball records from the old conference. The AAC is a new conference records-wise for basketball, but maintained the old autobid. Their football records, I believe, keep the old Big East records (for example the BCS bid this past year).

(03-24-2014 10:51 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Maryland "knows" because Maryland has their own hands full of any "muck" people think will be uncovered during discovery.

It took part in all of these decisions and voted in favor of them along with all of the other Old Guard ACC schools.

Their hands are full of the same "blood" that other people want them to "expose".

None of that will help them with their legal case. They would have the same "unclean hands" as their court opponent.

A lot of this is true. And I say this as a MD alum. SMH

(03-23-2014 10:21 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Legally, the AAC is the successor to the old Big East Conference. Therefore, the AAC would inherit any legal claims by the Big East against the ACC. Unfortunately for them, chances are the buyout agreements with Syracuse and Pitt probably blocked any such litigation.

no, the AAC is a new conference , the Big East rights were retained by the basketball schools

The Big East is the new conference. They bought the name and records. It is similar to the Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns. The legal entity that was the Cleveland Browns that was founded in the 1940's moved to Baltimore. They changed their name and their history started fresh. A new entity was established circa 1999 that inherited the records of the old Browns before they left town. The Browns are the new entity legally speaking. But records-wise, the Ravens are the new team as their records only go back to 1996.

The Big East is a new conference with a new corporate charter. However they retained the basketball records from the old conference. The AAC is a new conference records-wise for basketball, but maintained the old autobid. Their football records, I believe, keep the old Big East records (for example the BCS bid this past year).

the Big East autobid was left in place for the remainder of that contract( over now) to avoid legal issues, that was decided before the name change I believe. The basketball schools retained the name and conference Big East, the AAC is new. The hybrid conference with Pitt, SU, WVU, etc. is no more and none of the teams in the AAC were in the Big East when VT, BC. Or Miami left.

No it is not. What you are saying is not based on fact. The fact is, the AAC is the legal successor of the Big East. This is not up for debate. They have the same commissioner, same contracts, same bylaws, same membership (outside of those who withdrew), and same headquarters. The Big East is a new league who had to apply for a new automatic bid, who had to set up new bylaws, get a new commission, set up new contracts, and find a new headquarters. They only kept the records and the name. Just like the Cleveland Browns in the scenario I mentioned above.

(03-24-2014 11:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  No it is not. What you are saying is not based on fact. The fact is, the AAC is the legal successor of the Big East. This is not up for debate. They have the same commissioner, same contracts, same bylaws, same membership (outside of those who withdrew), and same headquarters. The Big East is a new league who had to apply for a new automatic bid, who had to set up new bylaws, get a new commission, set up new contracts, and find a new headquarters. They only kept the records and the name. Just like the Cleveland Browns in the scenario I mentioned above.

Except that unlike the Cleveland Browns, they kept the teams and players (70% anyway) along with the name. But legally, the AAC is the official successor.

(03-24-2014 11:01 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 10:51 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Maryland "knows" because Maryland has their own hands full of any "muck" people think will be uncovered during discovery.

It took part in all of these decisions and voted in favor of them along with all of the other Old Guard ACC schools.

Their hands are full of the same "blood" that other people want them to "expose".

None of that will help them with their legal case. They would have the same "unclean hands" as their court opponent.

A lot of this is true. And I say this as a MD alum. SMH

(03-23-2014 10:21 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Legally, the AAC is the successor to the old Big East Conference. Therefore, the AAC would inherit any legal claims by the Big East against the ACC. Unfortunately for them, chances are the buyout agreements with Syracuse and Pitt probably blocked any such litigation.

no, the AAC is a new conference , the Big East rights were retained by the basketball schools

The Big East is the new conference. They bought the name and records. It is similar to the Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns. The legal entity that was the Cleveland Browns that was founded in the 1940's moved to Baltimore. They changed their name and their history started fresh. A new entity was established circa 1999 that inherited the records of the old Browns before they left town. The Browns are the new entity legally speaking. But records-wise, the Ravens are the new team as their records only go back to 1996.

The Big East is a new conference with a new corporate charter. However they retained the basketball records from the old conference. The AAC is a new conference records-wise for basketball, but maintained the old autobid. Their football records, I believe, keep the old Big East records (for example the BCS bid this past year).

the Big East autobid was left in place for the remainder of that contract( over now) to avoid legal issues, that was decided before the name change I believe. The basketball schools retained the name and conference Big East, the AAC is new. The hybrid conference with Pitt, SU, WVU, etc. is no more and none of the teams in the AAC were in the Big East when VT, BC. Or Miami left.

Repeating the same incorrect statement over and over won't make it true. You're wrong. Time to move on.

(03-23-2014 12:29 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  As for going back 12 years in its discovery requests, I believe Maryland's purpose for doing so is to show the ACC and the B1G compete in the same market for schools in the northeast. It will be hard for the ACC to deny this when they have added VT, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt, while the B1G has added PSU, Rutgers and most significantly, Maryland from the ACC.

Maryland does not need muck or blood from ESPN or the Big East raids to win its case. Maryland needs information to show market, value and competition for schools. It does not need to show ESPN induced any school to move, only that ESPN, if asked, gave honest assessments they would pay more. That is the all important line that ESPN has consistently stated it does not cross, most recently just this weekend, and it would be highly unlikely for ESPN, in my opinion, to have crossed that line. That is corporate business 101.

The only muck Maryland needs is the penal exit fee. The contention the ACC violated its own Bylaws is gravy, albeit delicious gravy for the stuffing Maryland is about to knock out of the ACC.

The ESPN part is what I am wondering about. If Maryland's plan(and a huge if) is to show, in court That ESPN induces any school, now you have a Collusion case and the ACC/NCAA/ESPN wants no part of a guaranteed loser in court, if it gets that far.

(03-24-2014 11:13 AM)prp Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 11:01 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 10:51 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Maryland "knows" because Maryland has their own hands full of any "muck" people think will be uncovered during discovery.

It took part in all of these decisions and voted in favor of them along with all of the other Old Guard ACC schools.

Their hands are full of the same "blood" that other people want them to "expose".

None of that will help them with their legal case. They would have the same "unclean hands" as their court opponent.

A lot of this is true. And I say this as a MD alum. SMH

(03-23-2014 10:21 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Legally, the AAC is the successor to the old Big East Conference. Therefore, the AAC would inherit any legal claims by the Big East against the ACC. Unfortunately for them, chances are the buyout agreements with Syracuse and Pitt probably blocked any such litigation.

no, the AAC is a new conference , the Big East rights were retained by the basketball schools

The Big East is the new conference. They bought the name and records. It is similar to the Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns. The legal entity that was the Cleveland Browns that was founded in the 1940's moved to Baltimore. They changed their name and their history started fresh. A new entity was established circa 1999 that inherited the records of the old Browns before they left town. The Browns are the new entity legally speaking. But records-wise, the Ravens are the new team as their records only go back to 1996.

The Big East is a new conference with a new corporate charter. However they retained the basketball records from the old conference. The AAC is a new conference records-wise for basketball, but maintained the old autobid. Their football records, I believe, keep the old Big East records (for example the BCS bid this past year).

the Big East autobid was left in place for the remainder of that contract( over now) to avoid legal issues, that was decided before the name change I believe. The basketball schools retained the name and conference Big East, the AAC is new. The hybrid conference with Pitt, SU, WVU, etc. is no more and none of the teams in the AAC were in the Big East when VT, BC. Or Miami left.

Repeating the same incorrect statement over and over won't make it true. You're wrong. Time to move on.

You are right, repeating the same incorrect info wont make it true. the Big East that was is now defunct. the AAC is a new conference with a few members of the previous conference and the Big East is a new bb conference made of some original members of the original Big East conference.

There isn't any info to support the new AAC having legal rights to sue conferences for taking teams from the defunct BE conference, just wishful thinking.

(03-24-2014 11:38 AM)lance99 Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 12:29 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  As for going back 12 years in its discovery requests, I believe Maryland's purpose for doing so is to show the ACC and the B1G compete in the same market for schools in the northeast. It will be hard for the ACC to deny this when they have added VT, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt, while the B1G has added PSU, Rutgers and most significantly, Maryland from the ACC.

Maryland does not need muck or blood from ESPN or the Big East raids to win its case. Maryland needs information to show market, value and competition for schools. It does not need to show ESPN induced any school to move, only that ESPN, if asked, gave honest assessments they would pay more. That is the all important line that ESPN has consistently stated it does not cross, most recently just this weekend, and it would be highly unlikely for ESPN, in my opinion, to have crossed that line. That is corporate business 101.

The only muck Maryland needs is the penal exit fee. The contention the ACC violated its own Bylaws is gravy, albeit delicious gravy for the stuffing Maryland is about to knock out of the ACC.

The ESPN part is what I am wondering about. If Maryland's plan(and a huge if) is to show, in court That ESPN induces any school, now you have a Collusion case and the ACC/NCAA/ESPN wants no part of a guaranteed loser in court, if it gets that far.

I'm not understanding how the ACC and ESPN working together is collusion. They are business partners, not competitors. ESPN can advise the ACC all it wants. What they did might have been unethical, but it's not illegal. Now, if it turns out ESPN was sharing confidential information with the ACC about the Big East that it had access to from their business relationship, that crosses a line but not really relevant to the Maryland case.

(03-22-2014 11:23 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 11:17 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Is there a reason why Maryland needs this settled before they enter the Big Ten?

Not that I'm aware.

I think there is a real possibility that part of Maryland's acceptance into the Big Ten is based on all this exit stuff being cleared up. I'm not saying payed in full, but a settlement of some sort reached. I suspect they need to be voted out of the ACC and all ties cut from that conference in order to join another one. This could be the reason they are trying to push this thing forward right now.

There is no way to keep Maryland from joining the Big Ten at the end of June but that doesn't mean that the Big Ten has to start paying them.
Until this exit is settled, I can't see money crossing hands between Maryland and the Big Ten.

Maryland just simply can not afford for this to go to trial in 1-2 years.

(03-24-2014 11:42 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  You are right, repeating the same incorrect info wont make it true. the Big East that was is now defunct. the AAC is a new conference with a few members of the previous conference and the Big East is a new bb conference made of some original members of the original Big East conference.

Do you have a source supporting your view that the AAC is legally a "new conference"? Because the entity formerly known as the Big East Conference, whose commissioner is and was Mike Aresco, who invited UCF, UH, SMU, Temple and Memphis in 2011-12 as full members starting in 2013-14, whose headquarters are in PRovidence, which has an autobid to all NCAA tournaments, is the American Athletic Conference. The Big East name, the MSG contract, and (I believe) the intellectual property rights to the basketball records (and maybe the other Olympic sports) were sold by the AAC to the new Big East Conference, but that would not have been possible if the AAC was not the successor to the old Big East--it would not have been theirs to sell.

Quote:There isn't any info to support the new AAC having legal rights to sue conferences for taking teams from the defunct BE conference, just wishful thinking.

That's true, but it's true because of the settlements with each team who left. Notice also that Rutgers settled their litigation with the AAC, based on the bylaws of the old BE, because the AAC legally IS the old BE.