(04-30-2014 12:23 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 09:47 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 08:29 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  ...only the ACC is suing someone for daring to leave their conference- or trying to enforce an illegal buyout hike as though its some longstanding honored tradition rather than the rushed through punative fee it really is.

SERIOUSLY? The ACC is not suing Maryland to try to prevent them from leaving; the only reason they are suing is because Maryland has refused to pay the exit fee. Had Maryland written a check for the old $20M exit fee and simply refused to pay the higher fee, they would be able to take the high road IMO - but that's not what they did.

As for the claim that the ACC wasn't harmed because it's still a P5 conference while the Big East is not - well, the Big East retained its AQ status after it lost Miami... and Va Tech... and BC... and Syracuse... and Pittsburgh... however, by the time it lost its 6th football member (W Virginia) it died from 1,000 cuts (ok, from 6 cuts). Was any one of them fatal? Probably not, but the sum total certainly was - and the Big East lost out on millions because of it.

With that historical reference in hindsight, how many teams would the ACC have to lose to lose its P5 status? How much would that be worth? Divide the value by the number of teams -- there's your damages.

I'd say that Maryland as a whole is more valuable than Louisville. The TV contract was made prior to Maryland leaving....but what about the next contract? The ACC loses that DC/Maryland market which is quite a bit more valuable than Louisville, otherwise the B1G could have invited Louisville instead of Maryland.

#1 You can't prove that. The fact that the contract didn't go down renders those arguments questionable.
#2 That's 17 years away. Money 17 years into the future isn't that valuable because of the time value of money and uncertainty.

(04-30-2014 01:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 12:23 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 09:47 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 08:29 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  ...only the ACC is suing someone for daring to leave their conference- or trying to enforce an illegal buyout hike as though its some longstanding honored tradition rather than the rushed through punative fee it really is.

SERIOUSLY? The ACC is not suing Maryland to try to prevent them from leaving; the only reason they are suing is because Maryland has refused to pay the exit fee. Had Maryland written a check for the old $20M exit fee and simply refused to pay the higher fee, they would be able to take the high road IMO - but that's not what they did.

As for the claim that the ACC wasn't harmed because it's still a P5 conference while the Big East is not - well, the Big East retained its AQ status after it lost Miami... and Va Tech... and BC... and Syracuse... and Pittsburgh... however, by the time it lost its 6th football member (W Virginia) it died from 1,000 cuts (ok, from 6 cuts). Was any one of them fatal? Probably not, but the sum total certainly was - and the Big East lost out on millions because of it.

With that historical reference in hindsight, how many teams would the ACC have to lose to lose its P5 status? How much would that be worth? Divide the value by the number of teams -- there's your damages.

I'd say that Maryland as a whole is more valuable than Louisville. The TV contract was made prior to Maryland leaving....but what about the next contract? The ACC loses that DC/Maryland market which is quite a bit more valuable than Louisville, otherwise the B1G could have invited Louisville instead of Maryland.

#1 You can't prove that. The fact that the contract didn't go down renders those arguments questionable.
#2 That's 17 years away. Money 17 years into the future isn't that valuable because of the time value of money and uncertainty.

#1 Perhaps the TV execs can't lower the payment because the contract is already in force?

#2 Doesn't matter if its 17 years away. ACC had the #8 market and added the #49 market. Why do you think the Big 10 went after Maryland and not Louisville? There is no doubt market wise that the ACC took a hit. Now on the field performance may be better but, nobody is paying for on the field performance.

If Maryland could just pay each member of the ACC damages separately, how much would they pay each University?

(04-30-2014 01:31 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 01:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 12:23 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 09:47 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 08:29 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  ...only the ACC is suing someone for daring to leave their conference- or trying to enforce an illegal buyout hike as though its some longstanding honored tradition rather than the rushed through punative fee it really is.

SERIOUSLY? The ACC is not suing Maryland to try to prevent them from leaving; the only reason they are suing is because Maryland has refused to pay the exit fee. Had Maryland written a check for the old $20M exit fee and simply refused to pay the higher fee, they would be able to take the high road IMO - but that's not what they did.

As for the claim that the ACC wasn't harmed because it's still a P5 conference while the Big East is not - well, the Big East retained its AQ status after it lost Miami... and Va Tech... and BC... and Syracuse... and Pittsburgh... however, by the time it lost its 6th football member (W Virginia) it died from 1,000 cuts (ok, from 6 cuts). Was any one of them fatal? Probably not, but the sum total certainly was - and the Big East lost out on millions because of it.

With that historical reference in hindsight, how many teams would the ACC have to lose to lose its P5 status? How much would that be worth? Divide the value by the number of teams -- there's your damages.

I'd say that Maryland as a whole is more valuable than Louisville. The TV contract was made prior to Maryland leaving....but what about the next contract? The ACC loses that DC/Maryland market which is quite a bit more valuable than Louisville, otherwise the B1G could have invited Louisville instead of Maryland.

#1 You can't prove that. The fact that the contract didn't go down renders those arguments questionable.
#2 That's 17 years away. Money 17 years into the future isn't that valuable because of the time value of money and uncertainty.

#1 Perhaps the TV execs can't lower the payment because the contract is already in force?

#2 Doesn't matter if its 17 years away. ACC had #8 market and added the #49 market. Why do you think the Big 10 went after Maryland and not Louisville? There is no doubt market wise that the ACC took a hit. Now on the field performance may be better but, nobody is paying for on the field performance.

Maryland only helps the B1G with the BTN numbers. UofL has more ESPN viewership and more people turn onto ESPN to watch UofL than they do Maryland. The BTN can force people in Maryland/DC to pay even if they don't watch the Terps.

(04-29-2014 06:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 03:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 02:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:52 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Why do you think it's "clearly" punitive? How much damage do you think it will cause the ACC in terms of loss of cable TV market, loss of recruiting, loss of ticket sales, loss of the Maryland brand, etc.? (and don't consider whether Louisville is more valuable, because the ACC might have ended up with BOTH). Do you REALLY think Maryland was worth less than $52M to the ACC? Keep in mind, that's not per year, that's lost revenue forever...

Damages are required by the harmed party to be mitigated. The ACC did that by adding Louisville with no reduction in their TV contract. You don't get to consider theoreticals. If Louisville was worthwhile as #15, they would have added them already.

There are a number of legal issues before you get into the issue of whether to calculate damages. But if Maryland gets past the legal issues to that point, the ACC has a really weak case. Its pretty hard to argue with a straight face that losing Maryland cost them anything other than redesigning the logo.

At what point did MARYLAND offer up UofL as an equal?

How much did ESPN reduce the TV contract when the ACC traded UL for MD?

So what damages are there to the ACC? They're making the same as they would have with Maryland.

could have made more with both UofL and Maryland. Could they not?

In order to make that argument, the ACC would have to prove that they would have invited Louisville regardless of whether Maryland left or not. Don't think they'd be able to do that.

The ACC folks on here really are going a bit too homerish with some of their arguments. Maryland has a pretty decent case for the ACC not losing all that much. It's just going to end in settlement. The ACC will fight tooth and nail though to keep what they have held onto, because if a court finds that they held more than the settlement amount, it seems likely they would be forced to pay interest on withheld money.

(04-30-2014 01:37 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 06:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 03:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 02:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  Damages are required by the harmed party to be mitigated. The ACC did that by adding Louisville with no reduction in their TV contract. You don't get to consider theoreticals. If Louisville was worthwhile as #15, they would have added them already.

There are a number of legal issues before you get into the issue of whether to calculate damages. But if Maryland gets past the legal issues to that point, the ACC has a really weak case. Its pretty hard to argue with a straight face that losing Maryland cost them anything other than redesigning the logo.

At what point did MARYLAND offer up UofL as an equal?

How much did ESPN reduce the TV contract when the ACC traded UL for MD?

So what damages are there to the ACC? They're making the same as they would have with Maryland.

could have made more with both UofL and Maryland. Could they not?

In order to make that argument, the ACC would have to prove that they would have invited Louisville regardless of whether Maryland left or not. Don't think they'd be able to do that.

The ACC folks on here really are going a bit too homerish with some of their arguments. Maryland has a pretty decent case for the ACC not losing all that much. It's just going to end in settlement. The ACC will fight tooth and nail though to keep what they have held onto, because if a court finds that they held more than the settlement amount, it seems likely they would be forced to pay interest on withheld money.

Are damages calculated before a school leaves or after?

(04-30-2014 01:37 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 06:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 03:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 02:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  Damages are required by the harmed party to be mitigated. The ACC did that by adding Louisville with no reduction in their TV contract. You don't get to consider theoreticals. If Louisville was worthwhile as #15, they would have added them already.

There are a number of legal issues before you get into the issue of whether to calculate damages. But if Maryland gets past the legal issues to that point, the ACC has a really weak case. Its pretty hard to argue with a straight face that losing Maryland cost them anything other than redesigning the logo.

At what point did MARYLAND offer up UofL as an equal?

How much did ESPN reduce the TV contract when the ACC traded UL for MD?

So what damages are there to the ACC? They're making the same as they would have with Maryland.

could have made more with both UofL and Maryland. Could they not?

In order to make that argument, the ACC would have to prove that they would have invited Louisville regardless of whether Maryland left or not. Don't think they'd be able to do that.

The ACC folks on here really are going a bit too homerish with some of their arguments. Maryland has a pretty decent case for the ACC not losing all that much. It's just going to end in settlement. The ACC will fight tooth and nail though to keep what they have held onto, because if a court finds that they held more than the settlement amount, it seems likely they would be forced to pay interest on withheld money.

Why not? Hell, we even made Frank's B1G list back in the day for a B1G addition!

http://frankthetank.me/2009/12/27/the-bi...of-orange/