(05-24-2014 10:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 09:15 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 12:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:36 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:41 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You're silly - you think you can pick out a single line of text and determine what it means outside the framework of an entire document that is loosely written. Just because a plaintiff claims something does not make it true. You seem to think it does.

The next thing you are going to assert is that we don't need the Supreme Court because we know what the Constitution says and anyone can run a photocopy of a particular line and paste it into something. So silly.

Talk about silly. I am not picking out any single line, and neither did Maryland--in fact I posted a link to the entire lawsuit. You can read it I'm certain. In the lawsuit Maryland addresses specifics of the lawsuit against them and clarifies for the court the existing contractual obligations of members set forth in the ACC constitution that directly relate to what the ACC has sued them for.

You don't want it to be true, but its all there. Read it and stop pretending that it has something to do with me. It has to do with the ACC constitution and whether or not Maryland followed the exit procedures and whether or not the ACC followed their procedures for changing exit fees, enacting exit fees, and whether or not they had grounds to extract funds from Marylands revenues, whether or not they are of a punitive nature, and when those funds if any could be withheld.

Well, then Maryland should not budge at all in mediation and confidently make that basic winning argument in court.

They so obviously have the winning position, without any doubt.

So, they should eschew settlement completely, roll the dice and put their entire case in the hands of the jury as soon as possible.

Go for the big win in court.

How long would it take to do that Terry even if they did have an absolute win on their hands? I am not saying they do, I'm just saying that even if they do, the ACC may have done a good enough job at stalling this whole process to force the Big Ten to have to pressure Maryland to accept a mediated settlement.

The Big 10 doesn't care. This is just between Maryland and the ACC.

You don't know that.

The Big Ten sure chipped in a nice "signing bonus" for Maryland (called it a "travel stipend")...so it seems like they are aware of UMD's financial straits. It's not "their" battle, but the Big Ten has certainly acted in a helpful way.

Maryland either played the B1G like a fiddle, or was not above accepting a $30 Million bribe. Either way it will soften the blow of what ever they end up having to pay the ACC.
Nebraska should be really, really mad. They were supposed to be such a big prize but are stuck living off of a partial share of B1G money for the foreseeable future.

(05-24-2014 09:15 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 12:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:36 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:41 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 11:40 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  L--I think it is you who has reading comprehension issues. You want so badly to stick it to Maryland that you are ignoring the ACC had a clear set of rules in place to handle departures. Instead of following their own rules they bucked all of them in their rush to punish Maryland and keep anyone else from following.

Maryland followed the ACCs rules--the ACC has not clearly- no matter how much stretching you attempt to do. If Maryland cites articles from the ACC constitution in a court of law--pretty sure, yes, that means it is true no matter how badly you don't want it to be.

At this point there is no reason to continue this lawsuit and there is no reason to believe UMD is going to pay some punitive illegal buyout fee that is based on nothing and was thrown into place at the last minute despite the ACCs own rules for enacting such rule changes.

You're silly - you think you can pick out a single line of text and determine what it means outside the framework of an entire document that is loosely written. Just because a plaintiff claims something does not make it true. You seem to think it does.

The next thing you are going to assert is that we don't need the Supreme Court because we know what the Constitution says and anyone can run a photocopy of a particular line and paste it into something. So silly.

Talk about silly. I am not picking out any single line, and neither did Maryland--in fact I posted a link to the entire lawsuit. You can read it I'm certain. In the lawsuit Maryland addresses specifics of the lawsuit against them and clarifies for the court the existing contractual obligations of members set forth in the ACC constitution that directly relate to what the ACC has sued them for.

You don't want it to be true, but its all there. Read it and stop pretending that it has something to do with me. It has to do with the ACC constitution and whether or not Maryland followed the exit procedures and whether or not the ACC followed their procedures for changing exit fees, enacting exit fees, and whether or not they had grounds to extract funds from Marylands revenues, whether or not they are of a punitive nature, and when those funds if any could be withheld.

Well, then Maryland should not budge at all in mediation and confidently make that basic winning argument in court.

They so obviously have the winning position, without any doubt.

So, they should eschew settlement completely, roll the dice and put their entire case in the hands of the jury as soon as possible.

Go for the big win in court.

How long would it take to do that Terry even if they did have an absolute win on their hands? I am not saying they do, I'm just saying that even if they do, the ACC may have done a good enough job at stalling this whole process to force the Big Ten to have to pressure Maryland to accept a mediated settlement.

A year to a year and a half or so to get to trial, plus one and a half or two years to wind through the North Carolina appellate courts, minimum????

It all depends on the docket of that North Carolina judge. To my knowledge, the case has not even yet been scheduled for a trial date.

In Louisiana, my experience has been that for a week long jury trial, you have to go out one year from the date of the Pre-Trial Conference to select a trial date.

I don't even think this case is in a posture to schedule a trial yet.

The mediation has to occur, discovery needs to be completed, then it will be ready for a Pre-Trial Conference to select a trial date.

That date selection conference is still some unknown time off into the future.

Another thing. How long will this trial take? That affects when it is set. It could be that the judge doesn't have an opening on his/her docket for such a trial for quite some time.

So, it may be even longer than my original estimate.

(05-24-2014 12:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  Maryland either played the B1G like a fiddle, or was not above accepting a $30 Million bribe. Either way it will soften the blow of what ever they end up having to pay the ACC.
Nebraska should be really, really mad. They were supposed to be such a big prize but are stuck living off of a partial share of B1G money for the foreseeable future.

More anti Big Ten propagandic drivel. Sorry if other adults that lead such institutions are not so mundane and shallow as to be "really really mad" about the situation of a different institution and the conference.

Perhaps Nebraska is led by folks that are happy to see what is going on with the Big Ten right now. Quite frankly, you don't have a clue what they think about this and quite frankly your opinion is a rather shallow one so I am prone to think they don't think along the same lines as a child might when a child cries about wanting equal attention.

(05-24-2014 11:32 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 10:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 09:15 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 12:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:36 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  Talk about silly. I am not picking out any single line, and neither did Maryland--in fact I posted a link to the entire lawsuit. You can read it I'm certain. In the lawsuit Maryland addresses specifics of the lawsuit against them and clarifies for the court the existing contractual obligations of members set forth in the ACC constitution that directly relate to what the ACC has sued them for.

You don't want it to be true, but its all there. Read it and stop pretending that it has something to do with me. It has to do with the ACC constitution and whether or not Maryland followed the exit procedures and whether or not the ACC followed their procedures for changing exit fees, enacting exit fees, and whether or not they had grounds to extract funds from Marylands revenues, whether or not they are of a punitive nature, and when those funds if any could be withheld.

Well, then Maryland should not budge at all in mediation and confidently make that basic winning argument in court.

They so obviously have the winning position, without any doubt.

So, they should eschew settlement completely, roll the dice and put their entire case in the hands of the jury as soon as possible.

Go for the big win in court.

How long would it take to do that Terry even if they did have an absolute win on their hands? I am not saying they do, I'm just saying that even if they do, the ACC may have done a good enough job at stalling this whole process to force the Big Ten to have to pressure Maryland to accept a mediated settlement.

The Big 10 doesn't care. This is just between Maryland and the ACC.

You don't know that.

I know they haven't said anything and there's no reason for them to care. I've never heard anyone come up with any reason why the Big 10 should care, any more than if Maryland were litigating a sexual harassment case in their personnel department. Maryland is coming and this lawsuit is about nothing but the cost to do so.

(05-24-2014 01:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 12:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  Maryland either played the B1G like a fiddle, or was not above accepting a $30 Million bribe. Either way it will soften the blow of what ever they end up having to pay the ACC.
Nebraska should be really, really mad. They were supposed to be such a big prize but are stuck living off of a partial share of B1G money for the foreseeable future.

More anti Big Ten propagandic drivel. Sorry if other adults that lead such institutions are not so mundane and shallow as to be "really really mad" about the situation of a different institution and the conference.

Perhaps Nebraska is led by folks that are happy to see what is going on with the Big Ten right now. Quite frankly, you don't have a clue what they think about this and quite frankly your opinion is a rather shallow one so I am prone to think they don't think along the same lines as a child might when a child cries about wanting equal attention.

yes Nebraska should be thrilled to see two programs that combined don't have half the history, tradition or fan support of Nebraska being added to the Big 10 and being placed in the division of the Big 10 that has Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State while Nebraska has Illinois, Iowa, MN, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue to build rivalries with and those schools are getting much more aggressive up front financial incentives to lure them even if they still have a 6 year period of integration like Nebraska did

and it is not exactly like Nebraska has been tearing it up on a national scale or really even on a conference scale since joining the Big 10 either and they are probably due for another coaching change soon barring a miracle or a total abdication of Nebraska Football Standards for the long term future

with the schedule they have they should go 11-1, but they will probably drop at least 1 out of 3 to FAU, Miami, or Fresno and then MSU will donkey stomp them and Wisconsin or another Big 10 team will beat them as well to get to three losses and then probably mix in a bowl loss as well to have another stellar 9-4 season or even if they win all 3 against Miami, FAU and Fresno some other Big 10 team will catch them on a day when Bo runs short on gum or flying mouth spit or both and he gets out coached to still go 9-4 on the season

(05-24-2014 02:18 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 01:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 12:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  Maryland either played the B1G like a fiddle, or was not above accepting a $30 Million bribe. Either way it will soften the blow of what ever they end up having to pay the ACC.
Nebraska should be really, really mad. They were supposed to be such a big prize but are stuck living off of a partial share of B1G money for the foreseeable future.

More anti Big Ten propagandic drivel. Sorry if other adults that lead such institutions are not so mundane and shallow as to be "really really mad" about the situation of a different institution and the conference.

Perhaps Nebraska is led by folks that are happy to see what is going on with the Big Ten right now. Quite frankly, you don't have a clue what they think about this and quite frankly your opinion is a rather shallow one so I am prone to think they don't think along the same lines as a child might when a child cries about wanting equal attention.

yes Nebraska should be thrilled to see two programs that combined don't have half the history, tradition or fan support of Nebraska being added to the Big 10 and being placed in the division of the Big 10 that has Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State while Nebraska has Illinois, Iowa, MN, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue to build rivalries with and those schools are getting much more aggressive up front financial incentives to lure them even if they still have a 6 year period of integration like Nebraska did

and it is not exactly like Nebraska has been tearing it up on a national scale or really even on a conference scale since joining the Big 10 either and they are probably due for another coaching change soon barring a miracle or a total abdication of Nebraska Football Standards for the long term future

with the schedule they have they should go 11-1, but they will probably drop at least 1 out of 3 to FAU, Miami, or Fresno and then MSU will donkey stomp them and Wisconsin or another Big 10 team will beat them as well to get to three losses and then probably mix in a bowl loss as well to have another stellar 9-4 season or even if they win all 3 against Miami, FAU and Fresno some other Big 10 team will catch them on a day when Bo runs short on gum or flying mouth spit or both and he gets out coached to still go 9-4 on the season

None of this has anything to do with the business side of adding Maryland and Rutgers, nor on the recruiting side of adding Maryland and Rutgers.

Much of what you said is pertinent to the overall situation but not the conversation at hand about why Nebraska would be upset. I see no reason why they would be upset. Different situations for different schools.

Nebraska came to the Big Ten about joining. The Big Ten had an alternative they were already working on but instead switched gears and went with Nebraska.

The situations are entirely different and the folks running Nebraska are intelligent enough to realize it and intelligent enough to understand how gaining Maryland and Rutgers does positively impact Nebraska.

You may not be able to understand that but that doesn't surprise me.

(05-23-2014 09:59 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 06:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Poor Tbringer, you don't even comprehend that without the minutes of the meetings you don't know how and when the ACC notified Maryland of the vote to raise the exit fee. You don't even realize that the motion to raise the fee can be left open from a prior meeting then pulled onto the floor. Why do you suppose that Maryland did not offer any ACC minutes with their defense? Don't you think poor ole Maryland would have attempted to prove they were not notified? Don't you realize that the ACC has that notification in their back pocket?

If you knew how a governing board operated, you would understand that Maryland has presented a half-defense based on their verbal claims that the ACC did not follow it's procedures. MD has offered no proof to it's claims, only their opinion and as we know opinions are like an anus, everyone has one.

So, does that mythical hanging notice also solve the ACC's problem that such changes to the Bylaws cannot take effect until July 1st the following year? Got a link supporting your special knowledge?

And why in the world would you speak so condescendingly to someone while spewing unsupported "facts" such as, "Don't you realize that the ACC has that notification in their back pocket?". Really? You obviously have no idea how litigation works. Please stop with the make believe.

Lurker - glad you asked here it is:


Section IV-4. Expulsion/Suspension/Probation of Members.
A member institution may be expelled, suspended or placed on probation by the Conference only upon the favorable vote of three-fourths (excluding the member under consideration) of the members. To expel means a complete severance from the Conference in all sports. To suspend means a temporary severance under stated conditions from the Conference in one (1) or more sports. Among the reasons a member institution may be expelled, suspended or placed on probation for good cause is if it no longer participates in one or more sports which are required for membership in the Conference or if the member is required by the NCAA to discontinue such required sport because of violations of NCAA regulations or becomes incompatible with the objectives of the Conference. In the event of expulsion, the Conference must provide the member institution with the specific reasons for expulsion and one year notice (on or before August 15 of any year in which event the expulsion shall be effective the following June 30). The institution will be assessed or paid a proportionate share of the fixed liabilities or assets of the Conference and will receive a proportionate share of that year’s distribution. In the event of suspension or probation, the Conference may enforce penalties immediately. In any sport in which a member is ineligible for postseason play because of violations of NCAA or Conference regulations, the member may be suspended in that sport. If suspended, the member shall not be eligible for the Conference championship in that sport. The institution may be required to forfeit its share of any or all Conference revenues generated by that sport.
ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE
21
Section IV-5. Withdrawal of Members.
To withdraw from the conference a member must file an official notice of withdrawal with each of the conference members and the commissioner on or before August 15 for the withdrawal to be effective June 30 of the following year. Upon official notice of withdrawal, the member will be subject to a withdrawal payment, as liquidated damages, in an amount equal to one and one-quarter (1¼) times the total operating budget of the Conference (including any contingency included therein), approved in accordance with Section V-1 of the Conference Bylaws, which is in effect as of the date of the official notice of withdrawal. The Conference may offset the amount of such payment against any distributions otherwise due such member for any Conference year. Any remaining amount due shall be paid by the withdrawing member within 30 days after the effective date of withdrawal. The withdrawing member shall have no claim on the assets, accounts or income of the Conference. (Revised: September 2011)
Article V. VOTING DELEGATES
The members of this Conference shall be entitled to one vote each. The voting delegate shall be the representative of the member institution, appointed by the president, or by the duly constituted authority of the institution, and shall be a regular full-time member of the faculty at the time of appointment or an administrative officer in that institution. The voting delegate shall be one whose primary duty is not in athletics. (Revised: May 2008)
Article VI. OFFICERS
Section VI-1. Officers.
The officers of the Conference shall be a president, a vice-president and a secretary-treasurer. The above officers must be voting delegates of their institutions. The president shall be the official representative of the Conference in all relations concerning intercollegiate athletics and, in cooperation with the Commissioner, shall foster compliance with all NCAA and Conference rules and regulations. The president shall preside at all meetings of the Conference, shall appoint standing and special committees after consulting with the chair of the Athletics Directors Committee and the Commissioner, and shall be an ex-officio member of all committees of the Conference. The president shall assure that proper notices of Conference meetings be given to the members and that an agenda be prepared for each meeting. The president shall have such other powers and duties as are normal and incident to such office (see General Policies & Procedures, Article X, regarding the President’s Award). (Revised: April 2008) The vice-president shall perform the duties of the president, until the next election, in the latter’s absence or disability, or when the presidency is vacated. The vice-president shall assist the president in the performance of Conference business when necessary and shall have other powers and duties as may be conferred by the president or by the Conference. The secretary-treasurer shall have supervisory responsibility of all records of the Conference, shall review the records of all meetings of the Executive Committee, shall report at each regular meeting the decisions of the Executive Committee rendered since the last regular meeting, and shall submit at the annual meeting a detailed statement of all receipts and disbursements of Conference funds. All accounts are to be audited by a certified public accountant.
Section VI-2. Election of Officers.
Officers of the Conference shall be elected at the meeting in May and shall continue in office from July 1 through June 30. Candidates for office must have served a minimum of two (2) years as a voting delegate to be eligible for an office. Officers shall be elected according to a rotation determined by constituent members and on file in the Conference office. Generally, each year, the current vice-president becomes the new president and the current secretary-treasurer becomes the new vice-president. A new secretary-treasurer is nominated and elected based on who is next in line for the position according to the Conference rotation. If the president’s position becomes vacant during the middle of a term of office, the vice-president shall assume the presidency of the Conference. If deemed necessary by the president, other vacant offices occurring between the meetings of the Conference shall be filled by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall approve any needed adjustments to the rotation cycle. A new member to the Conference shall be added to the end of the rotation cycle. (Revised: May 2006)
ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE
22
Article VII. COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
The Council of Presidents shall be composed of the chief executive officer from each member institution and shall have the complete responsibility for and authority over the Atlantic Coast Conference. The Commissioner shall serve on the Council as an ex-officio, non-voting member. The chair of the Council shall rotate among the voting membership on an annual basis and shall be chosen from an institution other than those already represented on the Executive Committee. The Council shall meet once in the fall (the second Tuesday and Wednesday in September) and once during the Men’s or Women’s Basketball Conference Championship, alternating annually. The meeting during the Championship shall also include the faculty athletics representatives, athletics directors and senior woman administrators.
Article VIII. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The Executive Committee shall be composed of the president, the vice-president, the secretary-treasurer, the immediate past president, and the chair of the Council of Presidents. In the event the immediate past president ceases to be a representative of the Conference, a member-at-large shall be chosen by the Conference to serve on the Executive Committee. The Commissioner and the chair of the Athletic Directors shall serve as ex-officio members without vote. The Executive Committee shall transact the necessary business of the Conference between regular meetings of the Conference, subject to approval of the voting delegates at the next regular or special meeting. The Executive Committee is also charged with overseeing the management and operation of the Conference in accordance with its Constitution and Bylaws. A member institution may appeal to the Conference any decision or action of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee may establish changes in the procedures for the general conduct of the Commissioner’s office. The Executive Committee shall meet at least two (2) weeks prior to the May meeting to review the budget prepared by the Commissioner and recommend a budget for the forthcoming year to the membership for approval at the May meeting. The Executive Committee shall conduct a mid-year budgetary review.
Article IX. COMMISSIONER
There shall be a Commissioner who shall be elected by a vote of three-fourths of the Council of Presidents at any regular or special meeting. The Commissioner shall serve as the chief administrative officer of the Conference and shall be responsible to the Executive Committee. The Commissioner shall ensure adherence to the principles of the Constitution and Bylaws by all members of the Conference. The Commissioner shall perform such duties as are prescribed in the Bylaws and such other duties as may be prescribed by the Executive Committee. The Commissioner shall have the powers necessary for the effective performance of the Commissioner’s duties.
Article X. AMENDMENT
Section X-1. Amendment Procedures.
This Constitution may be amended at any regular or special meeting by three-fourths of the members. The proposed amendment shall be submitted, in writing, four weeks before the meeting, through the commissioner to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee for review. The Commissioner shall send complete copies of the proposed amendments to all members at least fifteen (15) days before the meeting.
Section X-2. Effective Date.
Any amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws are effective July 1 following enactment, unless provided otherwise




Lurker - Maryland can make any claim they wish. However the Constitution and Bylaws clearly state that any amendement can be made effective at anytime with the phrase "unless provided otherwise". The notification of the change from 1.25X to 3X requires the constitution committee to be notified but MD had no one on that committee. The wording of the original motion to go to 1.25X is the key to leaving the formula open at all times. Moreover, remember that the ACC members had this amendment on the table at prior meetings at a prior level. The 1.25X was a compromise from what was proposed the year before.

MD is in the unenviable position of litigating the meaning of the word "the". Does "the" meeting mean a specific meeting or does "the" include the meaning of any meeting at which the topic is discussed. To successfully claim lack of notice they have to establish what "the" means. Then they have to be able to prove the ACC did not notify them - a matter that is extremely difficult to establish since the ACC can claim they sent it by first class mail.

Section IV-5 does not define what constitutes a notice to all the ACC partners only that an official notice must be made. Using the reasonable man standard the ACC clearly must rely on MD public statements by Loh and Kirwan.

Section IV-4 is also critical. Section IV-4 allows the ACC to vote to suspend MD or expel MD.

Now, some folks want to think the ACC and its presidents are so stupid that they would leave themselves open on matters that easy to cure via some committee work and votes. They are entitled to their opinion, although I think they are silly.

It should be very odd to people that MD has produced NO MINUTES to support a single claim. None. Nada. Nyet.

The ACC office has the minutes.

For those that have never served on board like the ACC, the MD matter would be taken care of in the equivalent of what your local government would call a "closed session" as they anticipate litigation and would be consulting with their attorneys. These minutes would stay sealed and retained by the League and not released to the public until such time as the League needed to drop them. MD was easily handled:

1. A vote to place them on probation based on MD's declaration they will not pay what they owe when they leave - if you read the document, you see that probation requires no notice to MD.
2. A vote to accept MD's public declaration in November as their notice of exit since the document does not define notice (such as by first class mail).
3. A vote to then withhold MD's money.
4. A vote to go to court to declare the ACC bylaws and constitution valid and enforceable.

You don't have to do this in multiple votes, but sometimes folks want to split things up because they may have a philosophical problem with one element. In fact, the ACC can do this over the telephone with a resolution already written by it's lawyers.

As to the change from 1.25X to 3X here are several ways to do that -

1. You start a new process and notify everyone by telephone, you even go back to those that you left messages.
2. You look at the old process and depending on the wording of the prior motions, open that motion back up and amend the motion
3. You start a new process and notify everyone by regular mail, knowing that MD has no one on the Constitution Committee that will receive notice and knowing that MD has their official ACC mail representative set up in such a way as to prevent snail mail from always being delivered accurately
4. You go back and look at the prior motion and determine if the wording of the motion always leaves it open to modification.

In any of these cases, the ACC office has a record of MD's notification and when it comes to notification, the Constitution is silent and the bylaws say this "h. ADDITIONAL MEETINGS. Additional meetings may be called by the president or Commissioner as deemed necessary or pursuant to written request of not less than two-thirds of the members. In either case, the call shall state the reasons for the meeting. The site of the meeting will be determined by a vote of the Conference. Conference business may also be conducted by teleconference when authorized by the president or Commissioner."

That's all that is mentioned in either document regarding notice. That means that MD must prove the ACC's standard operating procedure regarding notification and then successfully claim that the ACC changed it just to screw MD. Tough to do that when the ACC essentially has no written rules to that effect.

(05-24-2014 04:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  That means that MD must prove the ACC's standard operating procedure regarding notification and then successfully claim that the ACC changed it just to screw MD. Tough to do that when the ACC essentially has no written rules to that effect.

Can't wait for the congressional letter asking: "How was the well-being of the student/athlete served in all of that."

(05-23-2014 12:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Well, then Maryland should not budge at all in mediation and confidently make that basic winning argument in court.

They so obviously have the winning position, without any doubt.

So, they should eschew settlement completely, roll the dice and put their entire case in the hands of the jury as soon as possible.

Go for the big win in court.

This would be glorious to behold. ESPN, UMD, ACC, B1G, and who knows who else who would get drug into court, all getting their dirty laundry aired for the world to see. I think we should all be rooting for this just for the laughs and entertainment.

(05-25-2014 02:18 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 12:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Well, then Maryland should not budge at all in mediation and confidently make that basic winning argument in court.

They so obviously have the winning position, without any doubt.

So, they should eschew settlement completely, roll the dice and put their entire case in the hands of the jury as soon as possible.

Go for the big win in court.

This would be glorious to behold. ESPN, UMD, ACC, B1G, and who knows who else who would get drug into court, all getting their dirty laundry aired for the world to see. I think we should all be rooting for this just for the laughs and entertainment.

I am ok with it, though I usually don't watch other trials or tv shows involving lawyers.

I won't get near the enjoyment out of it that others might. I try to get away from the courtroom when I am not working.