E-mail makes it pretty clear why Boise's name has come up...
(10-12-2011 02:39 PM)SF Husky Wrote: [ -> ]They also refused to increase the exit fee between $17M and $20M.
Well duh. Since all the football schools want to leave, why would they vote to increase the exit fee?
Here's another choice quote:
"Give commissioner John Marinatto credit; at least he tried to make it tougher for teams to leave the league."
WTF? He's a month late and $10m short with that.
PS - there won't be any "legal actions", in the sense of trying to do anything against Syracuse and Pitt. All they have to do is abide by the terms of the exit agreement and there's nothing to be done about it.
(10-12-2011 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 02:39 PM)SF Husky Wrote: [ -> ]They also refused to increase the exit fee between $17M and $20M.
Well duh. Since all the football schools want to leave, why would they vote to increase the exit fee?
Here's another choice quote:
"Give commissioner John Marinatto credit; at least he tried to make it tougher for teams to leave the league."
WTF? He's a month late and $10m short with that.
PS - there won't be any "legal actions", in the sense of trying to do anything against Syracuse and Pitt. All they have to do is abide by the terms of the exit agreement and there's nothing to be done about it.
They didn't SPECIFICALLY mention Cuse/Pitt
Perhaps they grow some balls and challenge ESPN?
I hope Rutgers abstains. At this point I want no bridges burnt JIC.
(10-12-2011 03:21 PM)dogma Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 02:39 PM)SF Husky Wrote: [ -> ]They also refused to increase the exit fee between $17M and $20M.
Well duh. Since all the football schools want to leave, why would they vote to increase the exit fee?
Here's another choice quote:
"Give commissioner John Marinatto credit; at least he tried to make it tougher for teams to leave the league."
WTF? He's a month late and $10m short with that.
PS - there won't be any "legal actions", in the sense of trying to do anything against Syracuse and Pitt. All they have to do is abide by the terms of the exit agreement and there's nothing to be done about it.
They didn't SPECIFICALLY mention Cuse/Pitt
Perhaps they grow some balls and challenge ESPN?
Challenging ESPN would have some visceral appeal, but it would be a stupid move. We'd spend a million bucks on lawyer fees and win absolutely nothing for it.
(10-12-2011 03:24 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I hope Rutgers abstains. At this point I want no bridges burnt JIC.
I expect very few schools to sign onto a lawsuit. No schools want to burn any bridges IMO.
(10-12-2011 02:46 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]E-mail makes it pretty clear why Boise's name has come up...
Yup...the evaluation cycle...and that the reason if the BIG EAST is serious about saving their league for the short & long term they will be offered membership.
Their membership will likely secure the bid for the next cycle and would allow the BIG EAST to entice other schools like UCF, Houston, SMU etc, etc, to leave where they are at and join the conference should other defections come about.
(10-12-2011 03:24 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I hope Rutgers abstains. At this point I want no bridges burnt JIC.
It would be dumb...case is hard to prove even though no doubt in my mind it occured.
(10-12-2011 03:24 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I hope Rutgers abstains. At this point I want no bridges burnt JIC.
Last time was individual schools that sued. This time it might be the BE conference. I mean it is very possible all the basketball schools considered themselves damaged due to the action of the ACC and the ESPN. They got nothing to lose. If they get less basketball money because Pitt and SU left, they could be the ones that do the suing.
I do agree football schools like UCONN and RU should probably abstain. However, Flipper's actions and his personal hatred of UCONN could come back to haunt him for rest of his life. There are far more powerful people that can do a lot of damage to this guy and BC in the long run.
(10-12-2011 03:31 PM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 03:24 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I hope Rutgers abstains. At this point I want no bridges burnt JIC.
It would be dumb...case is hard to prove even though no doubt in my mind it occured.
Yup their is no evidence for it. You're innocent until proven guilty. ESPN also has more money than the Big East and can hire better lawyers. I don't think the Big East is determined enough to go through with it either.
(10-12-2011 04:18 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 03:31 PM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 03:24 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I hope Rutgers abstains. At this point I want no bridges burnt JIC.
It would be dumb...case is hard to prove even though no doubt in my mind it occured.
Yup their is no evidence for it. You're innocent until proven guilty. ESPN also has more money than the Big East and can hire better lawyers. I don't think the Big East is determined enough to go through with it either.
It might not be just BE doing the suing. It could very well be BE plus Fox, CBS and COMCAST/NBC. The last 3 are the ones ESPN should really worrying about. After all, last actions are designed to damage the last 3 and keep them out of competition. BE, like Pitt and SU, are merely pawns in the whole grand scheme of things.
(10-12-2011 04:19 PM)SF Husky Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 04:18 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 03:31 PM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 03:24 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I hope Rutgers abstains. At this point I want no bridges burnt JIC.
It would be dumb...case is hard to prove even though no doubt in my mind it occured.
Yup their is no evidence for it. You're innocent until proven guilty. ESPN also has more money than the Big East and can hire better lawyers. I don't think the Big East is determined enough to go through with it either.
It might not be just BE doing the suing. It could very well be BE plus Fox, CBS and COMCAST/NBC. The last 3 are the ones ESPN should really worrying about. After all, last actions are designed to damage the last 3 and keep them out of competition. BE, like Pitt and SU, are merely pawns in the whole grand scheme of things.
I dont think the BE will sue, but I think is more of a shot towards the Big12 at not taking any more schools from the league. You could see ESPN saying to Big12, stay at 10 and dont rock the boat anymore.
Raising fees is a terrible idea.
Though it won't affect SYR and Pitt, it only benefits the BB schools. I see the fees as the BB schools getting their final paychecks from the FB schools. IF you leave the BE you already forfeit your NCAA payment credits to the remaining schools and since we all know the BE will have conflict as a hybrid, at some point the FB schools will still want to bolt and imagine if each has to pay $17 million to the BB schools. Not a bad deal for the BB schools.
I can't see a lawsuit because Rutgers, UCONN and NOva also petitioned the ACC for membership. They would have to explain why they wanted to leave the BE and the only helpful answer they could give would be, "ESPN told us to." Any other reason takes ESPN off the hook and points the finger back to BE management and unhappiness with the conference. If they say they wanted to leave because the BE was unstable, ESPN is off the hook.
(10-12-2011 03:27 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 03:24 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I hope Rutgers abstains. At this point I want no bridges burnt JIC.
I expect very few schools to sign onto a lawsuit. No schools want to burn any bridges IMO.
Didn't Syracuse,Pitt, and UConn sue the ACC a few years ago? Look where the first two are now. And UConn was apparently ahead of Pitt in the expansion race.
(10-12-2011 04:18 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ]You're innocent until proven guilty. ESPN also has more money than the Big East and can hire better lawyers.
On the flip side you are talking about a conference that has 12 law schools. That is a lot of alumni with legal degrees who may be willing to help. Not to mention the Ivy leaguer's who went to a BE school for undergrad.
A lawsuit probably won't occur but the threat of it will be used for leverage with ESPN.
(10-12-2011 04:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 03:27 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2011 03:24 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I hope Rutgers abstains. At this point I want no bridges burnt JIC.
I expect very few schools to sign onto a lawsuit. No schools want to burn any bridges IMO.
Didn't Syracuse,Pitt, and UConn sue the ACC a few years ago? Look where the first two are now. And UConn was apparently ahead of Pitt in the expansion race.
[/quote]
Syracuse had no part in that lawsuit back in 2003.
ESPN can just make the same offer before Pitt & Cuse left and there would be no damages to claim. In fact, I am betting they do just that.
There simply is no evident basis for any kind of legal claim against the ACC, the Big 12, ESPN, or anyone else.