(07-19-2014 10:05 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  If Maryland is claiming that it's not bound by any contract it signs, that's nuts. Let's say the University of Maryland signs a contract to buy furniture for its library. The furniture is delivered but then the University refuses to pay saying it's sovereign and no one can force it to pay and no one can sue it. Is that a defensible position? Is that even in the University's interest? If no contract with the university can be enforced, no one will contract with the University. How does a large entity operate if no one will enter into contracts with it?

Your reasoning is why the claim probably fails. If the claim holds, it renders everyday contracts suspect to being fulfilled on the State's part.

Most states hold that contracts are valid, at least if fulfilled. I have heard of cases were the State was able to avoid future contracts where neither side has performed yet, but businesses and individuals can avoid these at times, too.

The stupidity on MD's part is immense.

If the UM system was under proper management this is somewhat akin to what they should have said:

"Because of changes in the college athletic environment, the University of Maryland needs to associate itself with schools that are powers in college football as football is the device used to support other non-revenue programs. We can no longer make ends meet in the ACC, but see a pathway to make ends meet in the B10. We are therefore moving to the B10 effective July 1, 2014. We regret the impact of our decision on the remainder of the conference and pledge to uphold agreements with the ACC and hope to enjoy a good relationship with the ACC even after we have moved."

Q: Are you going to pay the ACC $50 million?

A: We have promised to uphold our agreements with the ACC. We don't know at this time exactly what our exit fee will be but we anticipate talking to the conference about that and coming to a mutually agreed upon amount as well as any other details that might be a part of future competition.

1. You don't lie about the CIC being a legitimate reason to move
2. You don't lie about the nature of the CIC
3. You don't say you are not going to pay the ACC $50 million
4. You don't say that you are not going to pay anything
5. You don't underball the amount of the ACC's future revenues and jack up the projections of the B10

Had Maryland played it smart at the initial press conference, they would not have given the ACC the opening to impound their conference money for part of FY 2013 and all of FY 2014. They would not have created an instant adversarial relationship in the media off the bat.

MD shot a bigger hole in themselves with ACC than South Carolina, West Virginia, VT, or UConn. Think about that for a moment. VT and WVa pissed off the majority of the league so bad they formed a new league just to dump those two. When SC left we were fighting in the gyms over the move. When Blumenthal filed suit against the ACC's officers he burnt as many bridges as he could. But this is a different level.

I don't expect to see a former Southern Conference, ACC team (UVa, UNC, NCSU, Clemson, WF, Duke, VT, or GT) play MD in football or basketball again in my lifetime unless it's a bowl game or NCAA tournament game. It will be interesting to see what UVA, VT, UNC, WF, and Duke decide to do with them regarding Lacrosse, Field Hockey, and other sports.

Section 12-301 of the Maryland statutes expressly waives sovereign immunity in any contract suit against the state or any of its entities such as the U. of Maryland. Read all about it in Magnetti v. U of Md.

(07-19-2014 03:59 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Section 12-301 of the Maryland statutes expressly waives sovereign immunity in any contract suit against the state or any of its entities such as the U. of Maryland. Read all about it in Magnetti v. U of Md.

You the get the A for the week.

(07-19-2014 02:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The stupidity on MD's part is immense.

If the UM system was under proper management this is somewhat akin to what they should have said:

"Because of changes in the college athletic environment, the University of Maryland needs to associate itself with schools that are powers in college football as football is the device used to support other non-revenue programs. We can no longer make ends meet in the ACC, but see a pathway to make ends meet in the B10. We are therefore moving to the B10 effective July 1, 2014. We regret the impact of our decision on the remainder of the conference and pledge to uphold agreements with the ACC and hope to enjoy a good relationship with the ACC even after we have moved."

Q: Are you going to pay the ACC $50 million?

A: We have promised to uphold our agreements with the ACC. We don't know at this time exactly what our exit fee will be but we anticipate talking to the conference about that and coming to a mutually agreed upon amount as well as any other details that might be a part of future competition.

1. You don't lie about the CIC being a legitimate reason to move
2. You don't lie about the nature of the CIC
3. You don't say you are not going to pay the ACC $50 million
4. You don't say that you are not going to pay anything
5. You don't underball the amount of the ACC's future revenues and jack up the projections of the B10

Had Maryland played it smart at the initial press conference, they would not have given the ACC the opening to impound their conference money for part of FY 2013 and all of FY 2014. They would not have created an instant adversarial relationship in the media off the bat.

MD shot a bigger hole in themselves with ACC than South Carolina, West Virginia, VT, or UConn. Think about that for a moment. VT and WVa pissed off the majority of the league so bad they formed a new league just to dump those two. When SC left we were fighting in the gyms over the move. When Blumenthal filed suit against the ACC's officers he burnt as many bridges as he could. But this is a different level.

I don't expect to see a former Southern Conference, ACC team (UVa, UNC, NCSU, Clemson, WF, Duke, VT, or GT) play MD in football or basketball again in my lifetime unless it's a bowl game or NCAA tournament game. It will be interesting to see what UVA, VT, UNC, WF, and Duke decide to do with them regarding Lacrosse, Field Hockey, and other sports.

...their athletic budget would not be in ruins. Everything they said when they announced their departure was intended to calm the UMD community. Few, if any, words were meant to calm the conference or conference members.
It is not realistic to think that any party to this situation would have felt differently, or reacted differently if UMD would have used your suggested script. The Band-aid had to be ripped off. It was going to hurt. Better speeches would not have saved any bitterness.
The Loh man likely believed the words he spoke then, and likely still does.
As for future scheduling between UMD and ACC schools and Southern Conf. alums, it is probably not advisable to bring those communities together any time soon.

I read before that Maryland was claiming that they didnt owe the $50 mill because according to the ACC bylaws that that amount shouldnt have been in effect yet. This would make them liable for the previously agreed upon amount &, to me, a more credible argument.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(07-20-2014 08:44 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I read before that Maryland was claiming that they didnt owe the $50 mill because according to the ACC bylaws that that amount shouldnt have been in effect yet. This would make them liable for the previously agreed upon amount &, to me, a more credible argument.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

UMD claims they owe NO exit fee.

As to the claim above, this is false as the voted increase included an effective date which UMS surpassed by several months before announcing they were moving to the B1G.

(07-20-2014 09:28 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(07-20-2014 08:44 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I read before that Maryland was claiming that they didnt owe the $50 mill because according to the ACC bylaws that that amount shouldnt have been in effect yet. This would make them liable for the previously agreed upon amount &, to me, a more credible argument.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

UMD claims they owe NO exit fee.

As to the claim above, this is false as the voted increase included an effective date which UMS surpassed by several months before announcing they were moving to the B1G.

If this is all Maryland has left then no wonder the ACC hasnt settled, Maryland owes $50 mill period.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(07-20-2014 08:44 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I read before that Maryland was claiming that they didnt owe the $50 mill because according to the ACC bylaws that that amount shouldnt have been in effect yet. This would make them liable for the previously agreed upon amount &, to me, a more credible argument.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Maryland's claim is crap. Read the ACC constitution and bylaws. The ACC can make any change effective at any time with the 3/4 vote.

Just because Maryland says it, does not make it so.

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.

Some on the outside have never been part of a corporation or a contract. Some on the outside have never been part of parliamentary procedure or an organization that works via committees as the ACC does.

Here's a key thing to keep in mind - unless you have read the minutes, you don't know the shape of the motion that put the 1.25X formula in place. That motion can easily be worded to allow the conference to revisit the formula AS NEEDED. If that's the case, it can be brought up for action at any time. The motion can be worded any number of ways such that it is always on the table. Just because an amendment is sent to the Constitution Committee does not mean the amended can not be modified as it is discussed and voted upon by the Conference. The bottom line is that if 3/4th want to build a rocket to go to the moon, the others have a choice - notice an exit immediately or go to the moon.

It's obvious that MD was playing a secret game behind the scenes with the B10, supplying information about the ACC's plans regarding Penn State and others to the B10. They got caught. Then with their stupid mouth they allowed $31-$33 to be withheld, and they have no legal legs for support.

(07-20-2014 02:47 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 02:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The stupidity on MD's part is immense.

If the UM system was under proper management this is somewhat akin to what they should have said:

"Because of changes in the college athletic environment, the University of Maryland needs to associate itself with schools that are powers in college football as football is the device used to support other non-revenue programs. We can no longer make ends meet in the ACC, but see a pathway to make ends meet in the B10. We are therefore moving to the B10 effective July 1, 2014. We regret the impact of our decision on the remainder of the conference and pledge to uphold agreements with the ACC and hope to enjoy a good relationship with the ACC even after we have moved."

Q: Are you going to pay the ACC $50 million?

A: We have promised to uphold our agreements with the ACC. We don't know at this time exactly what our exit fee will be but we anticipate talking to the conference about that and coming to a mutually agreed upon amount as well as any other details that might be a part of future competition.

1. You don't lie about the CIC being a legitimate reason to move
2. You don't lie about the nature of the CIC
3. You don't say you are not going to pay the ACC $50 million
4. You don't say that you are not going to pay anything
5. You don't underball the amount of the ACC's future revenues and jack up the projections of the B10

Had Maryland played it smart at the initial press conference, they would not have given the ACC the opening to impound their conference money for part of FY 2013 and all of FY 2014. They would not have created an instant adversarial relationship in the media off the bat.

MD shot a bigger hole in themselves with ACC than South Carolina, West Virginia, VT, or UConn. Think about that for a moment. VT and WVa pissed off the majority of the league so bad they formed a new league just to dump those two. When SC left we were fighting in the gyms over the move. When Blumenthal filed suit against the ACC's officers he burnt as many bridges as he could. But this is a different level.

I don't expect to see a former Southern Conference, ACC team (UVa, UNC, NCSU, Clemson, WF, Duke, VT, or GT) play MD in football or basketball again in my lifetime unless it's a bowl game or NCAA tournament game. It will be interesting to see what UVA, VT, UNC, WF, and Duke decide to do with them regarding Lacrosse, Field Hockey, and other sports.

...their athletic budget would not be in ruins. Everything they said when they announced their departure was intended to calm the UMD community. Few, if any, words were meant to calm the conference or conference members.
It is not realistic to think that any party to this situation would have felt differently, or reacted differently if UMD would have used your suggested script. The Band-aid had to be ripped off. It was going to hurt. Better speeches would not have saved any bitterness.
The Loh man likely believed the words he spoke then, and likely still does.
As for future scheduling between UMD and ACC schools and Southern Conf. alums, it is probably not advisable to bring those communities together any time soon.

Folks from Maryland told bald face lies to their counterparts at VT and WF. MD revealed the ACC's plans regarding Penn State and other schools to the B10.

MD could have moved without this.

There were more lies told behind the scenes than out front. The ACC does not have a tradition where the presidents and chancellors lie to one another. Of course Loh and Kirwan are used to a different tradition.

(07-19-2014 02:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The stupidity on MD's part is immense.

If the UM system was under proper management this is somewhat akin to what they should have said:

"Because of changes in the college athletic environment, the University of Maryland needs to associate itself with schools that are powers in college football as football is the device used to support other non-revenue programs. We can no longer make ends meet in the ACC, but see a pathway to make ends meet in the B10. We are therefore moving to the B10 effective July 1, 2014. We regret the impact of our decision on the remainder of the conference and pledge to uphold agreements with the ACC and hope to enjoy a good relationship with the ACC even after we have moved."

Q: Are you going to pay the ACC $50 million?

A: We have promised to uphold our agreements with the ACC. We don't know at this time exactly what our exit fee will be but we anticipate talking to the conference about that and coming to a mutually agreed upon amount as well as any other details that might be a part of future competition.

1. You don't lie about the CIC being a legitimate reason to move
2. You don't lie about the nature of the CIC
3. You don't say you are not going to pay the ACC $50 million
4. You don't say that you are not going to pay anything
5. You don't underball the amount of the ACC's future revenues and jack up the projections of the B10

Had Maryland played it smart at the initial press conference, they would not have given the ACC the opening to impound their conference money for part of FY 2013 and all of FY 2014. They would not have created an instant adversarial relationship in the media off the bat.

MD shot a bigger hole in themselves with ACC than South Carolina, West Virginia, VT, or UConn. Think about that for a moment. VT and WVa pissed off the majority of the league so bad they formed a new league just to dump those two. When SC left we were fighting in the gyms over the move. When Blumenthal filed suit against the ACC's officers he burnt as many bridges as he could. But this is a different level.

I don't expect to see a former Southern Conference, ACC team (UVa, UNC, NCSU, Clemson, WF, Duke, VT, or GT) play MD in football or basketball again in my lifetime unless it's a bowl game or NCAA tournament game. It will be interesting to see what UVA, VT, UNC, WF, and Duke decide to do with them regarding Lacrosse, Field Hockey, and other sports.

I do not agree that Maryland put themselves in a deeper hole with the ACC than South Carolina. I was around for that one. It was vastly more rancorous than the Maryland departure.

I think ACC schools will do little scheduling with Maryland in the near future but I expect Maryland back in the ACC once the B1G's TV revenue advantage ends which is likely to happen once the ACC gets its own network and is able to fully renegotiate its TV contracts. Also, Maryland's GOR to the B1G has to end. All of that will be the case in about 12 years IIRC. That's not forever. The Terps certainly handled their exit poorly but I don't think the bridges are burned beyond any repair. I don't see Maryland developing a deep relationship with the B1G. It's just a marriage of convenience.

(07-20-2014 12:03 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  I do not agree that Maryland put themselves in a deeper hole with the ACC than South Carolina. I was around for that one. It was vastly more rancorous than the Maryland departure.

I think ACC schools will do little scheduling with Maryland in the near future but I expect Maryland back in the ACC once the B1G's TV revenue advantage ends which is likely to happen once the ACC gets its own network and is able to fully renegotiate its TV contracts. That's not forever. The Terps certainly handled their exit poorly but I don't think the bridges are burned beyond any repair. I don't see Maryland developing a deep Also, Maryland's GOR to the B1G has to end. All of that will be the case in about 12 years IIRC. relationship with the B1G. It's just a marriage of convenience.

The BTN was founded in 2007 and they signed a 30 GoR. So, 2037.

(07-20-2014 02:57 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-20-2014 12:03 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  I do not agree that Maryland put themselves in a deeper hole with the ACC than South Carolina. I was around for that one. It was vastly more rancorous than the Maryland departure.

I think ACC schools will do little scheduling with Maryland in the near future but I expect Maryland back in the ACC once the B1G's TV revenue advantage ends which is likely to happen once the ACC gets its own network and is able to fully renegotiate its TV contracts. That's not forever. The Terps certainly handled their exit poorly but I don't think the bridges are burned beyond any repair. I don't see Maryland developing a deep Also, Maryland's GOR to the B1G has to end. All of that will be the case in about 12 years IIRC. relationship with the B1G. It's just a marriage of convenience.

The BTN was founded in 2007 and they signed a 30 GoR. So, 2037.

Thirty years? Have you got a link to that? That's a stunning length of time to agree to have your hands tied.

Why was the ACC talking with Penn State and Northwestern if that's the case?

(07-20-2014 12:03 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 02:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The stupidity on MD's part is immense.

If the UM system was under proper management this is somewhat akin to what they should have said:

"Because of changes in the college athletic environment, the University of Maryland needs to associate itself with schools that are powers in college football as football is the device used to support other non-revenue programs. We can no longer make ends meet in the ACC, but see a pathway to make ends meet in the B10. We are therefore moving to the B10 effective July 1, 2014. We regret the impact of our decision on the remainder of the conference and pledge to uphold agreements with the ACC and hope to enjoy a good relationship with the ACC even after we have moved."

Q: Are you going to pay the ACC $50 million?

A: We have promised to uphold our agreements with the ACC. We don't know at this time exactly what our exit fee will be but we anticipate talking to the conference about that and coming to a mutually agreed upon amount as well as any other details that might be a part of future competition.

1. You don't lie about the CIC being a legitimate reason to move
2. You don't lie about the nature of the CIC
3. You don't say you are not going to pay the ACC $50 million
4. You don't say that you are not going to pay anything
5. You don't underball the amount of the ACC's future revenues and jack up the projections of the B10

Had Maryland played it smart at the initial press conference, they would not have given the ACC the opening to impound their conference money for part of FY 2013 and all of FY 2014. They would not have created an instant adversarial relationship in the media off the bat.

MD shot a bigger hole in themselves with ACC than South Carolina, West Virginia, VT, or UConn. Think about that for a moment. VT and WVa pissed off the majority of the league so bad they formed a new league just to dump those two. When SC left we were fighting in the gyms over the move. When Blumenthal filed suit against the ACC's officers he burnt as many bridges as he could. But this is a different level.

I don't expect to see a former Southern Conference, ACC team (UVa, UNC, NCSU, Clemson, WF, Duke, VT, or GT) play MD in football or basketball again in my lifetime unless it's a bowl game or NCAA tournament game. It will be interesting to see what UVA, VT, UNC, WF, and Duke decide to do with them regarding Lacrosse, Field Hockey, and other sports.

I do not agree that Maryland put themselves in a deeper hole with the ACC than South Carolina. I was around for that one. It was vastly more rancorous than the Maryland departure.

I think ACC schools will do little scheduling with Maryland in the near future but I expect Maryland back in the ACC once the B1G's TV revenue advantage ends which is likely to happen once the ACC gets its own network and is able to fully renegotiate its TV contracts. Also, Maryland's GOR to the B1G has to end. All of that will be the case in about 12 years IIRC. That's not forever. The Terps certainly handled their exit poorly but I don't think the bridges are burned beyond any repair. I don't see Maryland developing a deep relationship with the B1G. It's just a marriage of convenience.

I too was around when SC left. NC State continued to play them and they continued with us Clemson and NC in the North South Doubleheader in Charlotte for over a decade. They of course continued to play Clemson. The fan acrimony was higher back then. The on-court/field fights were greater, but the bridges were not burned like they have been with MD. In my opinion.

You also forget that to get back into the league, MD will need the votes. VT faced a 50 year blackball. The blackball against West Va is in it's 60th year. UNC and NC State are pissed on a personal level. Can you name one thing that passed a league vote that NC State and UNC opposed? I can't.

Listen, I'm a Duke fan. I've got more reasons than UNC or NCSU fans not to want Maryland back. Terp fan behavior at Duke games has been a VERY serious problem. Still, I'm willing to take them back eventually. The main difference here is that I've seen little sign that Terp fans are mad at the ACC. That was not the case with USC fans when that school left the ACC. They were mad as hell. Many Terp fans are really unhappy with the move. My feeling is that the problem is almost all with incompetent leadership at Maryland and that will pass. With time the ACC money will be as good as the B1G's and the Terps will want back in and the ACC will have a strong motivation to damage the B1G by taking Maryland back.

Anyway, if the B1G has a 30 year GOR, it's all academic for so far into the future it's not worth discussing.

Forbes reports the B1G's grant of rights is through "at least" 2027. That's not 30 years but who knows what the "at least" part means.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...e-course/2
A 2027 expiration would explain the ACC approach to Penn State. Nothing would explain the approach to Northwestern. That was just weird.

(07-20-2014 05:42 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Listen, I'm a Duke fan. I've got more reasons than UNC or NCSU fans not to want Maryland back. Terp fan behavior at Duke games has been a VERY serious problem. Still, I'm willing to take them back eventually. The main difference here is that I've seen little sign that Terp fans are mad at the ACC. That was not the case with USC fans when that school left the ACC. They were mad as hell. Many Terp fans are really unhappy with the move. My feeling is that the problem is almost all with incompetent leadership at Maryland and that will pass. With time the ACC money will be as good as the B1G's and the Terps will want back in and the ACC will have a strong motivation to damage the B1G by taking Maryland back.

Anyway, if the B1G has a 30 year GOR, it's all academic for so far into the future it's not worth discussing.

I guess I did not make my point very well. I don't think it matters how the Maryland rank and file feel about anything at this point. If the ptb at UNC and NC State don't want them back - they are not coming back. Right now, they don't want them back.

(07-20-2014 06:26 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Forbes reports the B1G's grant of rights is through "at least" 2027. That's not 30 years but who knows what the "at least" part means.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...e-course/2
A 2027 expiration would explain the ACC approach to Penn State. Nothing would explain the approach to Northwestern. That was just weird.

Chicago and NW long term ability to compete against huge B10 teams is the explanation. However they have been conversations with at least two more.

All you have to do to is look at the B10 and figure out who can not compete in B-10 football against 100K stadiums and is not named Rutgers, MD, or Minnesota. It helps if they also play basketball.

(07-20-2014 08:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-20-2014 06:26 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Forbes reports the B1G's grant of rights is through "at least" 2027. That's not 30 years but who knows what the "at least" part means.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...e-course/2
A 2027 expiration would explain the ACC approach to Penn State. Nothing would explain the approach to Northwestern. That was just weird.

Chicago and NW long term ability to compete against huge B10 teams is the explanation. However they have been conversations with at least two more.

All you have to do to is look at the B10 and figure out who can not compete in B-10 football against 100K stadiums and is not named Rutgers, MD, or Minnesota. It helps if they also play basketball.

"Indiana wants me, but I can't go back there..."