https://twitter.com/#!/LandThieves

Quote:Per the Baylor 247 site. Pitt has ingquired about the Big12.. #CmonMan

me thinks this is false, but posting anyways

Hey, it seems like some of the Pitt regulars have some legal background, so I'll ask here -- it seems like having a clause in the Big12 contract to pay MORE than what they are currently getting for poaching teams from another conference might be grounds for a lawsuit to me -- particularly if the target is a school from a conference under contract to the same network (ESPN). Am I missing something? Admittedly I'm skeptical about that rumor anyway, since I've been unable to trace it any further back that to a WVU fan blog post... but if it IS true, it just seems like it ought to be illegal (predatory business practice). Can anyone comment on that, please?

I can't imagine that the language says anything other than something along these lines: 'ESPN reserves the right to re-evaluate the contract should the makeup of the conference change.' It's possible, too, that it's more defined. They could say should the makeup change substantially and then define what that means (addition or subtraction of two teams, etc.).

I highly doubt they would write anything into the contract saying that 'if so and so were added to the league the payout would increase to X amount.' I would say that there is no way they would have a clause in the contract rewarding the Big XII for purposefully poaching another conference. In other words, I wouldn't imagine any way they would have something that says: 'should Big XII add team(s) from the ACC, payout increases by X amount.'

If ESPN wanted to engage in this type of behavior, I would think that they would be more likely to write the contract as I mentioned first - simply say that there is room for change should schools be added or leave the conference and then have a little wink and a nod agreement that a big fish coming could seriously alter the deal. This would certainly not be written and it feels pretty slimy but I imagine plenty of business deals work this way.

I think that the cause of action a poached conference would have against ESPN and the poacher would be tortious interference of contract. It's essentially saying that because of ESPN/Poacher Conference's actions, the contract between the Poached Conference and it's member schools has been disrupted or impermissibly interfered with. I don't truthfully know how successful a claim for this would be. (Call this cause of action #1)

Here's what I find even more interesting, though - could the Poached Conference bring suit against ESPN claiming that ESPN has impermissibly interfered with the contract rights between ESPN and the Poached Conference? Since ESPN is a party to that contract, I truly wonder whether Poached Conference would have standing to bring this suit. I would make a prediction, though, and say that should cause of action #1 occur, the attorney suing would ALSO bring this - call it cause of action #2.

In case that wasn't clear: Poached Conference would sue both Poacher Conference AND ESPN for two things: 1. disrupting the contract (membership agreement) between the member schools of Poached Conference and 2. disrupting the TV agreement between ESPN and Poached Conference. This, to me, is truly interesting.

As for whether or not the practices you mentioned would be considered "illegal" - I think the real questions are: 1. Is there a suit to be brought (cause of action to get us into court) and then 2. How successful are we likely to be with the aforementioned suit?

Unfortunately, the discussion presented above is really all that I can say about it off the top of my head. Certainly there is a suit to be had. The question becomes how extensive can we make it? Would we have standing on claim #2? If so, how successful will we be on either? I'm just not sure of the answers to either of those questions.

I hope that helps a bit. Sorry if any of it seems muddled. I'll try to answer any questions that I can.

Thanks. This is helpful. I guess the only thing I'd really want to know is - could the ACC to (1) force ESPN to honor the contract as-is for 1 or 2 replacement teams (of less "market" value) so that everyone still gets the full $17 million/year average, and better yet (2) force ESPN to honor the contract in the even of falling back to 12 teams (perhaps on the basis that they still have the 2 lost teams under contract, so what's the problem)?

If ESPN paid the same money for 12 teams as for 15, per team pay works out to... $20 million/year. To me, that would be the best resolution for the ACC.

Since it's safe to say that there is a provision in the contract for a change in membership by the conference, I would say that there is no way the ACC could force ESPN to give the same payout to 12 teams.

On the other hand, ESPN could do this as a gesture of good will towards the conference. If they have their hands in screwing up the membership themselves they could do this so that they can say they treated the conference fairly regardless of their membership. I'm not sure this is a great argument but it's possible.

Secondly, they still maintain a business relationship with the ACC. They want the product to be good.

(05-15-2012 09:33 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  Since it's safe to say that there is a provision in the contract for a change in membership by the conference, I would say that there is no way the ACC could force ESPN to give the same payout to 12 teams.

On the other hand, ESPN could do this as a gesture of good will towards the conference. If they have their hands in screwing up the membership themselves they could do this so that they can say they treated the conference fairly regardless of their membership. I'm not sure this is a great argument but it's possible.

Secondly, they still maintain a business relationship with the ACC. They want the product to be good.

OK. So what I'm taking away from this is that if the Big 12 raids the ACC it's reasonable to expect that (1) we will have to maintain 14 teams, but (2) the payout per team will not drop, but we'll still get the same 15-year deal (most likely). All-in-all that's not a bad safety net to have, IMO. (don't know about you, but if my worst-case scenario was $17 million/year - I could live with that!)

(05-15-2012 09:49 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 09:33 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  Since it's safe to say that there is a provision in the contract for a change in membership by the conference, I would say that there is no way the ACC could force ESPN to give the same payout to 12 teams.

On the other hand, ESPN could do this as a gesture of good will towards the conference. If they have their hands in screwing up the membership themselves they could do this so that they can say they treated the conference fairly regardless of their membership. I'm not sure this is a great argument but it's possible.

Secondly, they still maintain a business relationship with the ACC. They want the product to be good.

OK. So what I'm taking away from this is that if the Big 12 raids the ACC it's reasonable to expect that (1) we will have to maintain 14 teams, but (2) the payout per team will not drop, but we'll still get the same 15-year deal (most likely). All-in-all that's not a bad safety net to have, IMO. (don't know about you, but if my worst-case scenario was $17 million/year - I could live with that!)

It simply depends on what ESPN wants. For example, even if the ACC adds more teams, ESPN may still lower the contract. ESPN and Fox kept the Big 12 payout the same to save the conference. Will they be as nice the ACC?

Note that when the BE lost Miami, VT, and BC and added USF, Cincy, and UL (and also Marq and DePaul), the BE's contract was renegotiated downward significantly (at least 25%, IIRC).

I would not say that just keeping the membership at 14 would ensure the same payout. The contract should be written in a way that it is specific to the teams who are included. As we know, losing FSU and VT, for example, and then adding UConn and RU would not be a wash. FSU and VT are worth significantly more to the conference and therefore to ESPN who broadcasts the games.

I would actually also look at it like this - if the ACC were to lose two members that would trigger contract re-negotiations because the membership has changed. If the ACC then adds two members it also triggers contract re-negotiations with ESPN. Essentially, it will boil down to contract re-negotiating being on the table if anyone leaves no-matter what.

My point was just that ESPN may just tell the ACC they don't need to add anymore teams and they will keep the contract the same, or at the very least keep the payout/team the same. This would just be a gesture of goodwill by ESPN OR a business tactic. My guess, obviously, is the latter.

(05-14-2012 07:30 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  https://twitter.com/#!/LandThieves

Quote:Per the Baylor 247 site. Pitt has ingquired about the Big12.. #CmonMan

me thinks this is false, but posting anyways

My thoughts on this are:

1. Why not?

2. I'm hoping the Chancellor remains silent on conference(s) affiliation. No comment gives one room to maneuver in some sort of unexpected scenario. Silence is golden. After all, there is a war game where the ACC gets consumed and becomes the new BE. I don't think he'd want that on his record.

Absolutely agree. While the B1G is unlikely and the SEC even less likely I'd rather at least try than end back up where we started.

Nordy is smart. I'd be shocked to hear him comment on expansion any further.

I don't know about the legal ramifications, but from a business standpoint it makes no sense. ESPN owns the rights to FSU and Clemson for $17 million each. Even if they keep the payout at $20 for moving to the B12 that adds $6 million per year extra for 13 years or a total of $78 million in additional costs with no increase in revenue. No business seeks to add costs without revenue to cover them. That just lowers the profit margin.


Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

Right. I believe the Big XII is with ESPN/ABC for their tier 1 rights but tier 2 rights are with FOX. With that being said, ESPN obviously wants to keep them in the ACC where they own more content from FSU and right now pay them less than they would get in the Big XII for less content anyway.

The unfortunate thing is that without re-opening negotiations to essentially pay the ACC more FSU isn't going to be increasing that figure without leaving. I seriously doubt ESPN would consider doing that.

(05-16-2012 10:22 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I don't know about the legal ramifications, but from a business standpoint it makes no sense. ESPN owns the rights to FSU and Clemson for $17 million each. Even if they keep the payout at $20 for moving to the B12 that adds $6 million per year extra for 13 years or a total of $78 million in additional costs with no increase in revenue. No business seeks to add costs without revenue to cover them. That just lowers the profit margin.


Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

This whole thing makes 0 sense right now. Its just insane watching things unfold. God I wished I could've been a fly on the wall during the ACC meetings last week.

(05-19-2012 08:26 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  God I wished I could've been a fly on the wall during the ACC meetings last week.

As does most of the rest of the nation, Joey. It would have made some interesting listening...

I read another post the other day and this person pretty much hit the nail on the head. I will sum it up as best I can...

Everyone needs to relax. Pitt is NOT leaving the ACC. We're a 2nd rate football and a 1st rate basketball school. We are where we belong. Basically the ACC is the Big East with more academic prestige, deeper hoops tradition, somewhat better football, and (most importantly) much more profitable.

If we had been better at football, and had more football fans, for the past 30 years then we would have been a lock for the Big Ten either in the 90's or this past expansion. For where we are, the B10 is the ideal combination of all of the above factors (academics, football, hoops, prestige, profitability, geography). It should have been the Holy Grail for Pitt athletics. But we sucked for 3 decades and didn’t draw dick to our games. So we were lucky to be in the ACC.

We're not ever likely to be perennial top 5 team again, so what does it matter? But maybe we can get back to being perennial mid teens, and make some decent bowls, and get to one of the bigger bowls on occasion

There's only one National Champion and it's almost always going to be one of the giant football factories, even with a playoff system. The big guys have the most money, and most willing to cheat, and least likely to be punished for it. Everyone else is realistically playing for a nice year and a nice bowl trip.

Get over the delusions. Our administration intelligently did long ago. All that matters (to Pitt administrators) is that we're getting a sh*tload more money from this new deal. If the ACC is getting marginalized out of an equal chance at the National Championship, well, it's their (and our) own fault for mostly sucking at football for a long time.

(05-19-2012 08:26 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-16-2012 10:22 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I don't know about the legal ramifications, but from a business standpoint it makes no sense. ESPN owns the rights to FSU and Clemson for $17 million each. Even if they keep the payout at $20 for moving to the B12 that adds $6 million per year extra for 13 years or a total of $78 million in additional costs with no increase in revenue. No business seeks to add costs without revenue to cover them. That just lowers the profit margin.


Sent from my Toshiba Thrive using Tapatalk2.

This whole thing makes 0 sense right now. Its just insane watching things unfold. God I wished I could've been a fly on the wall during the ACC meetings last week.

Oh wow, no question. Fun thought.

Btw CP, does this site have an ignore feature? Obviously, I haven't navigated around it much. The ACC community board I've enjoyed reading very much. Everyone does a good job there.

Yes, there's an ignore feature. You gotta go to your user control panel and on your left is buddy/ignore list. Type in the guy/gal you want to ignore and they're on ignore. lol

And yea, the ACC crowd(here at least) seem to be level headed. I pay attention to what is said, but all and all, I really haven't had to do anything here compared to the BEboard & Conference Realignment Board.