(06-19-2014 08:58 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Grant of rights means you leave your rights behind for the duration. It does not mean you leave them behind without payment. In that regard, had this hypothetical happened, and PSU joined the ACC, they would still receive their share of Big Ten TV money, if the B10 were to keep their games. That is part of the deal. As that is not ideal for the B10, as you stated, they'd have to buy out PSU. Hence why Delaney, at least publicly, took the threat as real, and was not like the Big 12 people who think the GOR is somehow solves everything. If you are a middling team, the GOR is a lot more binding than if you are a big dog, who can afford to just take the old payments, then be a road draw in its new locale until the GOR is up.

I disagree. The Big 12 GoR have contracts came out at some point and a school forfeits conference conference revenue by leaving the conference but grant of rights is still in effect.

Now practically speaking, the old conference cannot force their way onto the campus to broadcast games and the most likely result they'd take would be simply not to air them. The contracts with the networks are for schools in the conference. If a school leaves, they aren't part of the conference.

Now not airing a schools home games would seem a big waste of money, but that's the leverage the GoRs give you. If someone leaves, they are getting no TV money for home games until the new conference agrees to buy out the old conferences rights. With these big schools, the net worth of those rights for decade plus are worth far, far more than any of the exit penalties we've seen anyone pay. That's why GORs are effective (until you get to the last couple of years and then they more like normal buy-outs).

Other thoughts:

1. Northwestern was probably the other Big Ten school contacted. They are the only private in the conference, in the Chicago market, and fit an ACC model in many respects.

2. Maryland has more of a case than many believe, but not because of contacts to the Big Ten. That increase in the exit penalty vote came less than a year before they left and they voted against it. Following increase in exit fees, there has to be some time period for a member to leave under the old set-up before they take effect. Now that doesn't mean Maryland did that quick enough, but there's arguments both ways so we'll something in the middle.

(06-19-2014 08:25 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 07:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 06:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The others are within 175 miles of South Bend.

Why don't you just say Purdue, Northwestern and/or Michigan State?

Just guessing here, but maybe it is to prevent it from attracting fans from other boards from coming over (searchable). Could be wrong though.

I'd venture to say your guess is wrong.

That person makes a lot of claims and thinks of themself as an insider, but history's shown they are not.

(06-19-2014 09:55 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Other thoughts:

2. Maryland has more of a case than many believe, but not because of contacts to the Big Ten. That increase in the exit penalty vote came less than a year before they left and they voted against it. Following increase in exit fees, there has to be some time period for a member to leave under the old set-up before they take effect. Now that doesn't mean Maryland did that quick enough, but there's arguments both ways so we'll something in the middle.

To me, Maryland's only legit argument is procedural...did the ACC impose a exit fee illegitimately? I thought from some things I've read that they might have a decent case along those lines...but IF that was true, I'd have to think it would be pretty straightforward.

The longer this has gone on, the failure of MD to notch up much progress from the courts so far, and the apparent lack of pressure on the ACC to settle, implies to me that there isn't as much procedural basis for throwing out the fee. With Maryland chasing these other paths, about ACC contact etc, supports that to me.

I still think it will settle, in the $27-$30M. But it doesn't seem like there is much ACC vulnerability on the procedural front to me.

For the record, I think the procedure by which Maryland is subject to the new fee stinks, whether it was legal or not. I think it's patently unfair that a conference can vote in a fee that essentially locks a member from leaving against their will. Such a fee, like a GOR, should have to be voluntarily submitted to by everyone. I just don't think that a majority should be able to vote to keep a member imprisoned against their wishes.

with regard to #2...very respectfully, you could not be any more wrong. you could try to be more wrong, but you would be unsuccessful. whether md voted for the increased exit fee is completely irrelevant. every conference member is bound by majority vote and is subject to all conference bylaws, not just the ones they voted in favor of. can you imagine the chaos if members were only bound by the ones they liked? somehow, that line of thought persists in some people's minds. there is a bylaw that states that bylaw changes take effect at the start of the following fiscal year...UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED. the latter half of that clause is also frequently ignored.

the moral of the story is that some people believe what the want to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary.

very respectfully,
ren

(06-19-2014 09:55 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Other thoughts:

1. Northwestern was probably the other Big Ten school contacted. They are the only private in the conference, in the Chicago market, and fit an ACC model in many respects.

2. Maryland has more of a case than many believe, but not because of contacts to the Big Ten. That increase in the exit penalty vote came less than a year before they left and they voted against it. Following increase in exit fees, there has to be some time period for a member to leave under the old set-up before they take effect. Now that doesn't mean Maryland did that quick enough, but there's arguments both ways so we'll something in the middle.

(06-19-2014 09:51 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 08:58 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Grant of rights means you leave your rights behind for the duration. It does not mean you leave them behind without payment. In that regard, had this hypothetical happened, and PSU joined the ACC, they would still receive their share of Big Ten TV money, if the B10 were to keep their games. That is part of the deal. As that is not ideal for the B10, as you stated, they'd have to buy out PSU. Hence why Delaney, at least publicly, took the threat as real, and was not like the Big 12 people who think the GOR is somehow solves everything. If you are a middling team, the GOR is a lot more binding than if you are a big dog, who can afford to just take the old payments, then be a road draw in its new locale until the GOR is up.

I disagree. The Big 12 GoR have contracts came out at some point and a school forfeits conference conference revenue by leaving the conference but grant of rights is still in effect.

Now practically speaking, the old conference cannot force their way onto the campus to broadcast games and the most likely result they'd take would be simply not to air them. The contracts with the networks are for schools in the conference. If a school leaves, they aren't part of the conference.

Now not airing a schools home games would seem a big waste of money, but that's the leverage the GoRs give you. If someone leaves, they are getting no TV money for home games until the new conference agrees to buy out the old conferences rights. With these big schools, the net worth of those rights for decade plus are worth far, far more than any of the exit penalties we've seen anyone pay. That's why GORs are effective (until you get to the last couple of years and then they more like normal buy-outs).

It's not the GOR contracts that show the schools forfeit their money. It's the conference bylaws. It's an interesting combination of the GOR and the bylaws that provide the handcuffs.

Now, whether the bylaws would stand up to that, the ability to withhold the revenue from the school's TV rights without compensation, that's a different story. I don't think that's ever been tried. Even though the ACC is withholding MD's money, they're doing it as payment against the buyout.

The Big 12 bylaws have a huge buyout as well (two years revenue...so about $40-50M depending on Big 12 payouts) PLUS they say the school forfeits all revenue. Basically, the school forfeits all revenue, AND is supposed to write a check.

That is untested ground, and I don't think is tested by the ACC-MD thing at all, because the MD withholding is supposed to be applied to the buyout.

IF it can be made to stand, that's pretty much unbreakable, but I'm not sure it can.

In reality, however, I agree to those who say it is a lot more restrictive to WVU and Kansas than TX and OU. If Texas and OU decided to leave, especially with a couple friends, the Big 12 is effectively dead. They'd have their TV contracts whittled way down based on composition clauses.

At that point, everyone will be just trying to land the best deal they can, and will want to be unencumbered to do so, probably trying to figure out a way to combine to make a power five conference out of the remnants and the AAC or MWC.

It's just not realistic that say TCU, Baylor, ISU, and KSU are going to be able to invite six MWC or AAC schools, keep collecting $20M per year PLUS the departing schools rights, hold the Sugar Bowl spot etc. It's just not going to happen, the networks themselves wouldn't pay that price for that product.

If TX and OU left, the whole thing get's ripped up, because it's just not a viable conference anymore, whether Baylor wants it to be or not.

That said, Texas isn't going anywhere because it's got everything it wants and needs. Oklahoma is the one that could make some waves, because they could put some pressure on TX, but I don't see any indication that they would do so. It's not like the Big 12 is a problem for them.

I think the Big 12 is stable.

(06-19-2014 10:50 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 09:51 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 08:58 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Grant of rights means you leave your rights behind for the duration. It does not mean you leave them behind without payment. In that regard, had this hypothetical happened, and PSU joined the ACC, they would still receive their share of Big Ten TV money, if the B10 were to keep their games. That is part of the deal. As that is not ideal for the B10, as you stated, they'd have to buy out PSU. Hence why Delaney, at least publicly, took the threat as real, and was not like the Big 12 people who think the GOR is somehow solves everything. If you are a middling team, the GOR is a lot more binding than if you are a big dog, who can afford to just take the old payments, then be a road draw in its new locale until the GOR is up.

I disagree. The Big 12 GoR have contracts came out at some point and a school forfeits conference conference revenue by leaving the conference but grant of rights is still in effect.

Now practically speaking, the old conference cannot force their way onto the campus to broadcast games and the most likely result they'd take would be simply not to air them. The contracts with the networks are for schools in the conference. If a school leaves, they aren't part of the conference.

Now not airing a schools home games would seem a big waste of money, but that's the leverage the GoRs give you. If someone leaves, they are getting no TV money for home games until the new conference agrees to buy out the old conferences rights. With these big schools, the net worth of those rights for decade plus are worth far, far more than any of the exit penalties we've seen anyone pay. That's why GORs are effective (until you get to the last couple of years and then they more like normal buy-outs).

It's not the GOR contracts that show the schools forfeit their money. It's the conference bylaws. It's an interesting combination of the GOR and the bylaws that provide the handcuffs.

Now, whether the bylaws would stand up to that, the ability to withhold the revenue from the school's TV rights without compensation, that's a different story. I don't think that's ever been tried. Even though the ACC is withholding MD's money, they're doing it as payment against the buyout.

The Big 12 bylaws have a huge buyout as well (two years revenue...so about $40-50M depending on Big 12 payouts) PLUS they say the school forfeits all revenue. Basically, the school forfeits all revenue, AND is supposed to write a check.

That is untested ground, and I don't think is tested by the ACC-MD thing at all, because the MD withholding is supposed to be applied to the buyout.

IF it can be made to stand, that's pretty much unbreakable, but I'm not sure it can.

In reality, however, I agree to those who say it is a lot more restrictive to WVU and Kansas than TX and OU. If Texas and OU decided to leave, especially with a couple friends, the Big 12 is effectively dead. They'd have their TV contracts whittled way down based on composition clauses.

At that point, everyone will be just trying to land the best deal they can, and will want to be unencumbered to do so, probably trying to figure out a way to combine to make a power five conference out of the remnants and the AAC or MWC.

It's just not realistic that say TCU, Baylor, ISU, and KSU are going to be able to invite six MWC or AAC schools, keep collecting $20M per year PLUS the departing schools rights, hold the Sugar Bowl spot etc. It's just not going to happen, the networks themselves wouldn't pay that price for that product.

If TX and OU left, the whole thing get's ripped up, because it's just not a viable conference anymore, whether Baylor wants it to be or not.

That said, Texas isn't going anywhere because it's got everything it wants and needs. Oklahoma is the one that could make some waves, because they could put some pressure on TX, but I don't see any indication that they would do so. It's not like the Big 12 is a problem for them.

I think the Big 12 is stable.

Agree about that part being untested and it would be interesting to see how it would play out, but the unknown and the potential for loss on the magnitude we are talking about means we probably will never see a school/raiding conference risk it.

(06-19-2014 10:38 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  with regard to #2...very respectfully, you could not be any more wrong. you could try to be more wrong, but you would be unsuccessful. whether md voted for the increased exit fee is completely irrelevant. every conference member is bound by majority vote and is subject to all conference bylaws, not just the ones they voted in favor of. can you imagine the chaos if members were only bound by the ones they liked? somehow, that line of thought persists in some people's minds. there is a bylaw that states that bylaw changes take effect at the start of the following fiscal year...UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED. the latter half of that clause is also frequently ignored.

the moral of the story is that some people believe what the want to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary.

very respectfully,
ren

(06-19-2014 09:55 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Other thoughts:

1. Northwestern was probably the other Big Ten school contacted. They are the only private in the conference, in the Chicago market, and fit an ACC model in many respects.

2. Maryland has more of a case than many believe, but not because of contacts to the Big Ten. That increase in the exit penalty vote came less than a year before they left and they voted against it. Following increase in exit fees, there has to be some time period for a member to leave under the old set-up before they take effect. Now that doesn't mean Maryland did that quick enough, but there's arguments both ways so we'll something in the middle.

I had not seen " start of the following fiscal year" and that is a very relevant detail.

With that said, the courts do not like awarding in line with exit penalties and the like to begin with and tend to settle much more closely to damage caused. Combine that with the fact the new rules were only briefly in place, and that the ACC is secured itself for the future with a GoRs suggests to me that the award a court would award to the ACC would be significantly less than the full amount. That's now relying on how courts treat these type of cases rather than the language though.

Maryland has loss or you would already had a ruling. They are now determining how much MD has to pay plus the court costs.

yes, "next fiscal year" is very relevant, but you seem to have ignored the next clause: "unless otherwise provided for". this is equally relevant. a simple reading says that the bylaws allow changes to take effect immediately. the increased exit fee was stipulated to take effect immediately.

(06-19-2014 11:04 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 10:38 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  with regard to #2...very respectfully, you could not be any more wrong. you could try to be more wrong, but you would be unsuccessful. whether md voted for the increased exit fee is completely irrelevant. every conference member is bound by majority vote and is subject to all conference bylaws, not just the ones they voted in favor of. can you imagine the chaos if members were only bound by the ones they liked? somehow, that line of thought persists in some people's minds. there is a bylaw that states that bylaw changes take effect at the start of the following fiscal year...UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED. the latter half of that clause is also frequently ignored.

the moral of the story is that some people believe what the want to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary.

very respectfully,
ren

(06-19-2014 09:55 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Other thoughts:

1. Northwestern was probably the other Big Ten school contacted. They are the only private in the conference, in the Chicago market, and fit an ACC model in many respects.

2. Maryland has more of a case than many believe, but not because of contacts to the Big Ten. That increase in the exit penalty vote came less than a year before they left and they voted against it. Following increase in exit fees, there has to be some time period for a member to leave under the old set-up before they take effect. Now that doesn't mean Maryland did that quick enough, but there's arguments both ways so we'll something in the middle.

I had not seen " start of the following fiscal year" and that is a very relevant detail.

With that said, the courts do not like awarding in line with exit penalties and the like to begin with and tend to settle much more closely to damage caused. Combine that with the fact the new rules were only briefly in place, and that the ACC is secured itself for the future with a GoRs suggests to me that the award a court would award to the ACC would be significantly less than the full amount. That's now relying on how courts treat these type of cases rather than the language though.

Speaking of UMD's lawsuit... Don't they need to reach an agreement before July 1st when they officially join the Big Ten? I'd imagine the BIG would want the lawsuit out of the way sooner rather than later.

(06-19-2014 11:28 AM)DXcuse Wrote:  Speaking of UMD's lawsuit... Don't they need to reach an agreement before July 1st when they officially join the Big Ten? I'd imagine the BIG would want the lawsuit out of the way sooner rather than later.

No. Not at all. The ACC never tried to get an injunction from MD joining the BiG. The suit is only about the exit fees MD will pay. This suit could go on for quite some time. The timing of MD physically joining the BiG has no bearing on the suit itself.

(06-19-2014 10:33 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 09:55 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Other thoughts:

2. Maryland has more of a case than many believe, but not because of contacts to the Big Ten. That increase in the exit penalty vote came less than a year before they left and they voted against it. Following increase in exit fees, there has to be some time period for a member to leave under the old set-up before they take effect. Now that doesn't mean Maryland did that quick enough, but there's arguments both ways so we'll something in the middle.

To me, Maryland's only legit argument is procedural...did the ACC impose a exit fee illegitimately? I thought from some things I've read that they might have a decent case along those lines...but IF that was true, I'd have to think it would be pretty straightforward.

The longer this has gone on, the failure of MD to notch up much progress from the courts so far, and the apparent lack of pressure on the ACC to settle, implies to me that there isn't as much procedural basis for throwing out the fee. With Maryland chasing these other paths, about ACC contact etc, supports that to me.

I still think it will settle, in the $27-$30M. But it doesn't seem like there is much ACC vulnerability on the procedural front to me.

For the record, I think the procedure by which Maryland is subject to the new fee stinks, whether it was legal or not. I think it's patently unfair that a conference can vote in a fee that essentially locks a member from leaving against their will. Such a fee, like a GOR, should have to be voluntarily submitted to by everyone. I just don't think that a majority should be able to vote to keep a member imprisoned against their wishes.

I respectfully disagree that Maryland and FSU were imprisoned against their wishes. The procedure was correct as it used a secondary clause by which it was allowed to bring a vote forward. FSU disagreed in principle on the procedure and voted as such (I don't recall reading official comments that FSU was against the actual agreement, if someone has it, please provide a link). Maryland voted against the increase probably because they were in talks with the B1G (which calls into question their own actions!) and did have the option of providing notice that they would withdraw from the ACC before the increase in fee took place.

(06-19-2014 11:04 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 10:38 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  with regard to #2...very respectfully, you could not be any more wrong. you could try to be more wrong, but you would be unsuccessful. whether md voted for the increased exit fee is completely irrelevant. every conference member is bound by majority vote and is subject to all conference bylaws, not just the ones they voted in favor of. can you imagine the chaos if members were only bound by the ones they liked? somehow, that line of thought persists in some people's minds. there is a bylaw that states that bylaw changes take effect at the start of the following fiscal year...UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED. the latter half of that clause is also frequently ignored.

the moral of the story is that some people believe what the want to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary.

very respectfully,
ren

(06-19-2014 09:55 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Other thoughts:

1. Northwestern was probably the other Big Ten school contacted. They are the only private in the conference, in the Chicago market, and fit an ACC model in many respects.

2. Maryland has more of a case than many believe, but not because of contacts to the Big Ten. That increase in the exit penalty vote came less than a year before they left and they voted against it. Following increase in exit fees, there has to be some time period for a member to leave under the old set-up before they take effect. Now that doesn't mean Maryland did that quick enough, but there's arguments both ways so we'll something in the middle.

I had not seen " start of the following fiscal year" and that is a very relevant detail.

With that said, the courts do not like awarding in line with exit penalties and the like to begin with and tend to settle much more closely to damage caused. Combine that with the fact the new rules were only briefly in place, and that the ACC is secured itself for the future with a GoRs suggests to me that the award a court would award to the ACC would be significantly less than the full amount. That's now relying on how courts treat these type of cases rather than the language though.

Courts like liquidated damages clauses because both sides have agreed to a set fee in lieu of forcing the court to weigh complicated evidence to determine the actual damages. Maryland's only real issue is that they did not vote for the specific increase. This raises four ACC defenses, each of which will probably trump UMD's position: 1) UMD was in contact with the B1G prior to the vote; 2) UMD had voted for the bylaws and procedures that allowed the vote to take place; 3) UMD voted for the prior exit fee increase (recall that UMD is claiming ALL exit fees are invalid and there should be no exit fee!); and, 4) UMD could have provided notice of withdrawal before the new fee went into effect (or notifying the ACC prior to the vote that if the exit fee was increased they would withdraw).

(06-19-2014 11:35 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 10:33 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 09:55 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Other thoughts:

2. Maryland has more of a case than many believe, but not because of contacts to the Big Ten. That increase in the exit penalty vote came less than a year before they left and they voted against it. Following increase in exit fees, there has to be some time period for a member to leave under the old set-up before they take effect. Now that doesn't mean Maryland did that quick enough, but there's arguments both ways so we'll something in the middle.

To me, Maryland's only legit argument is procedural...did the ACC impose a exit fee illegitimately? I thought from some things I've read that they might have a decent case along those lines...but IF that was true, I'd have to think it would be pretty straightforward.

The longer this has gone on, the failure of MD to notch up much progress from the courts so far, and the apparent lack of pressure on the ACC to settle, implies to me that there isn't as much procedural basis for throwing out the fee. With Maryland chasing these other paths, about ACC contact etc, supports that to me.

I still think it will settle, in the $27-$30M. But it doesn't seem like there is much ACC vulnerability on the procedural front to me.

For the record, I think the procedure by which Maryland is subject to the new fee stinks, whether it was legal or not. I think it's patently unfair that a conference can vote in a fee that essentially locks a member from leaving against their will. Such a fee, like a GOR, should have to be voluntarily submitted to by everyone. I just don't think that a majority should be able to vote to keep a member imprisoned against their wishes.

I respectfully disagree that Maryland and FSU were imprisoned against their wishes. The procedure was correct as it used a secondary clause by which it was allowed to bring a vote forward. FSU disagreed in principle on the procedure and voted as such (I don't recall reading official comments that FSU was against the actual agreement, if someone has it, please provide a link). Maryland voted against the increase probably because they were in talks with the B1G (which calls into question their own actions!) and did have the option of providing notice that they would withdraw from the ACC before the increase in fee took place.

They obviously weren't imprisoned. Maryland left anyway. How do people miss the obvious?

(06-18-2014 05:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 03:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 03:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  It was Kirwan's personal goal to move MD into the B10, as system President he is still the final word on UM-College Park. Loh eats most of the surface criticism because he was out front, but it was not his decision. You mentioned "personal aggrandizing" that was Kirwan, not Loh.

I don't really buy your conspiracy theory about Kirwan, but it doesn't really matter who led on the decision.

Your quote: But the "$100 million more by 2020" that they were using to sell the move is pure fantasy. If I were an alumni, I'd be troubled by how it all went down because it reeks of personal aggrandizing at the expense of long-term planing... and the incompetence doesn't stop at athletics if you follow the rest of the university at all.

Now Paco you know you have read the emails of Kirwan in the Washington Post and you also know he was the one with the decision making power according to all the information that was released per FOI requests. Why do you put the monkey on Loh and give Kirwan a pass, when he's the one in the public with the public statements and private comments about how great the B10 is and how much CIC will help Maryland. As you well know, many of his comments about CIC were disingenuous at best and pure dissembling at worst.

It's as if you think one person with a great deal of power at a University can't do something when that person is the President of the System and has the Board in his hip pocket.

Maybe the governance structure you are accustomed to is too far afield of that of multi-unit State university system with one President and Chancellors at the various sites. Maybe you are accustomed to a governance system that is perhaps faculty driven, not politically or personality driven.

Based on the track record of some of your prior narratives, which have vacillated between plausible, flawed and outright incorrect, I'll have to rely on my own knowledge of how most multi-campus state systems work and apply Occam's razor. Everything here was about money to fix College Park's athletic situation as quickly as possible...because this is how President's think: they want headaches for their administration eliminated just like anyone else. No one in academia, that is actually grounded in reality, would make a major athletic move primarily because a consortium like the CIC, not that the CIC doesn't have some nice benefits but those are tangential and of very minor import to a school like Maryland and anyone working in academia knows this. Citing it is just lipstick to sell the move and try to give a controversial decision a higher purpose. 10, 15 years ago no one talked about such things because no one even knew it existed, not even most BigTen fans, same with AAU. You can go back an look, those entities weren't ever mentioned in any articles when PSU joined. Complete non-factors, and as I've posted before, actual analysis of PSU shows its R&D standing has dropped since it joined. Now, realignment geeks have grasped on to these acronyms for a narrative, and they have become major tools to help bloggers speculate, but neither deserve the credit usually heaped on them because generally, people really don't understand what they are, do or how things work in academia. The realignment board here illustrates that in spectacular fashion. Sure, it makes sense for schools or conferences to boast about anything they can, but that doesn't make what they boast about really meaningful. Is it meaningful that the ACC has the highest average US News rank for its schools? No, absolutely not, but it is fun for fans to brag about and good for conference morale.

Now, that said, you could be right about Kirwan being the one primarily pushing the idea, but as I said, it really doesn't matter who gets painted as the master villain, but suggestions that the motivation wasn't 90% about the exiting financial situations are pretty lacking.

(06-19-2014 08:59 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 03:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 03:07 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 01:14 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Looking for a little clarification on the timing laid out in this article. Is Delany saying they made the move on Maryland and Rutgers because some teams in the ACC contacted PSU?
It was my understanding that one of the contentions Maryland has in their lawsuit against the ACC is that the ACC teams contacted PSU after Maryland made the deal to go to the B1G thus trying to injure them.
I may be mistaken, any opinions?

I thought it was before, although could be mistaken. I doubt it was anything really formal, but that things had gotten to the point it was even worth mentioning was no doubt concerning to the Big Ten offices.

Found the source I was looking for:


http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...-poach-b1g

From the link:


"According to Maryland, ACC members Pittsburgh and Wake Forest made contact with two Big Ten institutions about at least two league members moving to the ACC. Maryland is trying to avoid paying a $52.3 million fee to exit the league. Its countersuit is for three times the exit fee because damages are tripled in antitrust lawsuits. The Maryland attorney general called the ACC's recruiting attempts "a competitive reaction" to Maryland's exit and hypocritical for the ACC to attempt to lure schools from the very league to which it is losing Maryland.

Most Big Ten folks don't care too much about Maryland's ACC issues,..."

This has been discussed at length in the past. You should be able to search the forum, if you are interested. In short, UMD has very little hope of winning their arguments, which is why the ACC is probably reluctant to negotiate.

Reason I brought this up again is because of Delany's comments in the op's link. Delany said plainly that he decided to move on MD and Rutgers because of ACC contact with several B1G schools.
One of MD claims in their lawsuit is that the ACC contacted those teams in order to harm MD or restrain them.

Regarding the exit fee, it was an increase in the factor that is multiplied by the YOB. The method of calculating the exit fee is not at issue (MD could have voiced their concern after adding Cuse and Pitt). The factor was increased after the addition of ND and the college football playoffs. Place this on the backdrop of Delany (and the other Commissioners) talking about the "Power Four" conferences not all that long before.
Anticipated damages increased so the factor change reflects that.

(06-19-2014 12:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 08:59 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 03:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 03:07 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 01:14 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Looking for a little clarification on the timing laid out in this article. Is Delany saying they made the move on Maryland and Rutgers because some teams in the ACC contacted PSU?
It was my understanding that one of the contentions Maryland has in their lawsuit against the ACC is that the ACC teams contacted PSU after Maryland made the deal to go to the B1G thus trying to injure them.
I may be mistaken, any opinions?

I thought it was before, although could be mistaken. I doubt it was anything really formal, but that things had gotten to the point it was even worth mentioning was no doubt concerning to the Big Ten offices.

Found the source I was looking for:


http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...-poach-b1g

From the link:


"According to Maryland, ACC members Pittsburgh and Wake Forest made contact with two Big Ten institutions about at least two league members moving to the ACC. Maryland is trying to avoid paying a $52.3 million fee to exit the league. Its countersuit is for three times the exit fee because damages are tripled in antitrust lawsuits. The Maryland attorney general called the ACC's recruiting attempts "a competitive reaction" to Maryland's exit and hypocritical for the ACC to attempt to lure schools from the very league to which it is losing Maryland.

Most Big Ten folks don't care too much about Maryland's ACC issues,..."

This has been discussed at length in the past. You should be able to search the forum, if you are interested. In short, UMD has very little hope of winning their arguments, which is why the ACC is probably reluctant to negotiate.

Reason I brought this up again is because of Delany's comments in the op's link. Delany said plainly that he decided to move on MD and Rutgers because of ACC contact with several B1G schools.
One of MD claims in their lawsuit is that the ACC contacted those teams in order to harm MD or restrain them.

Regarding the exit fee, it was an increase in the factor that is multiplied by the YOB. The method of calculating the exit fee is not at issue (MD could have voiced their concern after adding Cuse and Pitt). The factor was increased after the addition of ND and the college football playoffs. Place this on the backdrop of Delany (and the other Commissioners) talking about the "Power Four" conferences not all that long before.
Anticipated damages increased so the factor change reflects that.

Delaney and the B1G had their eyes on expansion for many years. Before they added UNL it was speculated they would add up to 5 schools and the B1G admitted that there were at least two dozen schools that would add value. Most speculation was towards the east as JoePa had been whining since PSU Was added that the B1G needed to look east. Delaney was unable to bring consensus on any team but UNL. Rest assured, they had contacts with most of these schools, if not all.

Move forward to the ACC expansion, Pitt, Syracuse are now off the table, as were ND, and Mizzou. Texas rejected them. Schools are allowed to contact other schools about anything they wish, it is reasonable to assume that many B1G schools were contacted and I have heard as many as eight or ten were contacted, but never a firm number, no matter. I believe that PSU was one of these schools and if I recall they confirmed it. Again, no matter, not a legal issue.

Delaney is whining about ACC schools contacting B1G schools which is hypocritical as the B1G had been in contact with several ACC Schools. Not a legal issue. UMD themselves were contacted by the B1G and it harmed the ACC so their cries of the ACC harming them by contacting B1G schools is moot and the courts will and have ignored it.

Maryland's suit tries to wipe out any exit fee, including the prior 1.5 factor, which they approved of. This is where they fall apart, if the new factor is not legal because UMD did not approve of it then the default is to the prior factor of 1.5, which UMD voted for. However, UMD now wants the prior factor denied and NO exit fees applied. This is the basis of their claims and this is why they will not win but must seek settlement.

As for Delaney and the B1G's actions, they simply had no choice. They could not destroy the ACC by getting UVA, UNC, GATech, et al. so they took what they could, UMD. They didn't want UConn so they chose Rutgers to pair with UMD. The threat was real in that if PSU left, the B1G TV deal would not be worth as much (the deal soon to be renewed/increased). The B1G either had to expand to the east to protect PSU or run the risk of losing PSU. Again, they already lost opportunity with four key schools (Syracuse, Pitt, Mizzou and ND), were rejected by several key schools (UVA, UNC, DUKE, GATech) and were left with what they could get.

(06-19-2014 07:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 06:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 04:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  There could have been contact after ND joined the ACC.
Thing is, if Maryland Big Ten contact can be proven before the ND vote and subsequent factor change in the exit fee, at that point, Maryland's moves are to harm the ACC.

There is contact at nearly every conference that brings the Athletic Directors or the Presidents/Chancellors together.

And Rutgers was not one of the other B10 schools

The others are within 175 miles of South Bend.

Why don't you just say Purdue, Northwestern and/or Michigan State?

You missed one. :)

It's not really all that skull and bones - certain schools have more value inside another conference - for instance NC State and VT are worth more to the SEC or B10 than the ACC. Purdue and MSU would be worth more to the ACC than the B10. New territory and eyeballs for the conference.

Now, just because one of those schools might be worth more in the other conference does not mean they want to leave. But all schools except a handful worry about becoming non-competitive inside their conference because if they are non-competitive, the TV and other shared money will not make up the internal ticket and support shortfall.

Hence, all the "little brothers and sisters" and all the privates talk and touch base with one another.

The reality is that most any SEC or B10 team would have an open invitation to the ACC at any time - the ACC would not find 4 votes against Ohio State, Michigan, MSU, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska or Minnesota. The last three are very far west for the ACC but if one wanted to join - would the ACC say no? Not likely. The same invite would be open to Vandy, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, TAMU, Florida, Auburn, Kentucky and Mizzou.

Georgia probably would not garner 4 negative votes but GT and Clemson would have to agree. South Carolina might have a problem because the State of SC is small and I can't see the ACC membership voting in Ole Miss, MSU, or Arkansas due to distance and the small media footprint.

But my point is not that the ACC is in secret talks with these schools and a secret deal is brewing, just that it's fairly easy to understand what the ACC wants in a member given it's makeup and geography and past moves. The same is true of the B10 and SEC - you know their likes and their wants in terms of a new member.

The bottom line is that if you are not at all competitive in Big 10 football you might want to keep touching base with the ACC. If you were not competitive in football and basketball and your revenue stream was falling way behind Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisky, you might want to touch base with like-structured ACC schools.

(06-19-2014 03:40 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  As for Delaney and the B1G's actions, they simply had no choice. They could not destroy the ACC by getting UVA, UNC, GATech, et al. so they took what they could, UMD. They didn't want UConn so they chose Rutgers to pair with UMD. The threat was real in that if PSU left, the B1G TV deal would not be worth as much (the deal soon to be renewed/increased). The B1G either had to expand to the east to protect PSU or run the risk of losing PSU. Again, they already lost opportunity with four key schools (Syracuse, Pitt, Mizzou and ND), were rejected by several key schools (UVA, UNC, DUKE, GATech) and were left with what they could get.

One quick correction, Syracuse and Pitt were not off the table at this point. If the Big Ten had called as the situation was at the time, they likely would have accepted just as TCU never entered the Big East. That's no longer the case (with the ACC grant of rights), but at the time it almost certainly would have been.

As for claims of interference by the ACC, it's not only a claim to show both sides were trying to interrupt and thus ACC seeking massive damages are uncalled for. I don't think it's a big point.

Like with almost all of these settlements (outside of West Virgina which left with less than a years notice), I expect the final settlement to be about half the official exit penalties here.