Will it depend on when Texas and Oklahoma leave for the SEC?

(04-21-2022 01:50 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  Will it depend on when Texas and Oklahoma leave for the SEC?

I do not believe so. The Big 12 is prepared to play with 14 schools whether is be for 1 year in 2024 or 2 years in 2023. I think the ball is totally in the AAC's court in coming to an agreement. I am surprised it has taken this long.

I'm thankful Marshall, Southern Miss and ODU left for the Sunbelt without an agreed upon exit timeline and fee.

It sounds like Aresco and the leaving teams want to reach a formal exit agreement. Everyone is smiling and saying they want to leave amicably. I am confident a formal exit agreement for 2023 will be reached over the summer. However, if Aresco wants to try to press his luck and hold onto 2024. I wouldn't put it past the exiting teams to cut a check for $10 million and forcibly exit without a formal agreement.

It will be 2023

It will be 2023. Most likely by an agreed buyout somewhere between 10 and 17 million. If they can't get to an agreement in that range, guessing you'll see the teams pay the 10 million, say there are no additional damages from breaking 5 months early and let the conference decide whether to sue or not.

(04-21-2022 02:12 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  I'm thankful Marshall, Southern Miss and ODU left for the Sunbelt without an agreed upon exit timeline and fee.

It sounds like Aresco and the leaving teams want to reach a formal exit agreement. Everyone is smiling and saying they want to leave amicably. I am confident a formal exit agreement for 2023 will be reached over the summer. However, if Aresco wants to try to press his luck and hold onto 2024. I wouldn't put it past the exiting teams to cut a check for $10 million and forcibly exit without a formal agreement.

These are two completely different situations. Apparently CUSA never installed an "Exit Procedure" that spelled out what was expressly expected as far as an exit amount and time-frame. The AAC has such provisions and we have internal precedents about what it looks like to leave early. (Which is good for us.)

The CUSA vs. Marshall, USM, and ODU case really should have no bearing on this matter. (And, for the record, I hope UC conducts themselves better than MU, USM, and ODU did... That was just plain embarrassing, IMO.)

(04-21-2022 02:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  It will be 2023. Most likely by an agreed buyout somewhere between 10 and 17 million. If they can't get to an agreement in that range, guessing you'll see the teams pay the 10 million, say there are no additional damages from breaking 5 months early and let the conference decide whether to sue or not.

Yup.

clt says 23 sounds pretty, pretty good.

24 is no good.

(04-21-2022 03:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:12 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  I'm thankful Marshall, Southern Miss and ODU left for the Sunbelt without an agreed upon exit timeline and fee.

It sounds like Aresco and the leaving teams want to reach a formal exit agreement. Everyone is smiling and saying they want to leave amicably. I am confident a formal exit agreement for 2023 will be reached over the summer. However, if Aresco wants to try to press his luck and hold onto 2024. I wouldn't put it past the exiting teams to cut a check for $10 million and forcibly exit without a formal agreement.

These are two completely different situations. Apparently CUSA never installed an "Exit Procedure" that spelled out what was expressly expected as far as an exit amount and time-frame. The AAC has such provisions and we have internal precedents about what it looks like to leave early. (Which is good for us.)

The CUSA vs. Marshall, USM, and ODU case really should have no bearing on this matter. (And, for the record, I hope UC conducts themselves better than MU, USM, and ODU did... That was just plain embarrassing, IMO.)

Its being used as an example, not a roadmap. If the AAC teams left early it did so with 22-month notice and will pay the stated $10 mill knowing full and well that it will owe in excess of the $10 mill when the lawyers figure it out. I think the major interest in the CUSA dispute was the question of Sovereign Immunity as a legal defense against your athletic conference. UCF has used the Sovereign Immunity defense before in a wrongful death lawsuit and the State of Florida upheld Sovereign Immunity and capped the expenses. CUSA came to a deal already but its interesting the conference folded so quickly.

Big12 tv negotiation is most important. Providing verifiable tv numbers for the New Big 12 viewership is the priority. The fact that people believe that viewership will tank without Texas and OU in the conference is not a great look heading into tv negotiations.

(04-21-2022 02:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  It will be 2023. Most likely by an agreed buyout somewhere between 10 and 17 million. If they can't get to an agreement in that range, guessing you'll see the teams pay the 10 million, say there are no additional damages from breaking 5 months early and let the conference decide whether to sue or not.

My guess is it just ends up being 15 million and both sides move on not completely content with the number, which means it was probably fair. Sure it's only 5 months, but that 5 months includes football season which is worth 70-80% of the TV value and likely has a massive negative impact on the leagues access bowl chances and conference ranking payouts from the CFP pool.

(04-22-2022 08:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  It will be 2023. Most likely by an agreed buyout somewhere between 10 and 17 million. If they can't get to an agreement in that range, guessing you'll see the teams pay the 10 million, say there are no additional damages from breaking 5 months early and let the conference decide whether to sue or not.

My guess is it just ends up being 15 million and both sides move on not completely content with the number, which means it was probably fair. Sure it's only 5 months, but that 5 months includes football season which is worth 70-80% of the TV value and likely has a massive negative impact on the leagues access bowl chances and conference ranking payouts from the CFP pool.

Except the media deal and the bowl contracts are set and will not change whether or not UC, UCF, and Houston are playing in the AAC for the 2023 season or not. Seriously. I would agree with your points if the media partners were saying "We're going to drop the value of the media deal if those three schools aren't playing football for that season..." but they aren't. If anything, the remaining AAC legacy schools actually benefit from not having UC, UCF, and Houston in the mix because it probably bumps the rest of them up a couple of notches on the Bowl pecking order.

Now I will agree that losing UC, UCF, and Houston--all of whom have won the Conference and played in NYD6 games--will hurt the perception for the conference in the NYD6/"Access" bowl chase. But there's really nothing you can do about that. There were never any guarantees that UC, UCF, or Houston will make the "Access" slot...injuries and the vagaries of the season could well mean that none of the three would make it in 2023 regardless of where they play the season. "What if" the MW has a great team (BSU or SDSU) and the AAC champ is handed a couple of losses? "What if" App State goes on a tear for the next two seasons? You're banking on something that just can't be banked on. UC, UCF, and Houston could all be playing in the AAC for 2023-24 and the Conference could still be "on the outside, looking in."

OR...ECU could put together a 2 year undefeated season and push UC, UCF, and Houston out of the "Access Bowl" picture...regardless of what conference we're playing in 2023. I guess it could happen.

(04-21-2022 01:57 PM)otown Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 01:50 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  Will it depend on when Texas and Oklahoma leave for the SEC?

I do not believe so. The Big 12 is prepared to play with 14 schools whether is be for 1 year in 2024 or 2 years in 2023. I think the ball is totally in the AAC's court in coming to an agreement. I am surprised it has taken this long.

No agreement is needed to leave. It would be better for all involved (AAC, B12, conferences back feeding the new AAC) to have an amicable agreement. If not, UCF, Houston and UC can flip the bird and tell them to prove in court what damages the AAC suffered beyond the $10 million exit fee that is owed.

This will be the last athletic calendar year in the AAC for the three amigos.

It will get settled. It is in everyone's best interest. Going to court would be a crapshoot for both sides.

A headache but not a crapshoot for the departing. There are no damages immediately ascertainable...the TV deal didn't change and they already have a bunch of schools signed up to join.

Aresco, just settle on a reasonable number and quit wasting everyone's time.

(04-22-2022 08:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  It will be 2023. Most likely by an agreed buyout somewhere between 10 and 17 million. If they can't get to an agreement in that range, guessing you'll see the teams pay the 10 million, say there are no additional damages from breaking 5 months early and let the conference decide whether to sue or not.

My guess is it just ends up being 15 million and both sides move on not completely content with the number, which means it was probably fair. Sure it's only 5 months, but that 5 months includes football season which is worth 70-80% of the TV value and likely has a massive negative impact on the leagues access bowl chances and conference ranking payouts from the CFP pool.

Without getting into the merits of what actual damages can be proven, I think 15 million sounds about right to get all parties on board for settlement.

(04-22-2022 09:30 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  A headache but not a crapshoot for the departing. There are no damages immediately ascertainable...the TV deal didn't change and they already have a bunch of schools signed up to join.

Aresco, just settle on a reasonable number and quit wasting everyone's time.

Exactly. The 10 million covers everything beyond the 5 month breach. So you're looking at what damages they can prove in the window of the 5 month breach. I feel pretty safe it's not particularly extensive and will be difficult to prove.

(04-22-2022 08:55 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-22-2022 08:23 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  It will be 2023. Most likely by an agreed buyout somewhere between 10 and 17 million. If they can't get to an agreement in that range, guessing you'll see the teams pay the 10 million, say there are no additional damages from breaking 5 months early and let the conference decide whether to sue or not.

My guess is it just ends up being 15 million and both sides move on not completely content with the number, which means it was probably fair. Sure it's only 5 months, but that 5 months includes football season which is worth 70-80% of the TV value and likely has a massive negative impact on the leagues access bowl chances and conference ranking payouts from the CFP pool.

Except the media deal and the bowl contracts are set and will not change whether or not UC, UCF, and Houston are playing in the AAC for the 2023 season or not. Seriously. I would agree with your points if the media partners were saying "We're going to drop the value of the media deal if those three schools aren't playing football for that season..." but they aren't. If anything, the remaining AAC legacy schools actually benefit from not having UC, UCF, and Houston in the mix because it probably bumps the rest of them up a couple of notches on the Bowl pecking order.

Now I will agree that losing UC, UCF, and Houston--all of whom have won the Conference and played in NYD6 games--will hurt the perception for the conference in the NYD6/"Access" bowl chase. But there's really nothing you can do about that. There were never any guarantees that UC, UCF, or Houston will make the "Access" slot...injuries and the vagaries of the season could well mean that none of the three would make it in 2023 regardless of where they play the season. "What if" the MW has a great team (BSU or SDSU) and the AAC champ is handed a couple of losses? "What if" App State goes on a tear for the next two seasons? You're banking on something that just can't be banked on. UC, UCF, and Houston could all be playing in the AAC for 2023-24 and the Conference could still be "on the outside, looking in."

OR...ECU could put together a 2 year undefeated season and push UC, UCF, and Houston out of the "Access Bowl" picture...regardless of what conference we're playing in 2023. I guess it could happen.

We don't actually know that. What we sorta "know" or at least believe to be the case (as this has never actually been confirmed anywhere that I've seen) is that the league is going to work it out where the remaining schools will keep the same annual distribution throughout the life of the contract and newbies will make some lesser number. We don't know exactly how much that number is. The deal could easily be getting cut but the league is playing word games with the leaks and between expected exit fees/entry fees and the cut from the payout of the new members are going to ensure the existing members remain whole but the overall deal decreased.

Guaranteed that the GC's offices of UC, Houston and UCF have already talked this through together...list the damages for the few months before the 2 year window that they'll be leaving (...crickets...). Liquidated damages is already established in the conference bylaws at $10 million. There are no damages to the conference for them leaving 5 months early. They'll have to show some tangible financial loss related to the early departure during that period. Hurt feelings don't count. Neither do future losses not directly occurring during those 5 months.

I'd pay the AAC some nuisance level amount in addition to the liquidated damages but if Aresco demands a goofy amount, tell him to file a garbage lawsuit that will get clubbed like a baby seal in discovery.

Hope it's 2023... lets all move on...