daveconifer wrote:

st8dukegrad87 wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: Not saying it cant, not saying it can, but can there be an explaination for why a contract they signed cant be enforced.  I get it, umd had a room full of lawyers scouring every single letter and wording, but again how is this allowed?

oldschoolkid wrote: Seth Davis on CBS saying the exit fee for MD can't be enforced by ACC and if so, it will open the doors for a mass exodus in the ACC leading to 4 16 team super conferences.

Contract law, absent fraud, does not allow for punitive damages. The ACC needs to prove that they would be harmed in the amount of $50 million. I see no way they can prove that in court.

 You and I can sign a contract that says if I mow your law you will pay me $50, but if I do not I will owe you damages of $1 billion, a court will never enforce that even though we both signed it. A court will rule that I owe you the cost you had to pay to get your yard cut by someone else plus attorney fees.

Nothing to add except to say that's a great analogy, ST8.  I never understood the general concept so clearly before.  

It also makes me wonder why leagues have exit fees at all.  If a league didn't have one in place, could they still go to court to get the lawn-cutting expenses and attorney's fees covered?

Wolfpack4Life wrote: How viable can a basketball-only conference be these days?  

It looks like ECU might be the last one in and the last one out of the Big East...

wrcwolf wrote: ^^ That isn't happening.

Every exit so far, has resulted in settlements. Including WVU's early exit from the Big East, in which they paid more than the established fee. Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri all paid less than what the Big 12 wanted. In some cases,significantly less. But again, all have been settled. Court cases have a tendency of exposing inner secrets that both parties don't want in public. We'll see how far the ACC takes their case with Maryland. I'd also have to imagine that the ACC has studied the other exits in order to make their new exit fee a bit more iron clad.

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: There is nothing that can be written into a contract, that will be enforced, that allows for anything other than damages that make the harmed party whole.

__________

What is the point of the contract then, and to what extent does a signed contract between 2 parties not matter?

All very interesting. I'm assuming this is more of a "scare" tactic, that likely will cause the 2 parties to settle?

st8dukegrad87 wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: There is nothing that can be written into a contract, that will be enforced, that allows for anything other than damages that make the harmed party whole.

__________

What is the point of the contract then, and to what extent does a signed contract between 2 parties not matter?

All very interesting. I'm assuming this is more of a "scare" tactic, that likely will cause the 2 parties to settle?

The point of the contract is to guarantee that each party will perform according to the terms and if they do not the harmed party is entitled to either specific performance or compensation to make the harmed party whole.

 However, breach of contract is not hitting the lottery, the harmed party (ACC) is not allowed to be put in a better position due to the breach. That would be considered punishment and contract law is not allowed to be used to punish the breaching party.

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: I'm kinda confused by your statement.   You say the contract is so that both parties hold up their end of the bargain.  So how is the ACC hitting the lottery, when they are only slimply holding umd to the contract that they SIGNED.  That's what I'm kinda confused about.  Sounds like lawyers talking out of both sides of your mouth (no offense intended). 

How is the ACC being put in better position?  And who actually judges that?   If they arent allowed to be put in a better position, then the SIGNED contract is in fact invalid is it not?????  So again, there is no real point in a contract where 2 parties AGREE to the terms is it not?

st8dukegrad87 wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: There is nothing that can be written into a contract, that will be enforced, that allows for anything other than damages that make the harmed party whole.

__________

What is the point of the contract then, and to what extent does a signed contract between 2 parties not matter?

All very interesting. I'm assuming this is more of a "scare" tactic, that likely will cause the 2 parties to settle?

The point of the contract is to guarantee that each party will perform according to the terms and if they do not the harmed party is entitled to either specific performance or compensation to make the harmed party whole.

 However, breach of contract is not hitting the lottery, the harmed party (ACC) is not allowed to be put in a better position due to the breach. That would be considered punishment and contract law is not allowed to be used to punish the breaching party.

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: ^So as I've said, what is the real point of the exit fee then, if it simply has to be "argued" what the actual damages are? More of a "scare" tactic? So it could be $10 million and someone could argue it down? Lawyers being lawyers I guess, sad state of affairs when a contract isnt really a contract.

st8dukegrad87 wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: ^So as I've said, what is the real point of the exit fee then, if it simply has to be "argued" what the actual damages are? More of a "scare" tactic? So it could be $10 million and someone could argue it down? Lawyers being lawyers I guess, sad state of affairs when a contract isnt really a contract.

Like I said before you can have a valid contract is a separate matter from having a valid contract that is enforceable. It's not lawyers being lawyers, it is the law. This is why we have a court. Maryland will try to prove that their leaving causes less than $50 million in damages and the ACC will try and argue that Maryland leaving does cause $50 million in damages. The court (or what they settle) will decide the amount.

 I have yet to see any evidence showing that the departure of Maryland will cause the ACC $50 million in damage. We shall see.

 I teach law part time in Florida and I personally know lawyers that are involved with Florida State and they are absolutely watching this very, very closely.

st8dukegrad87 wrote: 

I believe it was about $20 million. If the ACC can prove that Maryland leaving caused $50 million in damage to the conference they will get the full amount, otherwise they will get less. The ACC will get something, but the objective of contract law damages is to compensate for damages by the breaching party and not to punish.

st8dukegrad87 wrote:

wrcwolf wrote: ^^ That isn't happening.

Every exit so far, has resulted in settlements. Including WVU's early exit from the Big East, in which they paid more than the established fee. Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri all paid less than what the Big 12 wanted. In some cases,significantly less. But again, all have been settled. Court cases have a tendency of exposing inner secrets that both parties don't want in public. We'll see how far the ACC takes their case with Maryland. I'd also have to imagine that the ACC has studied the other exits in order to make their new exit fee a bit more iron clad.

I agree it will be settled and that Maryland will pay something. My guess is that it will be around half of the exit fee. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how losing Maryland and gaining Louisville harms the ACC to the extent of $50 million. There is nothing that can be written into a contract, that will be enforced, that allows for anything other than damages that make the harmed party whole.

St8 - I think you are making a faulty assumption regarding what is "damage".  Your idea of damage is based on the actual value of a loss of 1/14th or 1/15th of a TV contract.  It's not that simple.  Damage includes loss of reputation, the opening of the league to other suitors, etc.  The jointly signed letter the other day is a damage.  Maryland may also have revealed trade secrets and negotiation points against the Big 10.  Also if the ACC contends they would have gone to 16 or 18 members, then the loss of Maryland has real economic economic based on a large model. 

Funny how everyone that things MD will walk has no legal experience in North Carolina which is the venue for such a case or Virginia which is the Federal venue for such a case.  If universities can not make binding contracts than no contract athletic or research is worth a damn and that's not the case. 

There is no difference between a GOR and an Exit Fee other than the fact the GOR is pegged to value per team to the conference whereas the ACC divides such costs.  The ACC split money evenly before any other conference and that is a 50 year precedent.  The Exit Fee is legal, has value and Maryland will have to pay it. 

Now even if the ACC had no exit fee - who is leaving?

Is Clemson or FSU leaving the ACC for $3 million more per year in the Big 12?  Of course not.  Is State, VT, Carolina or UVa, leaving the ACC for $2-4 million more per year in the SEC?  Of course not.  Is UNC leaving the ACC for 4-5 million more in the Big 10?  Of course not.

Most of the chicken little's are too stupid to count.  They are like the fans of West Va who want to compare the ACC's old TV contract with the Big 12's future contract.  These are the same ones who don't understand what third tier product is.  

In 2015 the following is in effect per school:

Conference     TV Money       Bowl Money         Playoff Money           ND Money   Total

ACC              $17 million      $2 million             $6 million                 $.75 million   $25.75*
Pac 12          $20 million       $3.33                 $5.85                      $0              $29.18
SEC              $18 million       $3.64                 $6 million                 $0              $27.63
B12              $20                $4.00                 $5.85                      $0              $29.85
B10              $24 million       $3.64                 $6.00                      $0              $33.64


*  The ACC has an open look in when Louisville and ND are added in addition to the value of the ND games (2.5 games per year).  We can be conservative and assume $3 million per team bringing the ACC total to $28.75 by 2015.  The ACC, SEC, Big 12 and Pac 12 have no working networks to speak of. No one is projecting earth shattering SEC money under the current regime.  But it's probably safe to say they can extort another 4 million from CBS and ESPN by 2015.  The Big 12 and Pac 12 are maxed out. 

That makes per team money something like:

ACC $ 28.75 (14 schools)
Pac $ 29.18  (12 schools)
B12 $ 29.85  (10 schools)
SEC $ 31.63  (14 schools)
B10 $ Claiming 34.00 million (14 schools)

Now, if the ACC claims the Maryland moves hurts a future ACC TV network - who knows? 

The point that no one seem to get is that for 40 of 54 schools the money is nearly the same.  And that the ACC has a more top end movement available based on ND other than the what the Big 10 MIGHT be able to conjure.  Texas to the ACC in any manner blocks the Big 10's growth taking away Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. 

The ball has been in Texas' court for the last several years.  However the claptrap about Maryland is just Loh covering his but and using West Virginia to do the dirty work. 

lumberpack3 wrote:

st8dukegrad87 wrote:

wrcwolf wrote: ^^ That isn't happening.

Every exit so far, has resulted in settlements. Including WVU's early exit from the Big East, in which they paid more than the established fee. Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri all paid less than what the Big 12 wanted. In some cases,significantly less. But again, all have been settled. Court cases have a tendency of exposing inner secrets that both parties don't want in public. We'll see how far the ACC takes their case with Maryland. I'd also have to imagine that the ACC has studied the other exits in order to make their new exit fee a bit more iron clad.

I agree it will be settled and that Maryland will pay something. My guess is that it will be around half of the exit fee. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how losing Maryland and gaining Louisville harms the ACC to the extent of $50 million. There is nothing that can be written into a contract, that will be enforced, that allows for anything other than damages that make the harmed party whole.

St8 - I think you are making a faulty assumption regarding what is "damage".  Your idea of damage is based on the actual value of a loss of 1/14th or 1/15th of a TV contract.  It's not that simple.  Damage includes loss of reputation, the opening of the league to other suitors, etc.  The jointly signed letter the other day is a damage.  Maryland may also have revealed trade secrets and negotiation points against the Big 10.  Also if the ACC contends they would have gone to 16 or 18 members, then the loss of Maryland has real economic economic based on a large model. 

Funny how everyone that things MD will walk has no legal experience in North Carolina which is the venue for such a case or Virginia which is the Federal venue for such a case.  If universities can not make binding contracts than no contract athletic or research is worth a damn and that's not the case. 

There is no difference between a GOR and an Exit Fee other than the fact the GOR is pegged to value per team to the conference whereas the ACC divides such costs.  The ACC split money evenly before any other conference and that is a 50 year precedent.  The Exit Fee is legal, has value and Maryland will have to pay it. 

Now even if the ACC had no exit fee - who is leaving?

Is Clemson or FSU leaving the ACC for $3 million more per year in the Big 12?  Of course not.  Is State, VT, Carolina or UVa, leaving the ACC for $2-4 million more per year in the SEC?  Of course not.  Is UNC leaving the ACC for 4-5 million more in the Big 10?  Of course not.

Most of the chicken little's are too stupid to count.  They are like the fans of West Va who want to compare the ACC's old TV contract with the Big 12's future contract.  These are the same ones who don't understand what third tier product is.  

In 2015 the following is in effect per school:

Conference     TV Money       Bowl Money         Playoff Money           ND Money   Total

ACC              $17 million      $2 million             $6 million                 $.75 million   $25.75*
Pac 12          $20 million       $3.33                 $5.85                      $0              $29.18
SEC              $18 million       $3.64                 $6 million                 $0              $27.63
B12              $20                $4.00                 $5.85                      $0              $29.85
B10              $24 million       $3.64                 $6.00                      $0              $33.64


*  The ACC has an open look in when Louisville and ND are added in addition to the value of the ND games (2.5 games per year).  We can be conservative and assume $3 million per team bringing the ACC total to $28.75 by 2015.  The ACC, SEC, Big 12 and Pac 12 have no working networks to speak of. No one is projecting earth shattering SEC money under the current regime.  But it's probably safe to say they can extort another 4 million from CBS and ESPN by 2015.  The Big 12 and Pac 12 are maxed out. 

That makes per team money something like:

ACC $ 28.75 (14 schools)
Pac $ 29.18  (12 schools)
B12 $ 29.85  (10 schools)
SEC $ 31.63  (14 schools)
B10 $ Claiming 34.00 million (14 schools)

Now, if the ACC claims the Maryland moves hurts a future ACC TV network - who knows? 

The point that no one seem to get is that for 40 of 54 schools the money is nearly the same.  And that the ACC has a more top end movement available based on ND other than the what the Big 10 MIGHT be able to conjure.  Texas to the ACC in any manner blocks the Big 10's growth taking away Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. 

The ball has been in Texas' court for the last several years.  However the claptrap about Maryland is just Loh covering his but and using West Virginia to do the dirty work. 

condor101 wrote: Lumberpack3

Canes fans here that wants the AAC to stay together. I like your post but just wanted to update you on one part. FSU and Clemson fans see leaving the ACC for a lot more than $3M you were talking about. The ACC has sold all 3rd Tier media rights to ESPN. Each B12 team (not the B12) holds their 3rd Tier media rights that gives them one football game (worst game) and four or five of their worst basketball games and all the other non-football and non-basketball sports.

Texas gets and extra $15M from ESPN for the Longhorn Network for their 3rd Tier. Oklahoma just inked a deal to gets $8M from ESPN for 1000 hours of content. Fans forget is both UT and OU are paying people to create content that lowers that profit. UT has 96 people working at UT creating content for Longhorn Network. This has their Coaches shows but not their radio contract. It even shows UT football practice that drives Coach Mac Brown crazy and he has blamed that for his bad season this year. However each B12 team has a extra Radio rights and several are with Learfield Sports.

In the ACC we pack the Coaches TV show in with the radio rights. North Carolina State University has signed a new 10-year multimedia rights agreement with Wolfpack Sports Properties, LLC, a newly formed joint venture of Capitol Broadcasting Company and Learfield Sports will pay NC State a minimum of nearly $49 million over the 10 years. Each ACC team has a package and FSU's is rumored to get $6.5M for theirs each year. 

The B12 fans are telling FSU fans they can make a extra $3M plus a extra $8M for the 3rd Tier media rights and still make money off their Radio network.  FSU fans forget the State of Florida has 8 Pro-Sports teams and 7 FBS College football teams so their is less value or need to find sports content in Florida than there is in Oklahoma that gets $8M for their 3rd Tier.

The ACC is the 3rd most watched football and 2nd most basketball conference on TV.  Yes, the ACC got low-balled by ESPN for our 1st, 2nd and 3rd Tier Media rights.  The ACC is the only conference that has a all inclusive TV media rights contract.  However the ACC has a 5 year look in to renegotiate this ESPN contract and someone needs to get the ACC more money or it will be in trouble of being raided by other conferences.

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: Now even if the ACC had no exit fee - who is leaving?

Is Clemson or FSU leaving the ACC for $3 million more per year in the Big 12? Of course not. Is State, VT, Carolina or UVa, leaving the ACC for $2-4 million more per year in the SEC? Of course not. Is UNC leaving the ACC for 4-5 million more in the Big 10? Of course not.

Most of the chicken little's are too stupid to count. They are like the fans of West Va who want to compare the ACC's old TV contract with the Big 12's future contract. These are the same ones who don't understand what third tier product is.

In 2015 the following is in effect per school:

Conference TV Money Bowl Money Playoff Money ND Money Total

ACC $17 million $2 million $6 million $.75 million $25.75*
Pac 12 $20 million $3.33 $5.85 $0 $29.18
SEC $18 million $3.64 $6 million $0 $27.63
B12 $20 $4.00 $5.85 $0 $29.85
B10 $24 million $3.64 $6.00 $0 $33.64


* The ACC has an open look in when Louisville and ND are added in addition to the value of the ND games (2.5 games per year). We can be conservative and assume $3 million per team bringing the ACC total to $28.75 by 2015. The ACC, SEC, Big 12 and Pac 12 have no working networks to speak of. No one is projecting earth shattering SEC money under the current regime. But it's probably safe to say they can extort another 4 million from CBS and ESPN by 2015. The Big 12 and Pac 12 are maxed out.

That makes per team money something like:

ACC $ 28.75 (14 schools)
Pac $ 29.18 (12 schools)
B12 $ 29.85 (10 schools)
SEC $ 31.63 (14 schools)
B10 $ Claiming 34.00 million (14 schools)

___________________

Based on your facts and figures, if UMD left for only the increase in revenue they did, to then say any other team wont do the same, well what is that based on? You have no clue whether a school is going to leave for $2-$4 million and I'm guessing 2 months ago, you'd likely have said UMD would have said hell no to the B1G as well. So this idea that $2-$4 million for a school to only gain seems to me as likely as an incentive to move as it is not to move.

lumberpack3 wrote:

As to Maryland's argument - I can't wait to hear them argue before a Guilford County jury and then a Richmond Court of Appeals.  The legal rules that apply in NC are different than those in Maryland, the case law in the 4th circit is different.  Maryland will pay.

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: ^BS, that umd left because it hated the ACC. It left because it *can* make what they think is a large sum of more money than they currently think they can. They talk all this up that they hate the ACC, but I gurantee you if the ACC/B10 conference teams had the same money, they would not be moving. I'm not really trying to compare anything but the figures you are supplying. I'm simply saying if you want to say X,Y,Z school isnt leaving because you say so, well then would you have claimed the same thing for umd 4 months ago? And no I dont work in the academic dept, but I do know a few things about the athletic dept numbers that universities and conferences have to work under, and if you trying to say that $2-$4mil doens mean jack, then why have so many schools already jumped around?

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: ^BS, that umd left because it hated the ACC. It left because it *can* make what they think is a large sum of more money than they currently think they can. They talk all this up that they hate the ACC, but I gurantee you if the ACC/B10 conference teams had the same money, they would not be moving. I'm not really trying to compare anything but the figures you are supplying. I'm simply saying if you want to say X,Y,Z school isnt leaving because you say so, well then would you have claimed the same thing for umd 4 months ago? And no I dont work in the academic dept, but I do know a few things about the athletic dept numbers that universities and conferences have to work under, and if you trying to say that $2-$4mil doens mean jack, then why have so many schools already jumped around?

FuquayWolf wrote:

lumberpack3 wrote:

As to Maryland's argument - I can't wait to hear them argue before a Guilford County jury and then a Richmond Court of Appeals.  The legal rules that apply in NC are different than those in Maryland, the case law in the 4th circit is different.  Maryland will pay.

You are correct that forum and venue will play a role in this case, but I think you overstate how much. First, this case is currently filed in the NC state courts, not federal courts, but I expect Maryland's lawyers to file to remove the case to federal court. Given the parties to this case, they have a fair shot at getting that request granted. Then the big question will be venue - will it be heard in the Middle District of NC, or the District of Maryland? Probably stays in MDNC, but that's for the sides to argue.

Either way, you are correct that any appeal will be to the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, but note that Maryland is also located in the 4th Circuit. Further, I would assume that UMd's lawyers will be outside counsel, and fully versed with all applicable state and federal laws. It's not like they'll send their university counsel down to argue the case pro hac vice. I would be shocked if they haven't already retained a reputable firm with an office in Greensboro to represent them in the state lawsuit, and file the necessary paperwork for removal to federal courts. 

The other thing is that all of this talk of juries and the 4th Circuit assumes this case would have gone to a verdict at the trial level. At this time, I just don't see that happening.

Maryland has almost no pull on the 4th Circuit, there are more Judges from Wofford, SC than with Md ties. If fact MD has exactly one judge on the court with ties to MD, but feel free to believe what the West Virginia cabal tells you.

lumberpack3 wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: ^BS, that umd left because it hated the ACC. It left because it *can* make what they think is a large sum of more money than they currently think they can. They talk all this up that they hate the ACC, but I gurantee you if the ACC/B10 conference teams had the same money, they would not be moving. I'm not really trying to compare anything but the figures you are supplying. I'm simply saying if you want to say X,Y,Z school isnt leaving because you say so, well then would you have claimed the same thing for umd 4 months ago? And no I dont work in the academic dept, but I do know a few things about the athletic dept numbers that universities and conferences have to work under, and if you trying to say that $2-$4mil doens mean jack, then why have so many schools already jumped around?

Keep that head buried in the sewage Tri.  Just don't breath it in.

RedLight wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: ^BS, that umd left because it hated the ACC. It left because it *can* make what they think is a large sum of more money than they currently think they can. They talk all this up that they hate the ACC, but I gurantee you if the ACC/B10 conference teams had the same money, they would not be moving. I'm not really trying to compare anything but the figures you are supplying. I'm simply saying if you want to say X,Y,Z school isnt leaving because you say so, well then would you have claimed the same thing for umd 4 months ago? And no I dont work in the academic dept, but I do know a few things about the athletic dept numbers that universities and conferences have to work under, and if you trying to say that $2-$4mil doens mean jack, then why have so many schools already jumped around?

I am certainly not an academic and I have no inside information, but I have been watching ACC sports for decades.  Maryland has always been the odd duck in the ACC.  The school that doesn't quite fit in.  They are and have been more "Northern" than "Southern".  Ironically, they jump right when three true northern schools are added. 

So yeah they were not happy.  However, I think money and the future promise of more money was the primary reason they jumped.  If you haven't read the WaPo article from earlier this week on how Maryland went to the Big 10, I recommend you do.  It provides a lot of insight on the process.  It also sheds a lot of light on the MD president, Wallace Loh.  This is a guy with very limited knowledge of college athletics.  He saw a way to make a quick buck and took it.  Personally, I think Maryland will regret making this move.

One of Maryland's biggest problems has been poor attendance.  The gate matters.  Getting fans to show up against old rivals is hard enough.  Now Maryland will have to get their fans to show up against teams like Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Rutgers, etc.  Teams their fans don't know and don't care about.  I also don't buy the traveling fans argument.  MD would get more fans from VT than any B1G team.  This is why you don't jump for a few million extra in TV money.  In the long run you may lose more at the gate as interest in games declines.  And really, isn't that the point?

As for other teams jumping, if you look closely most were not done for money.  Nebraska, Colorado, Mizzou and A&M left the Big 12 because it was dysfunctional.  They left mainly to get away from UT.  The Big East defections were to get out of a conference that was failing.  If the Big East was stable I don't think you see all those teams leave. Utah went to the Pac 12 because it was a step up from the MWC.

Maryland is the exception.  They left for a pay day.  Their fans were opposed to the move, but Loh's short sighted leadership paid them no mind.  As I said earlier I have no inside information, but I have to think Maryland was not the B1G's first choice.  If you were Delaney who would you want if you could pick one ACC team?  I would go with UNC, UVa and/or GT at a minimum before I would pick Maryland.    I also think Delaney felt all those schools out and was told no before inviting Maryland.   Now Maryland gets to be the red headed step child in a conference that really didn't want them.

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: How is my head in the sewage?  I'm using your own data points to essentially prove that in the expansion game, universities are moving around for the money that you are saying they wont.  You think no one else in the ACC will move, and I'm kinda showing that a team from the ACC just moved and to me is going to have some more movement.  You dont think it will, but havent really shown any concrete evidence that cant in fact be disbuted, but you assume your numbers are gospel?  That's the only part, I'm not following. 

lumberpack3 wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: ^BS, that umd left because it hated the ACC. It left because it *can* make what they think is a large sum of more money than they currently think they can. They talk all this up that they hate the ACC, but I gurantee you if the ACC/B10 conference teams had the same money, they would not be moving. I'm not really trying to compare anything but the figures you are supplying. I'm simply saying if you want to say X,Y,Z school isnt leaving because you say so, well then would you have claimed the same thing for umd 4 months ago? And no I dont work in the academic dept, but I do know a few things about the athletic dept numbers that universities and conferences have to work under, and if you trying to say that $2-$4mil doens mean jack, then why have so many schools already jumped around?

Keep that head buried in the sewage Tri.  Just don't breath it in.

lumberpack3 wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: How is my head in the sewage?  I'm using your own data points to essentially prove that in the expansion game, universities are moving around for the money that you are saying they wont.  You think no one else in the ACC will move, and I'm kinda showing that a team from the ACC just moved and to me is going to have some more movement.  You dont think it will, but havent really shown any concrete evidence that cant in fact be disbuted, but you assume your numbers are gospel?  That's the only part, I'm not following. 

lumberpack3 wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: ^BS, that umd left because it hated the ACC. It left because it *can* make what they think is a large sum of more money than they currently think they can. They talk all this up that they hate the ACC, but I gurantee you if the ACC/B10 conference teams had the same money, they would not be moving. I'm not really trying to compare anything but the figures you are supplying. I'm simply saying if you want to say X,Y,Z school isnt leaving because you say so, well then would you have claimed the same thing for umd 4 months ago? And no I dont work in the academic dept, but I do know a few things about the athletic dept numbers that universities and conferences have to work under, and if you trying to say that $2-$4mil doens mean jack, then why have so many schools already jumped around?

Keep that head buried in the sewage Tri.  Just don't breath it in.

Tri, like I said, all of the moves related to leaving Texas had nothing to do with money.  None of the moves related to leaving the Big East have to do with money, they have to do with leaving an unstable situation and an unstable conference.  Do you think Louisville needed more money to leave the Big East?  Of course not.  You confuse making more money with the reason to leave a bad situation.

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: You think the ACC is stable and will not lose anymore teams in the next 5 years?  Nvm, that's your whole point.  I'm just a little worried and if 1 team can leave for as little money as umd did, then I think it can happen again.  Could GT be next?

lumberpack3 wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: How is my head in the sewage?  I'm using your own data points to essentially prove that in the expansion game, universities are moving around for the money that you are saying they wont.  You think no one else in the ACC will move, and I'm kinda showing that a team from the ACC just moved and to me is going to have some more movement.  You dont think it will, but havent really shown any concrete evidence that cant in fact be disbuted, but you assume your numbers are gospel?  That's the only part, I'm not following. 

lumberpack3 wrote:

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: ^BS, that umd left because it hated the ACC. It left because it *can* make what they think is a large sum of more money than they currently think they can. They talk all this up that they hate the ACC, but I gurantee you if the ACC/B10 conference teams had the same money, they would not be moving. I'm not really trying to compare anything but the figures you are supplying. I'm simply saying if you want to say X,Y,Z school isnt leaving because you say so, well then would you have claimed the same thing for umd 4 months ago? And no I dont work in the academic dept, but I do know a few things about the athletic dept numbers that universities and conferences have to work under, and if you trying to say that $2-$4mil doens mean jack, then why have so many schools already jumped around?

Keep that head buried in the sewage Tri.  Just don't breath it in.

Tri, like I said, all of the moves related to leaving Texas had nothing to do with money.  None of the moves related to leaving the Big East have to do with money, they have to do with leaving an unstable situation and an unstable conference.  Do you think Louisville needed more money to leave the Big East?  Of course not.  You confuse making more money with the reason to leave a bad situation.

lumberpack3 wrote:

FuquayWolf wrote:

lumberpack3 wrote:

As to Maryland's argument - I can't wait to hear them argue before a Guilford County jury and then a Richmond Court of Appeals.  The legal rules that apply in NC are different than those in Maryland, the case law in the 4th circit is different.  Maryland will pay.

You are correct that forum and venue will play a role in this case, but I think you overstate how much. First, this case is currently filed in the NC state courts, not federal courts, but I expect Maryland's lawyers to file to remove the case to federal court. Given the parties to this case, they have a fair shot at getting that request granted. Then the big question will be venue - will it be heard in the Middle District of NC, or the District of Maryland? Probably stays in MDNC, but that's for the sides to argue.

Either way, you are correct that any appeal will be to the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, but note that Maryland is also located in the 4th Circuit. Further, I would assume that UMd's lawyers will be outside counsel, and fully versed with all applicable state and federal laws. It's not like they'll send their university counsel down to argue the case pro hac vice. I would be shocked if they haven't already retained a reputable firm with an office in Greensboro to represent them in the state lawsuit, and file the necessary paperwork for removal to federal courts. 

The other thing is that all of this talk of juries and the 4th Circuit assumes this case would have gone to a verdict at the trial level. At this time, I just don't see that happening.

Maryland has almost no pull on the 4th Circuit, there are more Judges from Wofford, SC than with Md ties. If fact MD has exactly one judge on the court with ties to MD, but feel free to believe what the West Virginia cabal tells you.

lumberpack3, I don't know a soul from West Virginia. I certainly don't read their message boards, blogs, newspapers, or any other source from the "West Virginia cabal." Not everyone who disagrees with your opinion has been influenced by some Mountaineer boogeyman. In fact, I actually think the ACC has a stronger position than UMd in this lawsuit, so in a sense, I agree with you that Maryland will end up paying a sizable amount to the ACC.

But your arguments regarding this lawsuit are offbase. First, your assertion that "Maryland has almost no pull on the 4th Circuit" is wrong. It's not just about where you went to law school - 3 of the 16 judges have Maryland "ties": Judges Niemeyer, Motz, and Davis, all practiced in Maryland, and in the case of Motz and Davis, served as state judges. Further, since you think the "West Virginia cabal" is out to get revenge on the ACC, you should be worried that 2 judges have WV ties.

But this case isn't going to be decided by who has the most judges on the 4th Circuit, or who has the most "pull" on the 4th Circuit. Bias may play a role in some backwoods judiciary, but there is no place for it on a federal court. You don't become a judge on the 4th Circuit by playing favorites. If it gets to the 4th Circuit, it will be decided by who has the best appellate counsel and whose side the law favors. However, it will likely never see the inside of a 4th Circuit courtroom. There are a lot of procedural steps that have to be met first to even get this case from Guilford County Superior Court to federal court. And as I said, the only way the 4th Circuit ever sees this case is years from now on appeal from a trial, something that I can promise you neither side wants, no matter how strong they feel their position on liability is.

ncsuTRIcoach wrote: ^What I think is the bigger issue is that NCSU is too much tied at the hip to a intity that I think is very very powerful. So, I guess the issue I have is that *IF* UNC leaves then and only then will NCSU be reactionary and *HOPE* like hell, the other conference takes us. UNC is the biggest get among the teams that are likely to be gotten (along with Texas). Yes I think UNC absolutely love their power and prestigue in the ACC, but if they in fact did jump, they are easily picked up. NCSU to me is more or less living on a prayer that UNC doenst in fact leave. That I think is the biggest issue I see, and seeing that all I keep hearing about is this "mega" association, and what I see from the ACC (in terms of football), I'm just not completely confident that in 10 years, NCSU will be with the big boy table (even if we actually dont really deserve it based on our own football history/ability) in football.