I see absolutely nothing in that article that indicates we will be joining the big ten. Thank God.

I have never witnessed more validate us by "come to us UNC" threads made by B1G posters/fans

& only to be shot down time & time again, repeatedly, by Heels

There's about a 90% resistance rate by Heels to the B1G, why is that so hard to accept

Maintain some pride if nothing else

You're right, were being a bunch of &#*$&s. But the problem is, nobody know what's going on. And everyone with their head out of the sand has to admit there is a chance we could change conferences. And we have a better chance of winding up in the big ten than the sec, which is not what most of us want. There's nothing wrong with the big ten, its a good quality conference. Although I think you guys reached a bit with Maryland and Rutgers. But we have no ties to the big ten. No Carolina fan gets excited about going to Nebraska or Illinois for a ball game. The ACC staying together. But if that doesn't happen, we prefer the sec. And all this talk about going to a conference we don't want, naturally rubs some of us the wrong way.

---------------------------------------------
--- rock06 wrote:

I have never witnessed more validate us by "come to us UNC" threads made by B1G posters/fans

& only to be shot down time & time again, repeatedly, by Heels

There's about a 90% resistance rate by Heels to the B1G, why is that so hard to accept

Maintain some pride if nothing else

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- redhotchiliheel wrote:

we have a better chance of winding up in the big ten than the sec,

---------------------------------------------

Or not

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about the reallignment landscape. UNC is one of the few schools that has already punched their ticket to relevancy.

Already been posted in the conference realignment thread with discussion following.

I have to come to the defense of BUCK a little here. While I have not reviewed the document filings in this case, I was skeptical to say the least that the conferences could enforce the exit fees that were added against schools that were already members when the fees were added.

Those fees were rushed through to try and deal with a very fluid situation, and were more or less forced down the throats of those involved, kind of like the boiler plate language when you rent a car. I have serious questions as to whether a court would find ACTUAL consideration on behalf of those that approved the agreements, if it would even get to that question before determining that the "exit fee" agreements are void as against public policy.

However, the above analysis is probably only going to be relevant to settlement negotiations, since, as you know 53 as your comments suggest you are familiar with the law, almost NOTHING goes to trial any more. It's a dang shame because this would be a good matter that needs some resolution but I would bet a dollar against a donut (is that still a good bet?) that a trial over this will never happen.

I am sick and tired of this whole situation, including the loading of the ACC with all of these schools from the old Big East, the potential of the decimation of ACC baseball and football therefrom, especially if we lost FSU, Clemson, and/or Tech. Let's hope that something actually does give and this stuff settles in soon. Save the Southern ACC or SEC for me.

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

You know even less about Law than you do about the ACC or UNC. Which puts you somewhere on the level of a worn out bluetick hound,, legally speaking :)

Now here's a little tidbit you can chew on whil epretending you have a clue...gues which University suggested the multiple of theACC budget as abn exit fee to START with? Here's a hint..think TURTLE. Yes it
s true...Dr Loh proposed a 1.25X multiplier of the operating budget to begin with. H eonly got cold feet AFTER the rest of the Conference bumped it to 3X.

Bringing an inteligent argument to this Board is one thing. Bringing stupidity is something else. We have plenty of our own idiots without importing the B10 variety.


---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

ACC is done. The lawsuit brought by the state of Maryland against the ACC by the Maryland Attorney General is pretty powerful.

According to the documents, the ACC raised the exit fee only to keep others from leaving (punitive) all awhile recruiting other schools to join. It also claims the ACC charges new schools less than it charges existing members to leave. ACC did not give the proper time for schools to look over the change of raising the fee. It also states the fee change does not go into affect until July 1, 2013.

Great chance this negotiation starts at $20 million and goes down from there.

This can't go to trial. The discovery phase would be devasting to the ACC once the Raycom deal is exposed. That really benefited the commissioner's son. Way too much would come out.

Here is the link for your reading pleasure: docs.google.com/file/d...tdHM/edit?pli=1

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

B1G meeting Sunday..

---------------------------------------------
--- phatassjungle wrote:

B1G meeting Sunday..

---------------------------------------------

Down South we have lots of Big Meetings every Sunday. Y'all oughta try it! ;-)

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

The ACC just signed its Tier 1,2,3 rights to ESPN for an average of $17 million per year. That is the lowest of the 5 conferences and the other conferences are not even counting their tier 3 rights.

The B1G will be signing its new contract for tier 1 rights in time for the 2017 season and it is expected to be in the $25-$30 million range. Now throw in tier 3, which is BTN, on top of that. That is another $10+ million. We have not even talked about the bowl money from the B1G's premier paying bowls.

Did I mention B1G schools also get to sell their radio, etc rights on an individual basis? tOSU signed for $11 million per year with IMG.

I'm sorry to day but out of the 5, ACC will be by far the lowest paying conference. It will trail the B1G and SEC by a lot. Those two conferences will double what the current ACC is being paid.

ESPN has already said they would be willing to may be bump the ACC's payout per school $1-$2 million for the addition of ND's 2-3 away games per year against the ACC. That's not going to cut it. ND still keeps all of the NBC money for its home games.

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

Go look at Forbes...they showl the actual differences and they are NOT huge. That's either your ignorance showing or you are simply a liar. Either way it makes no difference.

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

Take a wild guess how many times Chip Brown told the world last spring and summer that FSU and Clemson were done deals, had signed the paperwork etc. Only two people think thta hack is reliable...Brown and his master, D Dodd.

Sorry but Western and I follow this crap fairly closely and what you're hearing from WestchesterBUCk and other B10 clowns is word-for-word the same spew the Eers started dispensing a couple of years ago.

---------------------------------------------

Chip is a Texas puppet.

What I post is what I'm told or from what has come from tOSU Insider's forum, and I state that.

The money disparity between the ACC and the other 4 is huge. Three of them are circling the ACC and trying to pull it apart by offering more money and trying to get this down to 4 major conferences.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

1) The comparison being made is to all four conferences, not just the Big Ten. I agree that the B1G is poised well, but their CURRENT payout is not significantly different than the ACC's. note that wIth the renegotiation of the ND bump, the ACC will be very in line with big 12 and PAC payouts, all things considered.
2) Big Ten payouts in 2017 are important to discuss but do rely on a lot of assumptions and will likely function via accelerators just like everyone else's deal (i.e. if the average of that deal is $25MM over the range of the deal, it won't be $25MM in 2017).
3) The ACC has look in clauses that could allow their contract to bump up if Miami and FSU, for example, get back to being as nationally dominant as they were from 1980-2005.
4). ACC schools have never had the athletic budgets of the Big Ten schools, particularly Ohio State and Michigan who TRIPLE UNC's revenue from football ticket sales. And that has been the case for a while. Maryland was in a completely different position financially than UNC or UVa is. GT is definitely a wild card though and the Jackets are undoubtedly under a huge amount of pressure to compete with UGa.
5) Most ACC athletic budgets are in the $50-75MM range. A bump in $10-20MM extra budget would certainly be a big deal, but changing conferences for just a couple million doesn't make sense. That would be like most of us taking a new job (with all the negatives that go into starting anew) for just an extra $2-3K. I would consider it probably, but I like my current job.

If UNC changes conferences, it will be reactionary to one of these other schools getting scared and doing something rash.

I live here Rev. And I go sometimes....
---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- phatassjungle wrote:

B1G meeting Sunday..

---------------------------------------------

Down South we have lots of Big Meetings every Sunday. Y'all oughta try it! ;-)

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

The ACC just signed its Tier 1,2,3 rights to ESPN for an average of $17 million per year. That is the lowest of the 5 conferences and the other conferences are not even counting their tier 3 rights.

The B1G will be signing its new contract for tier 1 rights in time for the 2017 season and it is expected to be in the $25-$30 million range. Now throw in tier 3, which is BTN, on top of that. That is another $10+ million. We have not even talked about the bowl money from the B1G's premier paying bowls.

Did I mention B1G schools also get to sell their radio, etc rights on an individual basis? tOSU signed for $11 million per year with IMG.

I'm sorry to day but out of the 5, ACC will be by far the lowest paying conference. It will trail the B1G and SEC by a lot. Those two conferences will double what the current ACC is being paid.

ESPN has already said they would be willing to may be bump the ACC's payout per school $1-$2 million for the addition of ND's 2-3 away games per year against the ACC. That's not going to cut it. ND still keeps all of the NBC money for its home games.

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

Go look at Forbes...they showl the actual differences and they are NOT huge. That's either your ignorance showing or you are simply a liar. Either way it makes no difference.

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

Take a wild guess how many times Chip Brown told the world last spring and summer that FSU and Clemson were done deals, had signed the paperwork etc. Only two people think thta hack is reliable...Brown and his master, D Dodd.

Sorry but Western and I follow this crap fairly closely and what you're hearing from WestchesterBUCk and other B10 clowns is word-for-word the same spew the Eers started dispensing a couple of years ago.

---------------------------------------------

Chip is a Texas puppet.

What I post is what I'm told or from what has come from tOSU Insider's forum, and I state that.

The money disparity between the ACC and the other 4 is huge. Three of them are circling the ACC and trying to pull it apart by offering more money and trying to get this down to 4 major conferences.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

1) The comparison being made is to all four conferences, not just the Big Ten. I agree that the B1G is poised well, but their CURRENT payout is not significantly different than the ACC's. note that wIth the renegotiation of the ND bump, the ACC will be very in line with big 12 and PAC payouts, all things considered.
2) Big Ten payouts in 2017 are important to discuss but do rely on a lot of assumptions and will likely function via accelerators just like everyone else's deal (i.e. if the average of that deal is $25MM over the range of the deal, it won't be $25MM in 2017).
3) The ACC has look in clauses that could allow their contract to bump up if Miami and FSU, for example, get back to being as nationally dominant as they were from 1980-2005.
4). ACC schools have never had the athletic budgets of the Big Ten schools, particularly Ohio State and Michigan who TRIPLE UNC's revenue from football ticket sales. And that has been the case for a while. Maryland was in a completely different position financially than UNC or UVa is. GT is definitely a wild card though and the Jackets are undoubtedly under a huge amount of pressure to compete with UGa.
5) Most ACC athletic budgets are in the $50-75MM range. A bump in $10-20MM extra budget would certainly be a big deal, but changing conferences for just a couple million doesn't make sense. That would be like most of us taking a new job (with all the negatives that go into starting anew) for just an extra $2-3K. I would consider it probably, but I like my current job.

If UNC changes conferences, it will be reactionary to one of these other schools getting scared and doing something rash.

---------------------------------------------

Speaking of a rash, I hope all Wuffies have one.

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:

If UNC changes conferences, it will be reactionary to one of these other schools getting scared and doing something rash.

---------------------------------------------

I completely agree that UNC will never initiate an exit from the ACC, that would only happen in response to other universities leaving first.

I disagree with the characterization of another universities decision to leave as being rash. There is no way on Earth any ACC school leaves unless they've poured over every consideration numerous times with numerous decision makers. If anyone does leave, the reason will be because all the evidence leads them to conclude that it's in their best interest to do so.

Is there any doubt they are flea-ridden jerks? :)

---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

The ACC just signed its Tier 1,2,3 rights to ESPN for an average of $17 million per year. That is the lowest of the 5 conferences and the other conferences are not even counting their tier 3 rights.

The B1G will be signing its new contract for tier 1 rights in time for the 2017 season and it is expected to be in the $25-$30 million range. Now throw in tier 3, which is BTN, on top of that. That is another $10+ million. We have not even talked about the bowl money from the B1G's premier paying bowls.

Did I mention B1G schools also get to sell their radio, etc rights on an individual basis? tOSU signed for $11 million per year with IMG.

I'm sorry to day but out of the 5, ACC will be by far the lowest paying conference. It will trail the B1G and SEC by a lot. Those two conferences will double what the current ACC is being paid.

ESPN has already said they would be willing to may be bump the ACC's payout per school $1-$2 million for the addition of ND's 2-3 away games per year against the ACC. That's not going to cut it. ND still keeps all of the NBC money for its home games.

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

Go look at Forbes...they showl the actual differences and they are NOT huge. That's either your ignorance showing or you are simply a liar. Either way it makes no difference.

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

Take a wild guess how many times Chip Brown told the world last spring and summer that FSU and Clemson were done deals, had signed the paperwork etc. Only two people think thta hack is reliable...Brown and his master, D Dodd.

Sorry but Western and I follow this crap fairly closely and what you're hearing from WestchesterBUCk and other B10 clowns is word-for-word the same spew the Eers started dispensing a couple of years ago.

---------------------------------------------

Chip is a Texas puppet.

What I post is what I'm told or from what has come from tOSU Insider's forum, and I state that.

The money disparity between the ACC and the other 4 is huge. Three of them are circling the ACC and trying to pull it apart by offering more money and trying to get this down to 4 major conferences.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

1) The comparison being made is to all four conferences, not just the Big Ten. I agree that the B1G is poised well, but their CURRENT payout is not significantly different than the ACC's. note that wIth the renegotiation of the ND bump, the ACC will be very in line with big 12 and PAC payouts, all things considered.
2) Big Ten payouts in 2017 are important to discuss but do rely on a lot of assumptions and will likely function via accelerators just like everyone else's deal (i.e. if the average of that deal is $25MM over the range of the deal, it won't be $25MM in 2017).
3) The ACC has look in clauses that could allow their contract to bump up if Miami and FSU, for example, get back to being as nationally dominant as they were from 1980-2005.
4). ACC schools have never had the athletic budgets of the Big Ten schools, particularly Ohio State and Michigan who TRIPLE UNC's revenue from football ticket sales. And that has been the case for a while. Maryland was in a completely different position financially than UNC or UVa is. GT is definitely a wild card though and the Jackets are undoubtedly under a huge amount of pressure to compete with UGa.
5) Most ACC athletic budgets are in the $50-75MM range. A bump in $10-20MM extra budget would certainly be a big deal, but changing conferences for just a couple million doesn't make sense. That would be like most of us taking a new job (with all the negatives that go into starting anew) for just an extra $2-3K. I would consider it probably, but I like my current job.

If UNC changes conferences, it will be reactionary to one of these other schools getting scared and doing something rash.

---------------------------------------------

Speaking of a rash, I hope all Wuffies have one.

---------------------------------------------

Hilarious!

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

A New jersey take on the BTN...funy too. :)

www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/ind...en_network.html

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Soulbrothernumber1 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

The money disparity between the ACC and the other 4 is huge. Three of them are circling the ACC and trying to pull it apart by offering more money and trying to get this down to 4 major conferences.

---------------------------------------------

www.kansascity.com/2013/01/16/...venue-list.html

The money difference is not huge at all. For now the ACC as a whole brings in more revenue than the SEC and way more than the B12. This will change because of the new bowl deals but remember the ACC is about to add NY and PA to the footprint, plus ND -- so better believe the media rights are going up for us, too.

And take a look at the per-team payout of the B12. It will take an awesome get to add to that, and since FSU/ND will not be joining it doesn't make financial sense for them. Really, nobody in the ACC is considering B12 membership -- they can't offer more money and the geography is a nightmare.

And I have to believe the B10 will have buyer's remorse after adding Rutgers and Maryland. I'm reading blurbs their grand plan to get on the basic cable tier in NJ and MD is not going to go as planned (go figure). MD/RU sports is not exactly must-see tv even in their home states. They watered down the conference brand and won't have much to show for it IMO. We'll see.

---------------------------------------------

I've heard this too- the cable networks balked at the kind of money the BTN wanted for MD and Rutgers.

It is not impossible the B1G could just change its damn mind.

---------------------------------------------

The B10 is stuck with both of them. No way the ACC would ever take UMD back. Nor, would they even want them back.

Actually we love them long time..$52+ million long time. Love their brains out long time. Spend cash long time.

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:

If UNC changes conferences, it will be reactionary to one of these other schools getting scared and doing something rash.

---------------------------------------------

I completely agree that UNC will never initiate an exit from the ACC, that would only happen in response to other universities leaving first.

I disagree with the characterization of another universities decision to leave as being rash. There is no way on Earth any ACC school leaves unless they've poured over every consideration numerous times with numerous decision makers. If anyone does leave, the reason will be because all the evidence leads them to conclude that it's in their best interest to do so.

---------------------------------------------

Without knowing for sure how the exit fee will be handled or if the BTN will payout based on projections and assumptions about Comcast and whatever the Cable provider in NJ is, I would say the Terps have already made a rash decision. Again, this point has been made a couple of times, but if the exit fee doesn't go Maryland's way and if the BTN doesn't grow according to projections, they are screwed. Either way, the real delta between the payouts between the ACC and the B1G aren't significant for several years. Maryland athletics are probably screwed either way b/c of the way they have been so mismanaged...they are just hoping that everything works out so that they can survive.

But as others have noted, much of this reshuffling is driven by greed and the rest by fear. Those two mentalities are at best les than ideal for making wise decisions. If one or two ACC schools were to leave, you can bet that there might be a school who makes an emotion-led decision. Let us hope that doesn't happen, but if it does, UNC is going to be okay. I just don't want to be a school that needs partners like Penn State has needed for so long in the B1G

The rustbelt trolls are out of their minds if they think MD will get to remove the exit fee case from the jurisdiction with which they have been fine for 50 years. Their "president" proposed the multiplier to start with, it just got away from him.

The rustbelt biz-plan is based on 10 year old technology. When a realist sees the problems the rustbelt is having with MD and NJ cable providers now(they are rejecting the rustbelt tax) what will happen when ala carte cable is the norm in 10 years? WABOFI! The rustbelt has a poor primary product which will only get worse as demographic and economic trends doom it to the waste bin.

---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:

The rustbelt trolls are out of their minds if they think MD will get to remove the exit fee case from the jurisdiction with which they have been fine for 50 years. Their "president" proposed the multiplier to start with, it just got away from him.

The rustbelt biz-plan is based on 10 year old technology. When a realist sees the problems the rustbelt is having with MD and NJ cable providers now(they are rejecting the rustbelt tax) what will happen when ala carte cable is the norm in 10 years? WABOFI! The rustbelt has a poor primary product which will only get worse as demographic and economic trends doom it to the waste bin.

---------------------------------------------

Good luck with all that.

Tell it pastor - AMEN

---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- redhotchiliheel wrote:

You know I can live with that. As long as we don't take the wuffies. I've got a couple cans of.Guiness that I'm going to bust out to celebrate whenever the agdogs get left out in the cold. Or the Atlantic 10.

---------------------------------------------

We share a common dream.

---------------------------------------------

"I have a dream, that one day on the red clay hills of North Carolina, children of the heavenly blue and the red-headed stepchildren of reddnexx will no longer play together in the same conference. I have a dream..."

Can I get a witness up in here?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- 18SBC wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:

The rustbelt trolls are out of their minds if they think MD will get to remove the exit fee case from the jurisdiction with which they have been fine for 50 years. Their "president" proposed the multiplier to start with, it just got away from him.

The rustbelt biz-plan is based on 10 year old technology. When a realist sees the problems the rustbelt is having with MD and NJ cable providers now(they are rejecting the rustbelt tax) what will happen when ala carte cable is the norm in 10 years? WABOFI! The rustbelt has a poor primary product which will only get worse as demographic and economic trends doom it to the waste bin.

---------------------------------------------

Good luck with all that.

---------------------------------------------

Honest question...what makes you think UMD will get by without coughing up the exit fee?

Three choices...a)stupidity...b)ignorance...c)a combination of a and b

---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- 18SBC wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:

The rustbelt trolls are out of their minds if they think MD will get to remove the exit fee case from the jurisdiction with which they have been fine for 50 years. Their "president" proposed the multiplier to start with, it just got away from him.

The rustbelt biz-plan is based on 10 year old technology. When a realist sees the problems the rustbelt is having with MD and NJ cable providers now(they are rejecting the rustbelt tax) what will happen when ala carte cable is the norm in 10 years? WABOFI! The rustbelt has a poor primary product which will only get worse as demographic and economic trends doom it to the waste bin.

---------------------------------------------

Good luck with all that.

---------------------------------------------

Honest question...what makes you think UMD will get by without coughing up the exit fee?

---------------------------------------------

Frankly, the exit fee is irrelevant. I've heard plenty of people say either way on whether or not it will be enforced. I'm not a lawyer so all I can do is read and speculate. My guess is, based on other recent moves in conference realignment, that it will be settled out of court for something less than that amount.

The funny part is, even if it is that full amount, Maryland still made a financially sound decision. It should say something that $50 million isn't enough to keep someone in the ACC.

My "Good luck with all that" comment was directed mostly at the genius that suggested buyer's remorse because there isn't a cable deal in place in MD and NJ yet. It's comical to listen to someone try to speak authoritatively on a subject when they don't know how much they don't know. Whoever that was just sounds like someone who has no idea how television and negotiations work. There's about 19 months before either team plays a game in the Big Ten. Absolutely nobody would expect those cable companies to strike a deal by now, or even a year from now. Furthermore, the delivery may change but the content will ultimately deliver the money and when it comes down to it you still have 13 large state universities with huge fan bases that will want to see their favorite team play. The Big Ten may only get a dollar of what I pay to get the bundle to deliver me that channel right now but if things went ala carte I would dump about 90% of my other channels and gladly pay many times that dollar for that channel that they currently get only about a dollar a month for. You do realize that you aren't going to get the bundled prices on the channels if the cable companies go ala carte right??

---------------------------------------------
--- 18SBC wrote:

Frankly, the exit fee is irrelevant. I've heard plenty of people say either way on whether or not it will be enforced. I'm not a lawyer so all I can do is read and speculate. My guess is, based on other recent moves in conference realignment, that it will be settled out of court for something less than that amount.

The funny part is, even if it is that full amount, Maryland still made a financially sound decision. It should say something that $50 million isn't enough to keep someone in the ACC.

My "Good luck with all that" comment was directed mostly at the genius that suggested buyer's remorse because there isn't a cable deal in place in MD and NJ yet. It's comical to listen to someone try to speak authoritatively on a subject when they don't know how much they don't know. Whoever that was just sounds someone has no idea how television and negotiations work. There's about 19 months before either team plays a game in the Big Ten. Absolutely nobody would expect those cable companies to strike a deal by now, or even a year from now. Furthermore, the delivery may change but the content will ultimately deliver the money and when it comes down to it you still have 13 large state universities with huge fan bases that will want to see their favorite team play. The Big Ten may only get a dollar of what I pay to get the bundle to deliver me that channel right now but if things went ala carte I would dump about 90% of my other channels and gladly pay many times that dollar for that channel that they currently get only about a dollar a month for. You do realize that you aren't going to get the bundled prices on the channels if the cable companies go ala carte right??

---------------------------------------------

I wonder just what the final amount will be.

As for UMD, I cannot debate that they made a decision that they felt was in their own best interests. Which is what they should do.

Lets be honest here, though. UMD athletics are a complete financial disaster. One completely of their own making. If they want to blame somebody for the mess that they are presently, they can look in their own freaking mirror. Their former AD ran off a football coach who won 75 games and a ACC title in 10 seasons, not to mention a national championship winning basketball coach. And, spent their department into near bankruptcy. Their fan support is just barely above Duke and BC in this league, and, while it might spike initially upon joining the B10, they won't be able to maintain it.

While I hated to see them leave, if they don't want to be here, they needed to leave. They cannot GTHO soon enough for me.

I find it a bit funny that some B10 fans who've wandered over here, or, to The Hive (GT site), saying that the ACC doesn't want this to go to court. That several things that'd embarass the league would be exposed. Well, that goes both ways. Don't you think that the league wouldn't subpoena communications between UMD and the B10 leading up to their leaving? I doubt the Terps want those made public, either.

---------------------------------------------
--- phatassjungle wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- phatassjungle wrote:

B1G meeting Sunday..

---------------------------------------------

Down South we have lots of Big Meetings every Sunday. Y'all oughta try it! ;-)

---------------------------------------------

I live here Rev. And I go sometimes....

---------------------------------------------

Same here. I should be going more often.

I have no doubt Maryland's probably made some poor decisions that led to the financial difficulties of their AD. As for their fan support, I would imagine it's not much different than most in that when they are down they struggle and when things are going good the bandwagon fills up quite nicely. The fact is though that they are a huge state univesity in a fairly populous state and have a large number of alumni that are probably watching even when they aren't necessarily attending. Every program has its ups and downs but it will even out over time. The value is the large number of potential viewers they represent.

And your point about things that MD or B1G not wanting certain things to get out might be valid as well but that's just further reason this is likely to settle. I'm not sure what would be embarassing from the Big Ten perspective. They wanted Maryland. They had discussions with Maryland. They got Maryland. I can't say what my be there from Maryland's perspective but much of the negotiation was done in person and I doubt they were entertaining offers from any other conference. I guess we'll see how that plays out over time but the result doesn't determine whether or not this move is a good decision or not.

---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:

Honest question...what makes you think UMD will get by without coughing up the exit fee?

---------------------------------------------

I know your question was not directed at me WesternStormer, but I'll throw in my worthless 2 cents.

1) An exit fee is supposed to represent the liquidated damages incurred by the conference when a member university leaves. Given the fact that within a month of Maryland leaving Louisville was accepted as a replacement, it seems incredibly unlikely that the damages would be any more than 20 million, which was the previous amount. If anyone knows how the ACC can account for 50 million in liquidated damages please share it with the forum.

2) Anything beyond the legally provable liquidated damages is punitive. That means the amount is intended to prevent (or punish) a school attempting to exit. Punitive exit fees are illegal. In fact, at the time the vote was taken Maryland's president stated that the new exit fee seemed to punitive and questioned it's legality. So if the ACC can prove 50 million in damages, then that's what they should get. And if they can only prove 10 million, then that's what they should get.

3) Of all the recent conference moves, none of the teams relocating had to pay their full exit fee except for WVU. And in that situation it was higher than the full amount because the university was leaving the Big East within a year's time. So there were some real damages to the BE conference based on the extremely short notice. The BIG12 exit fee was 30 million, and both TAMU and Mizzou left for around 10 million. I really don't see any universities being held to the full amount, and I don't see why this case would or should be any different.

4) So assuming the liquidated damages are 20 million or less, and considering how recent moves have been settled, for Maryland to be forced to pay 50 million would mean the ACC has invented or discovered some new kind of contract law that no one else in college football has discovered or invented. I simply don't think they have done that. If it was as simple as writing the contract differently or incorporating in a different state, all the other conferences would have done that along with the ACC.

5) I've read the highlights of Maryland's counter suit. And if what I read was factual, the vote for 50 million was done improperly because a full 15 day notice was not given. That might somehow invalidate the 50 million number altogether causing the exit fee to revert back to the 20 million. They also claim that another ACC president acknowledged that the 50 million number was intended to deter anyone from exiting. That's a potential smoking gun in regards to the punitive nature of it.


Those are the reasons I think Maryland won't be forced to pay the 50 million. However, I fully expect the ACC lawsuit to go in the ACC's favor, and I expect the Maryland lawsuit to go in Maryland's favor due to both being filed in friendly jurisdictions. I have no idea what will happen after all that.

And your degree in Law is from where?

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:

Honest question...what makes you think UMD will get by without coughing up the exit fee?

---------------------------------------------

I know your question was not directed at me WesternStormer, but I'll throw in my worthless 2 cents.

1) An exit fee is supposed to represent the liquidated damages incurred by the conference when a member university leaves. Given the fact that within a month of Maryland leaving Louisville was accepted as a replacement, it seems incredibly unlikely that the damages would be any more than 20 million, which was the previous amount. If anyone knows how the ACC can account for 50 million in liquidated damages please share it with the forum.

2) Anything beyond the legally provable liquidated damages is punitive. That means the amount is intended to prevent (or punish) a school attempting to exit. Punitive exit fees are illegal. In fact, at the time the vote was taken Maryland's president stated that the new exit fee seemed to punitive and questioned it's legality. So if the ACC can prove 50 million in damages, then that's what they should get. And if they can only prove 10 million, then that's what they should get.

3) Of all the recent conference moves, none of the teams relocating had to pay their full exit fee except for WVU. And in that situation it was higher than the full amount because the university was leaving the Big East within a year's time. So there were some real damages to the BE conference based on the extremely short notice. The BIG12 exit fee was 30 million, and both TAMU and Mizzou left for around 10 million. I really don't see any universities being held to the full amount, and I don't see why this case would or should be any different.

4) So assuming the liquidated damages are 20 million or less, and considering how recent moves have been settled, for Maryland to be forced to pay 50 million would mean the ACC has invented or discovered some new kind of contract law that no one else in college football has discovered or invented. I simply don't think they have done that. If it was as simple as writing the contract differently or incorporating in a different state, all the other conferences would have done that along with the ACC.

5) I've read the highlights of Maryland's counter suit. And if what I read was factual, the vote for 50 million was done improperly because a full 15 day notice was not given. That might somehow invalidate the 50 million number altogether causing the exit fee to revert back to the 20 million. They also claim that another ACC president acknowledged that the 50 million number was intended to deter anyone from exiting. That's a potential smoking gun in regards to the punitive nature of it.


Those are the reasons I think Maryland won't be forced to pay the 50 million. However, I fully expect the ACC lawsuit to go in the ACC's favor, and I expect the Maryland lawsuit to go in Maryland's favor due to both being filed in friendly jurisdictions. I have no idea what will happen after all that.

---------------------------------------------

haha, yeah I just had a 2 hr brunch after my big meeting.

MMMMMMMMM ham, MMMMMMMMMM eggs, MMMMMMMMM mimosa.

---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- phatassjungle wrote:

B1G meeting Sunday..

---------------------------------------------

Down South we have lots of Big Meetings every Sunday. Y'all oughta try it! ;-)

---------------------------------------------

In the words of Charley Pride, "Let the chips fall, let them fall where they may."

If you don't know who Charley Pride is, you better ask somebody.

Clayton State

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

And your degree in Law is from where?

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:

Honest question...what makes you think UMD will get by without coughing up the exit fee?

---------------------------------------------

I know your question was not directed at me WesternStormer, but I'll throw in my worthless 2 cents.

1) An exit fee is supposed to represent the liquidated damages incurred by the conference when a member university leaves. Given the fact that within a month of Maryland leaving Louisville was accepted as a replacement, it seems incredibly unlikely that the damages would be any more than 20 million, which was the previous amount. If anyone knows how the ACC can account for 50 million in liquidated damages please share it with the forum.

2) Anything beyond the legally provable liquidated damages is punitive. That means the amount is intended to prevent (or punish) a school attempting to exit. Punitive exit fees are illegal. In fact, at the time the vote was taken Maryland's president stated that the new exit fee seemed to punitive and questioned it's legality. So if the ACC can prove 50 million in damages, then that's what they should get. And if they can only prove 10 million, then that's what they should get.

3) Of all the recent conference moves, none of the teams relocating had to pay their full exit fee except for WVU. And in that situation it was higher than the full amount because the university was leaving the Big East within a year's time. So there were some real damages to the BE conference based on the extremely short notice. The BIG12 exit fee was 30 million, and both TAMU and Mizzou left for around 10 million. I really don't see any universities being held to the full amount, and I don't see why this case would or should be any different.

4) So assuming the liquidated damages are 20 million or less, and considering how recent moves have been settled, for Maryland to be forced to pay 50 million would mean the ACC has invented or discovered some new kind of contract law that no one else in college football has discovered or invented. I simply don't think they have done that. If it was as simple as writing the contract differently or incorporating in a different state, all the other conferences would have done that along with the ACC.

5) I've read the highlights of Maryland's counter suit. And if what I read was factual, the vote for 50 million was done improperly because a full 15 day notice was not given. That might somehow invalidate the 50 million number altogether causing the exit fee to revert back to the 20 million. They also claim that another ACC president acknowledged that the 50 million number was intended to deter anyone from exiting. That's a potential smoking gun in regards to the punitive nature of it.


Those are the reasons I think Maryland won't be forced to pay the 50 million. However, I fully expect the ACC lawsuit to go in the ACC's favor, and I expect the Maryland lawsuit to go in Maryland's favor due to both being filed in friendly jurisdictions. I have no idea what will happen after all that.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- 18SBC wrote:

Frankly, the exit fee is irrelevant. I've heard plenty of people say either way on whether or not it will be enforced. I'm not a lawyer so all I can do is read and speculate. My guess is, based on other recent moves in conference realignment, that it will be settled out of court for something less than that amount.

The funny part is, even if it is that full amount, Maryland still made a financially sound decision. It should say something that $50 million isn't enough to keep someone in the ACC.

My "Good luck with all that" comment was directed mostly at the genius that suggested buyer's remorse because there isn't a cable deal in place in MD and NJ yet. It's comical to listen to someone try to speak authoritatively on a subject when they don't know how much they don't know. Whoever that was just sounds like someone who has no idea how television and negotiations work. There's about 19 months before either team plays a game in the Big Ten. Absolutely nobody would expect those cable companies to strike a deal by now, or even a year from now. Furthermore, the delivery may change but the content will ultimately deliver the money and when it comes down to it you still have 13 large state universities with huge fan bases that will want to see their favorite team play. The Big Ten may only get a dollar of what I pay to get the bundle to deliver me that channel right now but if things went ala carte I would dump about 90% of my other channels and gladly pay many times that dollar for that channel that they currently get only about a dollar a month for. You do realize that you aren't going to get the bundled prices on the channels if the cable companies go ala carte right??

---------------------------------------------

Pot meet kettle. You can't say "Maryland still made a finacially sound ddecision" until those conference checks start rolling in. All they have so far is projections and promisses. Anyone who follows sports closesly and the cable industry just a little bit can make some educated guesses that the B10 projections may wind up being off. And if cable copanies go a la carte it will be the B10's worst nightmare. The only way this works for them is if they get on everybody's basic cable package.

www.cbssports.com/collegefootb...off-its-network

"Good news, Rutgers and Maryland fans, your schools will be joining the Big Ten in 2014, bringing a nice influx of that cold hard cash into your athletic departments. It's just too bad you might not be able to watch all of their games once they've joined the Big Ten.

Yes, that's right, according to Sports Business Journal, the Big Ten is considering keeping Maryland and Rutgers games -- both football and basketball -- off its own Big Ten Network in an effort to get local cable companies to place the network on their basic tiers.....

Also, this is not the first time the Big Ten has used such tactics. It threatened to do the same thing with Nebraska before it joined the conference. Of course, there wasn't much resistance from the cable companies in Nebraska as their customer base would not have been happy without their Cornhuskers games available on television.

However, it will be pretty interesting to see whether New York-area cable companies even bat an eye when threatened with the possibility of losing Rutgers games."

Then you SHOULD know enough to have become familiar with the background of the case before yapping about it, Counselor. People I know that are very well versed in contract Law tell me the UM case won't get very far.

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:

Clayton State

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

And your degree in Law is from where?

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:

Honest question...what makes you think UMD will get by without coughing up the exit fee?

---------------------------------------------

I know your question was not directed at me WesternStormer, but I'll throw in my worthless 2 cents.

1) An exit fee is supposed to represent the liquidated damages incurred by the conference when a member university leaves. Given the fact that within a month of Maryland leaving Louisville was accepted as a replacement, it seems incredibly unlikely that the damages would be any more than 20 million, which was the previous amount. If anyone knows how the ACC can account for 50 million in liquidated damages please share it with the forum.

2) Anything beyond the legally provable liquidated damages is punitive. That means the amount is intended to prevent (or punish) a school attempting to exit. Punitive exit fees are illegal. In fact, at the time the vote was taken Maryland's president stated that the new exit fee seemed to punitive and questioned it's legality. So if the ACC can prove 50 million in damages, then that's what they should get. And if they can only prove 10 million, then that's what they should get.

3) Of all the recent conference moves, none of the teams relocating had to pay their full exit fee except for WVU. And in that situation it was higher than the full amount because the university was leaving the Big East within a year's time. So there were some real damages to the BE conference based on the extremely short notice. The BIG12 exit fee was 30 million, and both TAMU and Mizzou left for around 10 million. I really don't see any universities being held to the full amount, and I don't see why this case would or should be any different.

4) So assuming the liquidated damages are 20 million or less, and considering how recent moves have been settled, for Maryland to be forced to pay 50 million would mean the ACC has invented or discovered some new kind of contract law that no one else in college football has discovered or invented. I simply don't think they have done that. If it was as simple as writing the contract differently or incorporating in a different state, all the other conferences would have done that along with the ACC.

5) I've read the highlights of Maryland's counter suit. And if what I read was factual, the vote for 50 million was done improperly because a full 15 day notice was not given. That might somehow invalidate the 50 million number altogether causing the exit fee to revert back to the 20 million. They also claim that another ACC president acknowledged that the 50 million number was intended to deter anyone from exiting. That's a potential smoking gun in regards to the punitive nature of it.


Those are the reasons I think Maryland won't be forced to pay the 50 million. However, I fully expect the ACC lawsuit to go in the ACC's favor, and I expect the Maryland lawsuit to go in Maryland's favor due to both being filed in friendly jurisdictions. I have no idea what will happen after all that.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- UNCsince53 wrote:

Then you SHOULD know enough to have become familiar with the background of the case before yapping about it, Counselor. People I know that are very well versed in contract Law tell me the UM case won't get very far.

---------------------------------------------

Hey UNCsince53, the answer of Clayton State was a not so clever way of admitting I don't have a law degree since they don't offer that. I did preface my reasons by saying it is worthless, And I openly acknowledge that in legal issues I have to take some one else's word because I know so little.

Having said that, the reasons I listed above were explained to me by a person with a law degree from Baylor. In all seriousness, could you explain the reasons that your friends are saying UMd will lose? I'd honestly like to hear their (and your) perspective on this.

---------------------------------------------
--- Soulbrothernumber1 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- 18SBC wrote:

Frankly, the exit fee is irrelevant. I've heard plenty of people say either way on whether or not it will be enforced. I'm not a lawyer so all I can do is read and speculate. My guess is, based on other recent moves in conference realignment, that it will be settled out of court for something less than that amount.

The funny part is, even if it is that full amount, Maryland still made a financially sound decision. It should say something that $50 million isn't enough to keep someone in the ACC.

My "Good luck with all that" comment was directed mostly at the genius that suggested buyer's remorse because there isn't a cable deal in place in MD and NJ yet. It's comical to listen to someone try to speak authoritatively on a subject when they don't know how much they don't know. Whoever that was just sounds like someone who has no idea how television and negotiations work. There's about 19 months before either team plays a game in the Big Ten. Absolutely nobody would expect those cable companies to strike a deal by now, or even a year from now. Furthermore, the delivery may change but the content will ultimately deliver the money and when it comes down to it you still have 13 large state universities with huge fan bases that will want to see their favorite team play. The Big Ten may only get a dollar of what I pay to get the bundle to deliver me that channel right now but if things went ala carte I would dump about 90% of my other channels and gladly pay many times that dollar for that channel that they currently get only about a dollar a month for. You do realize that you aren't going to get the bundled prices on the channels if the cable companies go ala carte right??

---------------------------------------------

Pot meet kettle. You can't say "Maryland still made a finacially sound ddecision" until those conference checks start rolling in. All they have so far is projections and promisses. Anyone who follows sports closesly and the cable industry just a little bit can make some educated guesses that the B10 projections may wind up being off. And if cable copanies go a la carte it will be the B10's worst nightmare. The only way this works for them is if they get on everybody's basic cable package.

www.cbssports.com/collegefootb...off-its-network

"Good news, Rutgers and Maryland fans, your schools will be joining the Big Ten in 2014, bringing a nice influx of that cold hard cash into your athletic departments. It's just too bad you might not be able to watch all of their games once they've joined the Big Ten.

Yes, that's right, according to Sports Business Journal, the Big Ten is considering keeping Maryland and Rutgers games -- both football and basketball -- off its own Big Ten Network in an effort to get local cable companies to place the network on their basic tiers.....

Also, this is not the first time the Big Ten has used such tactics. It threatened to do the same thing with Nebraska before it joined the conference. Of course, there wasn't much resistance from the cable companies in Nebraska as their customer base would not have been happy without their Cornhuskers games available on television.

However, it will be pretty interesting to see whether New York-area cable companies even bat an eye when threatened with the possibility of losing Rutgers games."

---------------------------------------------

Like I said, good luck with all that. If you want to bet that this is a money loser for the Big Ten and that those that run Maryland are so stupid to switch on a boatload of baseless promises then you can do that. Nothing you introduced here is new. However you should probably also pay some attention to the equity partner in BTN and what they're doing. Delany is not stupid and he is operating from a position of strength. He's working with a partner that knows the television business inside and out. I'll put my money on them.

---------------------------------------------
--- heelfareal wrote:

In the words of Charley Pride, "Let the chips fall, let them fall where they may."

If you don't know who Charley Pride is, you better ask somebody.

---------------------------------------------

"You don't have to call me Waylon Jennings.
And you don't have to call me Charley Pride." -David Allan Coe

To the big-10 ******* PMing me, I do not CARE if GT and UVa are going to the big-can'tcountsocallit10 conf. I haven't said UVa wouldn't go to your conf for months, the most I said on that ( of late ) is that UVa is being wishy washy.

I have said UNC isn't going to your conf, and all "rumors" point to that still being the case, no matter how much you whine and cry about it.

The legal aspects of this case are pretty interesting. Maryland was induced to leave the ACC by the promise of riches which probably will be much less than the rustbelt said they would be. Maryland will lose the exit fee case in North Carolina. That judgement will be enforceable nationwide. The attempt by Maryland to bring an action against the ACC in Maryland will be removed to federal court most likely where it could likely be heard in a NC Federal District court.

If the rustbelt used false statements, deception and other unethical conduct to induce MD then MD might just bring action against the rustbelt when the promised riches don't arrive. Discovery might just bring out evidence that would rise to a cause of action by the ACC against the rustbelt. That action could also end up being heard in a NC State court or in the least in a NC Fed court.

The rustbelt syncophants who made this decision for MD aren't alumni. When they are fired as this thing blows up it is likely that big alumni(who mostly oppose the move to the rustbelt) just might cause more problems.

Under almost no circumstances would there be any incentive for the ACC to allow MD out without the maximum pain. 20 million is worthless. It will be all 52 plus additional direct action against the rustbelt or nothing and this thing will last for years. All the rustbelt will get out of this in the next 3-5 years is a lot of discovery, litigation and exposure for the desperate power grab it is.

Things are going to get real ugly for the rustbelt and the MD administration.