(03-20-2024 08:08 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  https://theathletic.com/5357749/2024/03/...es-rights/

And they countersued

How dare he.

(03-20-2024 09:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 07:58 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Jim Phillips is doing a bang up job. LOL

Phillips inherited most of this mess from Swofford.

I will hold him accountable for "The Alliance", but not for the TV contract mess.

I don't understand how the Commissioner is responsible for the actions and machinations of the Presidents and Chancellors.

When the B10 added Nebraska, that was the U of Illinois doing that. VT was not going to get back with the conference unless UNC put the screws to UVa and they did. NC State, Duke, and UNC put the screw job on Syracuse that same expansion moment.

Of all the major conferences, only the ACC has such a broad range of "wealthy" and "middle class" schools both public and private. That alone drives differences in perceived policy interests. Duke, UVa, Notre Dame, and Stanford need no money to compete - none, zilch nada. FSU, Clemson, Syracuse, NC State, and VT live hand to mouth each year regarding sports.

VT, NC State, Cal, Clemson, UNC, FSU, and UVa are public schools on paper. But Clemson controls it's own Board and has stayed small. Carolina and UVA have turned out of state tuition into a revenue stream like private collages.

BC, Syracuse, ND, Duke, Wake, SMU, Miami, and Stanford are private all the time and Pitt pretends to be whatever suits it in the moment. I don't see how you could get more than 11-12 to agree to begin a meeting.

(03-19-2024 09:29 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 08:32 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 07:59 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  https://virginiatech.sportswar.com/wp-co...9-17-2.pdf

The Absolute Two-Thirds Matters are as follows: (i) any amendment to Article 2.5 of the Bylaws (Finances), (ii) selecting or changing the location of the Conference office, (iii) entering into or amending any Material Media Rights Agreement (as defined in Section 2.3.1(q)), (iv) the appointment, extension of the term, or removal of the Commissioner or the other matters set forth in Section 1.5.2.1.1, and (v) the initiation of any material litigation involving the Conference (but not, for clarity, the settlement of any litigation involving the Conference, which requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors present for such vote). The Absolute Three-Fourths Matters are as follows: (i) the admission of new Members to the Conference pursuant to Section 1.4.3, (ii) the expulsion, suspension or probation of a Member pursuant to Section 1.4.4, (iii) any amendment of this Constitution, (iv) any amendment of the Bylaws (except amendments to Article 2.5), and (v) waiver of notice or other required process for a Board meeting pursuant to Section 1.5.1.5.2.

4 of 6 on the Executive Committee are enough to respond to any initial litigation as I read the bylaws. This is NC Non-Profit entity law and it's set up to allow a subcommittee to run the show until the full board stops it.

Clemson's filing is light years ahead of FSU's and they used a legitimate firm with plenty of NC ties in Columbia do do it.

Interesting note from the ACC by laws:

Among the reasons a Member may be expelled, suspended, or placed on probation for good cause is if
it no longer participates in one or more sports which are required for membership in the Conference, if
the Member is required by the NCAA to discontinue such required sport because of violations of NCAA
regulations, or such Member or one or more of its sports programs becomes incompatible with the
objectives of the Conference.

This is very vague, seems the ACC could expel a member for sucking at football or basketball for too long.

You can be expelled for any reason if the votes are there to do it. You can be construed to be in violation of NC law for not acting in good faith regarding the ACC NCGS 55-8-30. This might be a tough concept but if you are on the ACC Board, State law says you vote for what's best for your non-profit. Now that may be 180 degrees opposite of what is good for your school who pays your salary. While there is no doubt the ACC's statements have cast a cloud on Clemson, Clemson has cast a cloud right back at the ACC.

This is a guess, but the Clemson filing sounds like it's meant to assess what the Mag-7 can actually do and to flush ESPN out of hiding - something the FSU litigation is to screwed up to tease out

The Executive Board is UVa, VT, BC, Miami, Wake Forest and was UNC but Gusweick left for Michigan State and it may be that Syracuse took the opening.

Interesting concept.

(03-19-2024 09:29 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  You can be expelled for any reason if the votes are there to do it. You can be construed to be in violation of NC law for not acting in good faith regarding the ACC NCGS 55-8-30. This might be a tough concept but if you are on the ACC Board, State law says you vote for what's best for your non-profit. Now that may be 180 degrees opposite of what is good for your school who pays your salary. While there is no doubt the ACC's statements have cast a cloud on Clemson, Clemson has cast a cloud right back at the ACC.

This is a guess, but the Clemson filing sounds like it's meant to assess what the Mag-7 can actually do and to flush ESPN out of hiding - something the FSU litigation is to screwed up to tease out.

The Executive Board is UVa, VT, BC, Miami, Wake Forest and was UNC but Gusweick left for Michigan State and it may be that Syracuse took the opening.

Clemson's strategy is more precise and surgical—and for that reason very much to my taste. But I can see what the strategy is in Tallahassee. The aim in large part is to leverage the state's unusually broad freedom-of-information laws to enable discovery and perhaps nudge a settlement. How willing is the league to drag things out if complaints are so wide-ranging that the discovery process can go just about anywhere? Anything useful that turns up in this case can of course be useful to other schools in their own cases. Meanwhile, Florida State will be watching how Clemson's tactics fare as well.

(03-21-2024 06:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 09:29 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  You can be expelled for any reason if the votes are there to do it. You can be construed to be in violation of NC law for not acting in good faith regarding the ACC NCGS 55-8-30. This might be a tough concept but if you are on the ACC Board, State law says you vote for what's best for your non-profit. Now that may be 180 degrees opposite of what is good for your school who pays your salary. While there is no doubt the ACC's statements have cast a cloud on Clemson, Clemson has cast a cloud right back at the ACC.

This is a guess, but the Clemson filing sounds like it's meant to assess what the Mag-7 can actually do and to flush ESPN out of hiding - something the FSU litigation is to screwed up to tease out.

The Executive Board is UVa, VT, BC, Miami, Wake Forest and was UNC but Gusweick left for Michigan State and it may be that Syracuse took the opening.

Clemson's strategy is more precise and surgical—and for that reason very much to my taste. But I can see what the strategy is in Tallahassee. The aim in large part is to leverage the state's unusually broad freedom-of-information laws to enable discovery and perhaps nudge a settlement. How willing is the league to drag things out if complaints are so wide-ranging that the discovery process can go just about anywhere? Anything useful that turns up in this case can of course be useful to other schools in their own cases. Meanwhile, Florida State will be watching how Clemson's tactics fare as well.

I think that, generally, people severely overestimate the "fear of discovery" as being a settlement driver.

In my legal career, I never experienced a client caving in on its legal position because of a fear of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and depositions.

They are pains in the ass to respond to and take, but that is a normal part of the litigation process.

I think that posters put too much stock in this idea.

Discovery occurs in every one of the thousands of cases that are tried to a jury across this country. Why didn't they all cave and settle out of fear of a document production?

(03-21-2024 06:47 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 06:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 09:29 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  You can be expelled for any reason if the votes are there to do it. You can be construed to be in violation of NC law for not acting in good faith regarding the ACC NCGS 55-8-30. This might be a tough concept but if you are on the ACC Board, State law says you vote for what's best for your non-profit. Now that may be 180 degrees opposite of what is good for your school who pays your salary. While there is no doubt the ACC's statements have cast a cloud on Clemson, Clemson has cast a cloud right back at the ACC.

This is a guess, but the Clemson filing sounds like it's meant to assess what the Mag-7 can actually do and to flush ESPN out of hiding - something the FSU litigation is to screwed up to tease out.

The Executive Board is UVa, VT, BC, Miami, Wake Forest and was UNC but Gusweick left for Michigan State and it may be that Syracuse took the opening.

Clemson's strategy is more precise and surgical—and for that reason very much to my taste. But I can see what the strategy is in Tallahassee. The aim in large part is to leverage the state's unusually broad freedom-of-information laws to enable discovery and perhaps nudge a settlement. How willing is the league to drag things out if complaints are so wide-ranging that the discovery process can go just about anywhere? Anything useful that turns up in this case can of course be useful to other schools in their own cases. Meanwhile, Florida State will be watching how Clemson's tactics fare as well.

I think that, generally, people severely overestimate the "fear of discovery" as being a settlement driver.

In my legal career, I never experienced a client caving in on its legal position because of a fear of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and depositions.

They are pains in the ass to respond to and take, but that is a normal part of the litigation process.

I think that posters put too much stock in this idea.

Discovery occurs in every one of the thousands of cases that is tried to a jury across this country. Why didn't they all cave and settle out of fear of a document production?

Good post Terry. Its nice to get a perspective from an actual attorney.