All we need now is for a murder to take place and we've got the next great John Grisham novel.

Great, another fake math thread. The only equivalent I can think of is when nimrods from various teams argue over which prospect they have never seen play is underrated versus some other prospect who chose to play at another school and is therefore overrated.

Asinine.

Based on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...fferences/

Quote:The Post spoke with an individual with direct knowledge of the West Virginia-Big East legal battle, who asked to remain anonymous to retain former client confidences. :

They are now saying this:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-maryland/

Quote:“Securing Louisville immediately after losing Maryland was a much more important fact in terms of the lawsuit than this [grant of rights] deal,” the individual wrote. “This deal simply forecloses any argument that Maryland’s departure led to an instability/uncertainty that damaged the conference.”

Nice!


Thing is, this is about an exit fee, not damages! Syracuse paid an exit fee, Pittsburgh paid an exit fee, wvu paid an exit fee, just because some other teams negotiated an exit fee amount does not change the fact that they paid an exit fee!

Based on all the moves that were just made in Conference realignment, do you really think that the ACC dropped the ball by immediately adding UofL to the Conference? Do you really think that the ACC damaged their case against Maryland by adding UofL? Do you really think they didn't plan for this? Really?


My bet is on Swofford, and if this does settle, it is because he will have decided that a nickel will be holding up a dollar!

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/54...inst-terps

Heather weighs in on the lawsuit.
With no realignment, all of a sudden a lot of writers are looking for topics.

(04-24-2013 08:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Based on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...fferences/

Quote:The Post spoke with an individual with direct knowledge of the West Virginia-Big East legal battle, who asked to remain anonymous to retain former client confidences. :

They are now saying this:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-maryland/

Quote:“Securing Louisville immediately after losing Maryland was a much more important fact in terms of the lawsuit than this [grant of rights] deal,” the individual wrote. “This deal simply forecloses any argument that Maryland’s departure led to an instability/uncertainty that damaged the conference.”

Nice!


Thing is, this is about an exit fee, not damages! Syracuse paid an exit fee, Pittsburgh paid an exit fee, wvu paid an exit fee, just because some other teams negotiated an exit fee amount does not change the fact that they paid an exit fee!

Based on all the moves that were just made in Conference realignment, do you really think that the ACC dropped the ball by immediately adding UofL to the Conference? Do you really think that the ACC damaged their case against Maryland by adding UofL? Do you really think they didn't plan for this? Really?


My bet is on Swofford, and if this does settle, it is because he will have decided that a nickel will be holding up a dollar!

Your use of Pitt/Syr/WVU analogies to sell the ACC case is pretty weak. The Big East had a small exit fee, and what Pitt/Syr/WVU paid was called an exit fee, but the negotiations and settlements in those cases revolved around a contractual agreement the ACC does not have, that being the 27 month waiting period before a team can leave.

(04-25-2013 07:40 AM)krup Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 08:19 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Based on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...fferences/

Quote:The Post spoke with an individual with direct knowledge of the West Virginia-Big East legal battle, who asked to remain anonymous to retain former client confidences. :

They are now saying this:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-maryland/

Quote:“Securing Louisville immediately after losing Maryland was a much more important fact in terms of the lawsuit than this [grant of rights] deal,” the individual wrote. “This deal simply forecloses any argument that Maryland’s departure led to an instability/uncertainty that damaged the conference.”

Nice!


Thing is, this is about an exit fee, not damages! Syracuse paid an exit fee, Pittsburgh paid an exit fee, wvu paid an exit fee, just because some other teams negotiated an exit fee amount does not change the fact that they paid an exit fee!

Based on all the moves that were just made in Conference realignment, do you really think that the ACC dropped the ball by immediately adding UofL to the Conference? Do you really think that the ACC damaged their case against Maryland by adding UofL? Do you really think they didn't plan for this? Really?


My bet is on Swofford, and if this does settle, it is because he will have decided that a nickel will be holding up a dollar!

Your use of Pitt/Syr/WVU analogies to sell the ACC case is pretty weak. The Big East had a small exit fee, and what Pitt/Syr/WVU paid was called an exit fee, but the negotiations and settlements in those cases revolved around a contractual agreement the ACC does not have, that being the 27 month waiting period before a team can leave.

What I am pointing out with Pitt/Syr/wvu and soon to be Rut. and UofL is that we will ALL have paid 100% of the contractual exit fee. What was negotiated was the "damage" we cause the BE by breaching the "waiting period" part of the contract. I do not think that Maryland is breaching any part of the ACC's "exit fee" contract terms. They should not have to pay any more than 100% of the ACC's exit fee. Interesting that Maryland made sure to honor one part of the contract exit terms (notification, telling the ACC when they are leaving) and is arguing about another (amount of exit fee) as if part of the bylaw has standing but the other does not.

In the cases of Pitt/Syr/WVU and soon to be UofL and Rutgers, 4 teams will have gone to court and at least three of the four settled on the side of the BE collecting 100% of the contractually obligated exit fee.

UofL knows its contractual obligation and will do what is not only right, but also, what is contractually obligated. Rutgers is going to pay 100% of the exit fee as well, plus what has already been established as a negotiated penalty."

Maryland will pay 100% of the ACC's exit fee. That it is a different amount than the BE and is based on the annual operating budget of the ACC does not matter. The court is charged with ruling if an "exit fee" from a conference is legal or not, regardless of the amount. Once that is ruled upon, the next argument will be if a conference can establish it's own contract terms for its membership and its membership is bound by those bylaws (any of them). Pitt/Syr/WVU, under the terms of their settlement, agreed that the conference's bylaws were legal and damage was done. That's all I'm trying to point out, weak comparison or not.

Maryland will pay 100% of the fee deemed to be legal.

Rutgers wants to leave early and they will probably get something from the Big East for the loss of the TCU home game (or call it even with the early exit).

The Big East collected $5MM from TCU.

(04-25-2013 11:21 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Maryland will pay 100% of the fee deemed to be legal.

Rutgers wants to leave early and they will probably get something from the Big East for the loss of the TCU home game (or call it even with the early exit).

The Big East collected $5MM from TCU.

Which was 100% of the BE exit fee. The BE didn't seek damages based on the "waiting period" since TCU never actually played a game and it had not yet "officially" joined the Conference. So basically, TCU promised they were going to join, but never did, and was still required to pay 100% of the exit fee. They just didn't have to pay damages for leaving earlier than 27 months like the others did (that was the negotiated part). Again 100% of the exit fee.

(04-25-2013 07:40 AM)krup Wrote:  Based on all the moves that were just made in Conference realignment, do you really think that the ACC dropped the ball by immediately adding UofL to the Conference? Do you really think that the ACC damaged their case against Maryland by adding UofL? Do you really think they didn't plan for this? Really?

Do you really think that their case against Maryland was more important than making FSU happy? If the ACC gambled on FSU preferring the ACC as it is to the conference move that was in reality on offer, then based on FSU pushing for the Grant of Rights, they won. They won a much bigger victory than a $52m exit fee holding up in court.

(04-25-2013 10:58 AM)Dasville Wrote:  What I am pointing out with Pitt/Syr/wvu and soon to be Rut. and UofL is that we will ALL have paid 100% of the contractual exit fee. What was negotiated was the "damage" we cause the BE by breaching the "waiting period" part of the contract.

Yes, which suggests that in the eyes of the departing schools, the $10m exit fee to leave the Old Big East, when it was still an AQ conference, would have likely held up in court, and the question in doubt is what would be reasonable damages for breaching on the advance period for notification of an exit.

But the damage done to the Old Big East would seem to be hard to dispute. They've lost most of their historical membership and their AQ status and the media contract they signed gave them as much for ten years as they were offered for one year with their previous membership.

Maryland would be on very thin ice disputing the previous exit fee, so there is a lower bound on the negotiation range. The ACC would be hard pressed to actually force Maryland to write a check, so the top end of the negotiation range would likely be two years conference distribution (the exit fee is pegged to three).

The stronger Maryland thinks their case is, the harder they'll push for an agreement closer to the lower bound, the stronger he ACC thinks their case is, the harder they'll push for the upper bound. There have been opportunities for summary dismissal, but the case is still grinding forward to being hard, so its not likely to be paper thin on either side.

As far as where its going to end up inside that bargaining range, all of you guys playing lawyer on the internet can sort out amongst yourselves, since its not going to affect the outcome by one red cent.

(04-25-2013 12:47 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:40 AM)krup Wrote:  Based on all the moves that were just made in Conference realignment, do you really think that the ACC dropped the ball by immediately adding UofL to the Conference? Do you really think that the ACC damaged their case against Maryland by adding UofL? Do you really think they didn't plan for this? Really?

Do you really think that their case against Maryland was more important than making FSU happy? If the ACC gambled on FSU preferring the ACC as it is to the conference move that was in reality on offer, then based on FSU pushing for the Grant of Rights, they won. They won a much bigger victory than a $52m exit fee holding up in court.

(04-25-2013 10:58 AM)Dasville Wrote:  What I am pointing out with Pitt/Syr/wvu and soon to be Rut. and UofL is that we will ALL have paid 100% of the contractual exit fee. What was negotiated was the "damage" we cause the BE by breaching the "waiting period" part of the contract.

Yes, which suggests that in the eyes of the departing schools, the $10m exit fee to leave the Old Big East, when it was still an AQ conference, would have likely held up in court, and the question in doubt is what would be reasonable damages for breaching on the advance period for notification of an exit.

But the damage done to the Old Big East would seem to be hard to dispute. They've lost most of their historical membership and their AQ status and the media contract they signed gave them as much for ten years as they were offered for one year with their previous membership.

Maryland would be on very thin ice disputing the previous exit fee, so there is a lower bound on the negotiation range. The ACC would be hard pressed to actually force Maryland to write a check, so the top end of the negotiation range would likely be two years conference distribution (the exit fee is pegged to three).

The stronger Maryland thinks their case is, the harder they'll push for an agreement closer to the lower bound, the stronger he ACC thinks their case is, the harder they'll push for the upper bound. There have been opportunities for summary dismissal, but the case is still grinding forward to being hard, so its not likely to be paper thin on either side.

As far as where its going to end up inside that bargaining range, all of you guys playing lawyer on the internet can sort out amongst yourselves, since its not going to affect the outcome by one red cent.

What $10m exit fee?

(04-25-2013 11:21 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Maryland will pay 100% of the fee deemed to be legal.

No. They won't. The B1G is ponying up $30 million of the exit fee. So at most, the Terps will only pay 40% of it...

(04-25-2013 01:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 11:21 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Maryland will pay 100% of the fee deemed to be legal.

No. They won't. The B1G is ponying up $30 million of the exit fee. So at most, the Terps will only pay 40% of it...

Just like the Big 12 helping wvu pay their negotiated $20m ($5m + 3x$5m for damages), as far as the ACC is concerned, MD has to hand over the FULL amount, no more, no less.

(04-23-2013 11:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm thinking many of you didn't pass 1L contracts.

You can have a "penalty" for breaching a contract but the penalty has to be reasonable and bear some relationship to the financial loss and costs of the breach.

The ACC set $50 million as an arbitary number to deter anyone from leaving. The number is unreasobaly high in comparison to the damages experienced.

The ACC is gaining income with Maryland's departure.

No way $50 million survives. If it goes to court the ACC won't get remotely close to that number. To avoid the time and expense involved it will almost certainly settle. My guess is it will be $20 million (amount paid by Big 10) plus attorney fees and costs of the ACC.

Look, I don't personally represent athletic conferences or universities.

But, my law firm represents the Superdome Commission (Superdome, New Orleans Arena, Zephyr Field) in New Orleans and the Tiger Athletic Foundation and the LSU Foundation in Baton Rouge.

I have also been a litigator for over 26 years. So, my guess is that (since over 95% of all civil cases settle because litigants don't like to leave their fate in the hands of 12 strangers), this case will settle fairly quickly (within 4-6 months).

It is not because the parties "fear discovery". That is a hugely overblown idea.

It is because this litigation is largely irrelevant now that the ACC has signed a GOR and because trials are a huge gamble and a huge, stressful pain in the ass (plus very expensive).

I still say it will settle at between $25-27 million or so. But, hell, just is just a semi-literate, semi-educated guess on my part.

I am fairly sure that it will settle. I am not as certain on the $$ number.

I understand this is a guess, but what is the logic behind the estimate? What is the starting point where there is no opinion involved?

(04-25-2013 02:30 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I understand this is a guess, but what is the logic behind the estimate? What is the starting point where there is no opinion involved?

Agree. I haven't seen anyone really weigh on the vote's technical violations per the bylaws. What I see is more along the lines of "well, these things are almost always settled..."

Is there a case out there where a) the vote itself was procedurally completely botched; b) the liquidated damages specified were completely unsubstantiated and unprecedented; c) later action showed actual damages to be about zero ?

I hope Maryland wins the lawsuit just for one reason. The ACC was the conference that started this realignment craziness when they decided they wanted Miami and in that process they killed the entire Big East in a span of a decade. The ACC is the last conference that can scream "damage" after all the things they've done.

Go Maryland!!!!!

(04-25-2013 02:51 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 02:30 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I understand this is a guess, but what is the logic behind the estimate? What is the starting point where there is no opinion involved?

Agree. I haven't seen anyone really weigh on the vote's technical violations per the bylaws. What I see is more along the lines of "well, these things are almost always settled..."

Is there a case out there where a) the vote itself was procedurally completely botched; b) the liquidated damages specified were completely unsubstantiated and unprecedented; c) later action showed actual damages to be about zero ?

That doesn't matter. It hinges on how it looked at the time that agreement was made.

(04-23-2013 11:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm thinking many of you didn't pass 1L contracts.

You can have a "penalty" for breaching a contract but the penalty has to be reasonable and bear some relationship to the financial loss and costs of the breach.

The ACC set $50 million as an arbitary number to deter anyone from leaving. The number is unreasobaly high in comparison to the damages experienced.

It is a voluntary membership organization with members agreeing to be subject to commonly agreed to by laws, so its not the simplest of contractual settings.

That's why Maryland appeals to anti-trust law in its side of the fight. Plus claiming violation of due process under the bylaws.

(04-25-2013 02:30 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I understand this is a guess, but what is the logic behind the estimate? What is the starting point where there is no opinion involved?

It seems unlikely that Maryland could avoid the prior exit fee, which I'd heard to be around $20m. It seems unlikely that the ACC could actually force Maryland to write a check, so there are upwards of two years of ACC conference distributions to draw from. The $52m value flung around is representing a by-law that sets the exit fee at three years total conference payout, so that says the conference payout (this is more than media income, it includes NCAA units and other revenues sources) is ~$17.3m. So two year's withheld distributions would be about $35m.

Halfway between $20m and $35m is around $27m. If the prior exit fee was pegged at one year's full conference distribution, the mid-point might be a little lower, $25m-$26m.

Its just a back of the envelope guess, but when you don't know the details of the balance of power inside negotiations, the middle of the negotiating range is as good a guess as any.

(04-25-2013 03:00 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I hope Maryland wins the lawsuit just for one reason. The ACC was the conference that started this realignment craziness when they decided they wanted Miami and in that process they killed the entire Big East in a span of a decade. The ACC is the last conference that can scream "damage" after all the things they've done.

Go Maryland!!!!!

Pretty sure the SEC took South Carolina and Arkansas before the ACC took Miami.

(04-25-2013 04:27 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 03:00 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I hope Maryland wins the lawsuit just for one reason. The ACC was the conference that started this realignment craziness when they decided they wanted Miami and in that process they killed the entire Big East in a span of a decade. The ACC is the last conference that can scream "damage" after all the things they've done.

Go Maryland!!!!!

Pretty sure the SEC took South Carolina and Arkansas before the ACC took Miami.

That was back in the early 90's. South Carolina was an indy when they joined the SEC as was Penn State when they joined the Big Ten. Arkansas was in the SWC. The SWC died in the process and it was a quite decade with no movements (unless you count the WAC-16 split and the formation of C-USA and the MWC).

I'm not criticizing the ACC for expanding. Each conference has to look for their own interests. But I find it ironic that the ACC is holding Maryland accountable in going to the Big Ten when they (ACC) didn't think twice to raid the Big East. The ACC basically killed a power conference (Big East), they only lost one school (so far) while they added 6 former Big East schools in a decade and it'll become the best basketball league. That's why I hope Maryland wins the lawsuit.

(04-25-2013 04:37 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 04:27 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 03:00 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I hope Maryland wins the lawsuit just for one reason. The ACC was the conference that started this realignment craziness when they decided they wanted Miami and in that process they killed the entire Big East in a span of a decade. The ACC is the last conference that can scream "damage" after all the things they've done.

Go Maryland!!!!!

Pretty sure the SEC took South Carolina and Arkansas before the ACC took Miami.

That was back in the early 90's. South Carolina was an indy when they joined the SEC as was Penn State when they joined the Big Ten. Arkansas was in the SWC. The SWC died in the process and it was a quite decade with no movements (unless you count the WAC-16 split and the formation of C-USA and the MWC).

I'm not criticizing the ACC for expanding. Each conference has to look for their own interests. But I find it ironic that the ACC is holding Maryland accountable in going to the Big Ten when they (ACC) didn't think twice to raid the Big East. The ACC basically killed a power conference (Big East), they only lost one school (so far) while they added 6 former Big East schools in a decade and it'll become the best basketball league. That's why I hope Maryland wins the lawsuit.

The NCAA killed The Big East when they put in a random rule requiring 12 teams to hold a conference championship game. Maybe the Big East killed itself because it could not offer teams what the ACC offered them.

Did the Big East schools heading to the ACC break their contractual agreements? I don't know the answer but I doubt it since it's taken a couple years to get them on board.