We shall see, lumber dude...

what will be interesting is if it goes to the 4th circuit, rules in favor of Maryland. Isn't the ACC then almost forced to take to the Supreme Court?

This is why I don't see it even getting to court. For Maryland, there is some harm in a loss. But for the ACC(or other conferences outside the SEC/Big Ten quite frankly)- a loss- and it's devastating. Especially if someone challenges the GOR and wins.

Question for the panel:


What is the difference between a schools value (revenue) to the conference and the damage a school causes a conference by leaving it?

(09-26-2013 01:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what will be interesting is if it goes to the 4th circuit, rules in favor of Maryland. Isn't the ACC then almost forced to take to the Supreme Court?

This is why I don't see it even getting to court. For Maryland, there is some harm in a loss. But for the ACC(or other conferences outside the SEC/Big Ten quite frankly)- a loss- and it's devastating. Especially if someone challenges the GOR and wins.

The ACC's GoR is not being tested in this case. It does not concern Maryland and Maryland is not a party to it.

(09-26-2013 01:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what will be interesting is if it goes to the 4th circuit, rules in favor of Maryland. Isn't the ACC then almost forced to take to the Supreme Court?

This is why I don't see it even getting to court. For Maryland, there is some harm in a loss. But for the ACC(or other conferences outside the SEC/Big Ten quite frankly)- a loss- and it's devastating. Especially if someone challenges the GOR and wins.

Look at the 4th circuit bench.

Where you read Wofford, just plug in Clemson. Then you will fully understand UM's predicament. They can't win at the 4th Circuit. UM has to go to the Supreme Court and the B10 will not want that to happen.

(09-26-2013 01:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Question for the panel:


What is the difference between a schools value (revenue) to the conference and the damage a school causes a conference by leaving it?

Revenue is much less than value. Value includes intrinsic and difficult to quantify things. Revenue is cash.

Right now the only revenue that FSU or UNC bring into the ACC is measured by their one/14th or one/15th share of the conference TV contract plus their NCAA revenues. However their real value includes their effect on TV viewship when they play, how they fill stadiums for other teams, the access they provide to Florida and NC for recruiting, the media attention they garner, how they help keep competitors out the market, etc., etc.

If the ACC contract is worth say $300 million a year, then FSU and UNC would represent a value of $50-60 million each. Maryland has one of the next highest values to the ACC. Wake Forest has the lowest value as they represent a fourth footprint in the same market already held or represented by UNC, NC State, and Duke. MD's value to the ACC is fairly high.

If I were a civil procedure professor, this would be my exam question.

just looking-
4th circuit has
3 judges from Maryland
1 from northern VA
2 from West Virginia
2 others from Virginia outside of Charlottesville

that there are 8 judges. Only 3 North Carolina and 3 South Carolina judges...

(09-26-2013 01:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  just looking-
4th circuit has
3 judges from Maryland
1 from northern VA
2 from West Virginia
2 others from Virginia outside of Charlottesville

that there are 8 judges. Only 3 North Carolina and 3 South Carolina judges...

You need to also correlate where they went to school, all levels

So our very confident ACC legal analyst says Maryland will pay $34 million at most, or the path to collecting more than that will be considerably difficult. I believe our more neutral legal analyst Terry put it at something like $27 million. But the consensus is it will not be the actual $52 million exit fee, right? Which was the whole point of paying attention to this trial.

(09-26-2013 01:58 PM)justinslot Wrote:  So our very confident ACC legal analyst says Maryland will pay $34 million at most, or the path to collecting more than that will be considerably difficult. I believe our more neutral legal analyst Terry put it at something like $27 million. But the consensus is it will not be the actual $52 million exit fee, right? Which was the whole point of paying attention to this trial.

Terry's estimate is based on a settlement. Mine is not, mine is based solely on how much I think the ACC will be holding at June 30, 2014. However, given the difficulty of potential collections, you can see how that's a defacto settlement. I think the differential is tied to the route of the NCAA funds, if they all pass through the ACC office, the ACC will take them. Total distributions for FY 12/13 were about $19 mil IIRC. That's TV and NCAA funds. This year that should be $23-$24 or so. My understanding is the ACC got $12 million from them last year, and that the number was quoted in the Washington Post. That would mean the ACC should be able to get $23-$24 this year for a total of $35 or so million, plus or minus (ACC funds are distributed monthly IIRC).

As to the actual exit fee, I don't know if it's 3X on the notice date or 3X on the exit date. If the notice date, MD would owe $57 million, if the exit date, they would owe $69-72 million.

(09-26-2013 10:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:16 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 09:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  last 2 paragraphs very interesting:
If a settlement isn't reached, the dispute could have a lasting influence by setting a guidepost on how athletic conferences can enforce unity, Duke University's Haagen said. Courts will have to decide whether the ACC exit provision was set by estimating the damages to other schools when conference members depart, or is an illegal penalty clause, he said. For example, while a home construction contract with a builder can make the builder responsible for hotel bills if the job isn't done by an expected date, it can't seek to simply punish the builder with an extreme penalty, Haagen said.

"Here the amounts are very high. Is it really what the ACC and other institutions will lose as a result of losing Maryland in terms of scheduling, planning, damage to the brand?" Haagen said. "Or, is this an attempt to hold them in or punish them for leaving that has nothing to do with the actual harm suffered?"

This case needs to be taken out of NC court.
That is a total JOKE.

How would you do that????

It belongs in Federal Court.
Or better than that it should be settled.
The ACC got a good taste of what they did to the BE.
The ACC cannot take it!!!!
The ACC has become the old BE Miami,bc,nd,Syracuse ,pitt,Vatech,Louisville.
They make

(09-26-2013 01:40 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Question for the panel:


What is the difference between a schools value (revenue) to the conference and the damage a school causes a conference by leaving it?

Revenue is much less than value. Value includes intrinsic and difficult to quantify things. Revenue is cash.

Right now the only revenue that FSU or UNC bring into the ACC is measured by their one/14th or one/15th share of the conference TV contract plus their NCAA revenues. However their real value includes their effect on TV viewship when they play, how they fill stadiums for other teams, the access they provide to Florida and NC for recruiting, the media attention they garner, how they help keep competitors out the market, etc., etc.

If the ACC contract is worth say $300 million a year, then FSU and UNC would represent a value of $50-60 million each. Maryland has one of the next highest values to the ACC. Wake Forest has the lowest value as they represent a fourth footprint in the same market already held or represented by UNC, NC State, and Duke. MD's value to the ACC is fairly high.

Totally agree with your statements regarding value vs revenue. The point of my question was to illustrate Maryland's hypocrisy. Maryland voted for a shared revenue plan when it benefited them and is arguing against a shared exit fee when it does not. If they successfully argue that their loss to the ACC is unique and should be calculated independently, then they should have argued the same for their revenue share.

Without dragging other conferences into this, can we all agree that different schools have not only different value and revenue impact on a conference but also different degrees of damage they can cause a conference. That Maryland voted for an equal revenue distribution $ should also be seen as a vote for an equal exit fee amount.


They voted time and time again that they are equal to every other member of the ACC until it comes time that they want to leave. Now they are arguing that they are different.

(09-26-2013 02:51 PM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:16 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 09:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  last 2 paragraphs very interesting:
If a settlement isn't reached, the dispute could have a lasting influence by setting a guidepost on how athletic conferences can enforce unity, Duke University's Haagen said. Courts will have to decide whether the ACC exit provision was set by estimating the damages to other schools when conference members depart, or is an illegal penalty clause, he said. For example, while a home construction contract with a builder can make the builder responsible for hotel bills if the job isn't done by an expected date, it can't seek to simply punish the builder with an extreme penalty, Haagen said.

"Here the amounts are very high. Is it really what the ACC and other institutions will lose as a result of losing Maryland in terms of scheduling, planning, damage to the brand?" Haagen said. "Or, is this an attempt to hold them in or punish them for leaving that has nothing to do with the actual harm suffered?"

This case needs to be taken out of NC court.
That is a total JOKE.

How would you do that????

It belongs in Federal Court.
Or better than that it should be settled.
The ACC got a good taste of what they did to the BE.
The ACC cannot take it!!!!
The ACC has become the old BE Miami,bc,nd,Syracuse ,pitt,Vatech,Louisville.
They make

Well, right now it is in North Carolina state court. It has to, if needed, work its way through the NC trial court, appellate court and state supreme court.

(09-26-2013 02:59 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:40 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Question for the panel:


What is the difference between a schools value (revenue) to the conference and the damage a school causes a conference by leaving it?

Revenue is much less than value. Value includes intrinsic and difficult to quantify things. Revenue is cash.

Right now the only revenue that FSU or UNC bring into the ACC is measured by their one/14th or one/15th share of the conference TV contract plus their NCAA revenues. However their real value includes their effect on TV viewship when they play, how they fill stadiums for other teams, the access they provide to Florida and NC for recruiting, the media attention they garner, how they help keep competitors out the market, etc., etc.

If the ACC contract is worth say $300 million a year, then FSU and UNC would represent a value of $50-60 million each. Maryland has one of the next highest values to the ACC. Wake Forest has the lowest value as they represent a fourth footprint in the same market already held or represented by UNC, NC State, and Duke. MD's value to the ACC is fairly high.

Totally agree with your statements regarding value vs revenue. The point of my question was to illustrate Maryland's hypocrisy. Maryland voted for a shared revenue plan when it benefited them and is arguing against a shared exit fee when it does not. If they successfully argue that their loss to the ACC is unique and should be calculated independently, then they should have argued the same for their revenue share.

Without dragging other conferences into this, can we all agree that different schools have not only different value and revenue impact on a conference but also different degrees of damage they can cause a conference. That Maryland voted for an equal revenue distribution $ should also be seen as a vote for an equal exit fee amount.


They voted time and time again that they are equal to every other member of the ACC until it comes time that they want to leave. Now they are arguing that they are different.

You are quite correct and that's why the GOR's are written the way they are - to settle a GOR, you have to pay out to the conference based on your value.

That's why Texas would likely have the highest GOR payment to get out the B12 compared to any other school in the nation - if UNC is say - 15% of the value of the ACC (and they are) then Texas is probably 20% of the value of the B12, if not 25-30%.

Loh has played this as bad as it could be played. I was told that Maryland was supposed to stay in place at least until the June 30, 2013 and that was tied to the 16th team.

The only scenario that makes any sense related to that and MD in particular would be Penn State. Meaning that Maryland would have essentially blown up PSU to the ACC. It's possible. Perhaps one day we will see a deposition.

(09-26-2013 03:44 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:51 PM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:16 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 09:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  last 2 paragraphs very interesting:
If a settlement isn't reached, the dispute could have a lasting influence by setting a guidepost on how athletic conferences can enforce unity, Duke University's Haagen said. Courts will have to decide whether the ACC exit provision was set by estimating the damages to other schools when conference members depart, or is an illegal penalty clause, he said. For example, while a home construction contract with a builder can make the builder responsible for hotel bills if the job isn't done by an expected date, it can't seek to simply punish the builder with an extreme penalty, Haagen said.

"Here the amounts are very high. Is it really what the ACC and other institutions will lose as a result of losing Maryland in terms of scheduling, planning, damage to the brand?" Haagen said. "Or, is this an attempt to hold them in or punish them for leaving that has nothing to do with the actual harm suffered?"

This case needs to be taken out of NC court.
That is a total JOKE.

How would you do that????

It belongs in Federal Court.
Or better than that it should be settled.
The ACC got a good taste of what they did to the BE.
The ACC cannot take it!!!!
The ACC has become the old BE Miami,bc,nd,Syracuse ,pitt,Vatech,Louisville.
They make

Well, right now it is in North Carolina state court. It has to, if needed, work its way through the NC trial court, appellate court and state supreme court.

A Biased nc court system hardly makes for a fair justice system.There are 4 NC schools in the ACC .How many of the judges went to law school in the ACC?

(09-26-2013 07:29 PM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 03:44 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:51 PM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:16 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  This case needs to be taken out of NC court.
That is a total JOKE.

How would you do that????

It belongs in Federal Court.
Or better than that it should be settled.
The ACC got a good taste of what they did to the BE.
The ACC cannot take it!!!!
The ACC has become the old BE Miami,bc,nd,Syracuse ,pitt,Vatech,Louisville.
They make

Well, right now it is in North Carolina state court. It has to, if needed, work its way through the NC trial court, appellate court and state supreme court.

A Biased nc court system hardly makes for a fair justice system.There are 4 NC schools in the ACC .How many of the judges went to law school in the ACC?

52 - all thee judges on the panel are UNC-Ch boys. How could it be otherwise

Now when you say biased, are you asserting that South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, or Virginia judges would be more fair to Maryland? This is America you know.

It seems that the language of the settlement/opinion of the court, is just as important as the $ collected.

(09-26-2013 08:46 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 07:29 PM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 03:44 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:51 PM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  How would you do that????

It belongs in Federal Court.
Or better than that it should be settled.
The ACC got a good taste of what they did to the BE.
The ACC cannot take it!!!!
The ACC has become the old BE Miami,bc,nd,Syracuse ,pitt,Vatech,Louisville.
They make

Well, right now it is in North Carolina state court. It has to, if needed, work its way through the NC trial court, appellate court and state supreme court.

A Biased nc court system hardly makes for a fair justice system.There are 4 NC schools in the ACC .How many of the judges went to law school in the ACC?

52 - all thee judges on the panel are UNC-Ch boys. How could it be otherwise

Now when you say biased, are you asserting that South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, or Virginia judges would be more fair to Maryland? This is America you know.

Thats why their judgement is completely biased.

You need a Federal question or complete diversity of citizenship to file a suit in Federal court.

You have to have all plaintiffs and all defendants to be citizens of different states (diversity of citizenship) or you have to have a Federal question (U.S. Constitution, Federal statute, etc..).

Otherwise, Federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. They are courts of limited jurisdiction.

State courts are courts of general jurisdiction over the subject matter.

To have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in state court, that person/entity has to have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the state (do business there, etc..) and you have to serve the defendant with the lawsuit.

If you are a defendant in state court, you can try to remove the case to Federal court.

Besides the requirements of complete diversity of citizenship or a Federal question, you only have thirty days from when you are served with the state court lawsuit to file your removal action.

If you don't have diversity or a Federal question, and/or you don't remove it within thirty days of service, you are stuck in state court for the duration of the state court lawsuit.