http://www.dailymail.com/news/Sports/200...format=prn

EDITED to paste article

Legal fees in Big East
lawsuit top $2 million

Mickey Furfari
For the Daily Mail



Friday June 16, 2006
MORGANTOWN -- West Virginia University revealed Thursday that its share of legal costs in the Big East-Atlantic Coast Conference lawsuits was $2,299,658.20.

That's nearly $1.3 million more than the institution received in compensation when the matter was settled out of court on April 27, 2005.

WVU joined Connecticut, Pittsburgh and Rutgers universities in the suit against the University of Miami, Boston College and the ACC in June 2003.

Virginia Tech, initially a party in that litigation, was allowed to withdraw after bolting the Big East along with Miami to join the ACC on July 1, 2004.

BC left the Big East for the ACC a year later.

The four plaintiff schools generally accused Miami and Boston College of conspiracy aimed at weakening the Big East football league.

It was reported that the four schools were paid $4 million in the settlement, with each receiving about $1 million.

In all, three different lawsuits were hanging during the bitter battle between the two conferences. Both sides decided to drop all litigation a little more than a year ago.

The plaintiffs and defendants reportedly agreed privately not to make the settlement public. But the news leaked out in a Connecticut newspaper and spread nationally.

At that time WVU spokesperson Becky Lofstead issued a statement saying the litigation had cost the institution $2,183,036.

However, she said bills still were coming in. Representing the Big East schools was the New York City law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Mesgher & Flom.

The figure released Thursday is considered WVU's bottom-line cost.

Lofstead said WVU officials believe it was well worth the staggering legal fees, which were paid from a central administrative discretionary fund - not by the athletic department.

"These actions were pursued as part of a larger effort to ensure that Big East membership would remain strong and stable," the prepared statement read.

"While the legal costs were high, the athletic programs at WVU and other Big East schools were at significant risk.

"We believe our position today as a conference and school justify the cost, especially given the importance of WVU athletics in our institution, our community and our state.

"West Virginia's sports programs remain strong, and we appreciate the backing we have had from our fans and our Board of Governors."

In some ways, suit wasn?t a lost cause

http://wvgazette.com/section/Sports/2006061924

June 20, 2006
Dave Hickman

MORGANTOWN - Let's talk about this $2.3 million.

That's the final tab that West Virginia, Connecticut, Pitt and Rutgers paid - each - for legal representation in a suit against Miami, Boston College and the Atlantic Coast Conference. It was a largely failed suit, given that the parties were asking for far more than the pittance they received after two years of haggling.

Or did it fail? Well, perhaps that?s a matter of opinion. And it's one worth delving into given that $2.3 million is no small change.

West Virginia officials revealed last week that their part of the costs for the suit were a staggering $2,299,658.20. For the sake of simplicity, we?ll throw in the other $341.80 and round it up to $2.3 million.

From a purely bottom-line point of view, yes, it was a miserable failure. The four schools settled out of court just over a year ago for a reported $4 million, or $1 million each. That still leaves a deficit of $1.3 million per school.

There are some extraneous factors here, though, that beg to be dealt with. On some of them you can put a price tag, on others you can't.

For starters, part of the settlement was also a series of nine future football games between Big East and ACC schools between 2008 and 2012. In West Virginia's case it's a two-game, home-and-home set with Florida State. Pitt plays a home game with Miami and a home-and-home with N.C. State. Rutgers has a home-and-home with North Carolina and Connecticut the same with Virginia.

Does that make up $1.3 million per school? No, but it makes up a good chunk of it and here's why.

We've talked about the problems West Virginia and other Big East schools are having filling out 12-game schedules. Conferences made up of schools with far bigger stadiums and budgets (especially the SEC and Big Ten) are pricing the Big East out by paying guarantees approaching $1 million for the requisite buy-in games.

Granted, the buy-in games will still be needed and for the Big East will still be a problem. But at least once (or twice in Pitt's case) league teams are being handed home games against quality BCS opponents for a guarantee of $150,000 (stipulated in the settlement). Do the math. The guarantee is perhaps $300,000 less (than what the going rate will be by then) and the gate will be perhaps $600,000 more (15,000 extra tickets at $40 per seat by then) than for a buy-in game. Now add in a virtually certain television appearance fee and most of that $1.3 million has been made up in just one home game.

What you can't put a price tag on is the Big East getting nine non-conference BCS games handed to it. Remember, the mantra of this rebuilding football conference is to schedule quality games and start winning some of them. Getting those games was a huge piece of the puzzle.

That's not all the suit brought. At least in some small part, the mere effort of trying to protect itself in court sent at least a signal that these leftovers weren't going to just roll over and die. Perception sometimes is everything. Would Cincinnati, Louisville and South Florida have so willingly signed up to expand the football side of the league had its remaining core members shown no signs of putting up a fight? Perhaps, but they had to admire the pluck, even if it seemed, from a purely legal standpoint, rather misguided.

I suppose the bottom line questions here are these:

Is West Virginia and the Big East better off because of those $1 million settlements and a series of quality non-conference games?
Was it worth a current net loss of $1.3 million per school to do it?
Well, if you look at the $1.3 million simply as a one-time expenditure, no, it wasn't worth it. And you'll be hard pressed to find an accountant who can make it look like anything but wasted money, given that the actual payback in the form of revenue from those court-mandated Big East-ACC games won't show up for years to come.

But while both sides will benefit fairly equally from those games from a financial standpoint, the Big East needed them a lot more than the ACC. The league's very football future hinges on playing games like that and proving it can win them.

That the ACC was forced to provide them with the forum to do so is, like the credit card commercial, priceless.

To contact staff writer Dave Hickman send e-mail to http://mailto:dphickman1@aol.com or call (304) 348-1734.