I have never understood the disdain that people have for Wake Forest. They always had decent Basketball and even the Football has made a BCS Bowl. They even beat out Kentucky a few times in Basketball recruiting over the years for some players. WF is a respected team player in the ACC and is a good example for why the ACC will stay together.

(02-13-2014 08:09 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I have never understood the disdain that people have for Wake Forest. They always had decent Basketball and even the Football has made a BCS Bowl. They even beat out Kentucky a few times in Basketball recruiting over the years for some players. WF is a respected team player in the ACC and is a good example for why the ACC will stay together.

Pretty similiar to Uconn's resume minus the whole 3 national championships thing, yet folks are more than happy to say UConn is where they belong.

If the ACC were to ever fold WF would not find a home in a power conference. They are simply a P5 school by association. That is why there is disdain.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree UConn, Cincinnati, USF, UCF, Houston and Memphis all should be in P5 conferences. All offer Something of Value.

(02-13-2014 08:23 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:09 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I have never understood the disdain that people have for Wake Forest. They always had decent Basketball and even the Football has made a BCS Bowl. They even beat out Kentucky a few times in Basketball recruiting over the years for some players. WF is a respected team player in the ACC and is a good example for why the ACC will stay together.

Pretty similiar to Uconn's resume minus the whole 3 national championships thing, yet folks are more than happy to say UConn is where they belong.

If the ACC were to ever fold WF would not find a home in a power conference. They are simply a P5 school by association. That is why there is disdain.

With all due respect, IMO, Uconn has largely itself to blame for its situation. Wake Forest has been paying FB at the highest level for DECADES. Uconn made the decision to jump to the FBS level only in the past 15 years or so. IMO, Uconn was late to the party and that has consequences. Add to this was Uconn taking what was clear to many to be the leading role in a nasty and contentious lawsuit against the ACC, Miami, and BC - not a great way to make friends and build alliances, wouldn't you agree? Let me ask you, do you think that if Uconn knew then what it knows now, would they have supported the launch of that lawsuit?

(02-13-2014 09:58 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:23 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:09 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I have never understood the disdain that people have for Wake Forest. They always had decent Basketball and even the Football has made a BCS Bowl. They even beat out Kentucky a few times in Basketball recruiting over the years for some players. WF is a respected team player in the ACC and is a good example for why the ACC will stay together.

Pretty similiar to Uconn's resume minus the whole 3 national championships thing, yet folks are more than happy to say UConn is where they belong.

If the ACC were to ever fold WF would not find a home in a power conference. They are simply a P5 school by association. That is why there is disdain.

With all due respect, IMO, Uconn has largely itself to blame for its situation. Wake Forest has been paying FB at the highest level for DECADES. Uconn made the decision to jump to the FBS level only in the past 15 years or so. IMO, Uconn was late to the party and that has consequences. Add to this was Uconn taking what was clear to many to be the leading role in a nasty and contentious lawsuit against the ACC, Miami, and BC - not a great way to make friends and build alliances, wouldn't you agree? Let me ask you, do you think that if Uconn knew then what it knows now, would they have supported the launch of that lawsuit?

The lawsuit was fine. There have been suits involved in every move thus far. The school/state had just invested 100 million dollars into the move to the Big East after being asked by the conference to do so. The problem was the AG agreeing to allow Connecticut to be the venue. Pitt was understood by many to be the leader in the process at the time, yet they are in the ACC. Virginia Tech was a plaintiff, yet they are in the ACC.

Looking back it reflects poorly on UConn as everyone remembers Blumenthal using the lawsuit to boost his political ambitions and taking a center stage in things.

If the lawsuit really mattered, both Pitt and Virginia Tech would not be the in the ACC.

EDIT: also, I have no idea how my comment you responded to prompted the rehashing of this garbage, but if that is the road you want to go down so be it.

(02-12-2014 04:29 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why wouldn't a court agree on that deal when it is the deal the school freely made?

I wouldn't want to be the lawyer for a school going before a judge to argue that "Yes, we signed this deal but please don't let that conference enforce such an unfair, unconscionable deal!".

If I were the judge I'd look at that lawyer like he was batsh*t crazy.

For the same reason why they don't uphold "non-compete" clauses that says you can't work in the same industry. Happens all the time. Pretty much every company has dropped the whole "non-compete" clause as part of hiring because it isn't enforceable. They've changed it to not allowing you to active seek out coworkers at your new job (but even that is a grey area as to whether it would hold up).

Actually, non-compete clauses are common and upheld all the time.

But in any event, a GOR agreement seems to bear little resemblance to a non-compete clause. I wonder what kind of argument could be made to break one? Seem like open and shut cases.

(02-13-2014 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, non-compete clauses are upheld all the time.

But a GOR agreement seems to bear little resemblance to a non-compete clause.

If it states that you cannot work in a certain industry then no, it is not upheld. You cannot keep an entity from earning. That simple... you can keep a person from contacting customers for a certain amount of time, but you cannot keep them from contacting your former employee. Once again, you cannot keep a person/entity from earning.

(02-13-2014 09:08 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Oh I wholeheartedly agree UConn, Cincinnati, USF, UCF, Houston and Memphis all should be in P5 conferences. All offer Something of Value.

But do they add $30m a year in value? Probably not close to that.

(02-13-2014 10:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, non-compete clauses are upheld all the time.

But a GOR agreement seems to bear little resemblance to a non-compete clause.

If it states that you cannot work in a certain industry then no, it is not upheld. You cannot keep an entity from earning. That simple... you can keep a person from contacting customers for a certain amount of time, but you cannot keep them from contacting your former employee. Once again, you cannot keep a person/entity from earning.

Non-competes are generally thrown out only if they don't meet "reasonableness" tests, like if they are not limited in geographic scope and have unlimited time durations. But non-competes that are limited in those areas are routinely upheld. For example, I sign a contract as an anchorman of a Tampa TV station, and the non-compete says I can never quit to work for any other TV station anywhere for the rest of my life? That won't be upheld.

But if it says I can't quit to work for another TV station within 100 miles of Tampa for 2 years after I quit, then those types are routinely upheld by courts.

And anyway, a GOR seems to have little similarity. It is simply the sale of a school's media rights to a conference for a limited number of years. Such sales of all kinds of things happen all the time.

(02-13-2014 09:58 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:23 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:09 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I have never understood the disdain that people have for Wake Forest. They always had decent Basketball and even the Football has made a BCS Bowl. They even beat out Kentucky a few times in Basketball recruiting over the years for some players. WF is a respected team player in the ACC and is a good example for why the ACC will stay together.

Pretty similiar to Uconn's resume minus the whole 3 national championships thing, yet folks are more than happy to say UConn is where they belong.

If the ACC were to ever fold WF would not find a home in a power conference. They are simply a P5 school by association. That is why there is disdain.

With all due respect, IMO, Uconn has largely itself to blame for its situation. Wake Forest has been paying FB at the highest level for DECADES. Uconn made the decision to jump to the FBS level only in the past 15 years or so. IMO, Uconn was late to the party and that has consequences. Add to this was Uconn taking what was clear to many to be the leading role in a nasty and contentious lawsuit against the ACC, Miami, and BC - not a great way to make friends and build alliances, wouldn't you agree? Let me ask you, do you think that if Uconn knew then what it knows now, would they have supported the launch of that lawsuit?

That's very accurate. To be fair though, UCONN has also almost equaled Wake's decades and decades of FBS football success despite only playing FBS for those 15 years. On the basketball court, there really is no comparison. In terms of having your own market and a large fan-base, UCONN also surpasses.

Late to the party? Yes. Unintelligent lawsuits? Yes. UCONN in a P5 conference? It looks unlikely, but the jury's still out. UCONN will make the best of its situation and continue to have success even if it's in the G5.

My biggest issue with these kind of P5 vs G5 arguments is when schools in the P5, who just recently got in or have been a status quo member for quite some time, take shots at other G5 schools. Yes, we get it...you're in and we're out. You're making tons of money, and we're not. That doesn't change the fact that UCONN has a successful athletics program and is a top-notch university in a great market with a large fan-base. There are a good amount of P5 schools that can't say the same.

And you remove their ability to earn. It will be challenged at some point... will it hold up? We shall see. I'm guessing not for 10 years at a time... maybe for 1 or 2 years. If the TV contract doesn't drop when said school leaves (and its inventory, which has been the case every time a school has switched conferences in the past) then I'm guessing that the GOR will not be validated due to no damages to the rest of the league.

(02-13-2014 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, non-compete clauses are upheld all the time.

But a GOR agreement seems to bear little resemblance to a non-compete clause.

If it states that you cannot work in a certain industry then no, it is not upheld. You cannot keep an entity from earning. That simple... you can keep a person from contacting customers for a certain amount of time, but you cannot keep them from contacting your former employee. Once again, you cannot keep a person/entity from earning.

Non-competes are generally thrown out only if they don't meet "reasonableness" tests, like if they are not limited in geographic scope and have unlimited time durations. But non-competes that are limited in those areas are routinely upheld. For example, I sign a contract as an anchorman of a Tampa TV station, and the non-compete says I can never quit to work for any other TV station anywhere for the rest of my life? That won't be upheld.

But if it says I can't quit to work for another TV station within 100 miles of Tampa for 2 years after I quit, then those types are routinely upheld by courts.

And anyway, a GOR seems to have little similarity. It is simply the sale of a school's media rights to a conference for a limited number of years. Such sales of all kinds of things happen all the time.

How a GOR doesn't hold up:

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...rights.php

(02-13-2014 10:11 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:58 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:23 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:09 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I have never understood the disdain that people have for Wake Forest. They always had decent Basketball and even the Football has made a BCS Bowl. They even beat out Kentucky a few times in Basketball recruiting over the years for some players. WF is a respected team player in the ACC and is a good example for why the ACC will stay together.

Pretty similiar to Uconn's resume minus the whole 3 national championships thing, yet folks are more than happy to say UConn is where they belong.

If the ACC were to ever fold WF would not find a home in a power conference. They are simply a P5 school by association. That is why there is disdain.

With all due respect, IMO, Uconn has largely itself to blame for its situation. Wake Forest has been paying FB at the highest level for DECADES. Uconn made the decision to jump to the FBS level only in the past 15 years or so. IMO, Uconn was late to the party and that has consequences. Add to this was Uconn taking what was clear to many to be the leading role in a nasty and contentious lawsuit against the ACC, Miami, and BC - not a great way to make friends and build alliances, wouldn't you agree? Let me ask you, do you think that if Uconn knew then what it knows now, would they have supported the launch of that lawsuit?

The lawsuit was fine. There have been suits involved in every move thus far. The school/state had just invested 100 million dollars into the move to the Big East after being asked by the conference to do so. The problem was the AG agreeing to allow Connecticut to be the venue. Pitt was understood by many to be the leader in the process at the time, yet they are in the ACC. Virginia Tech was a plaintiff, yet they are in the ACC.

Looking back it reflects poorly on UConn as everyone remembers Blumenthal using the lawsuit to boost his political ambitions and taking a center stage in things.

If the lawsuit really mattered, both Pitt and Virginia Tech would not be the in the ACC.

EDIT: also, I have no idea how my comment you responded to prompted the rehashing of this garbage, but if that is the road you want to go down so be it.

Hank, I was responding to your comment about their being "disdain" over the fact that WF is in a P5 Conference and Uconn (who you used in your example - I assume because you are a Uconn fan) was not. I brought these issues up because, IMO they reflect two decisions made by Uconn which negatively impacted them in the realignment saga (again, IMO).

I am sorry, but the lawsuit DID have an impact, IMO. Sure, there were many other issues, but this was a factor, I believe. I also think you minimize the nastiness that was a big part of this lawsuit. Sure, there have been other lawsuits, but none, I believe, where individuals were sued PERSONALLY. Also, take a look at the language used by CT state officials in their public statements. Have you ever heard any such similar statements in any of the other lawsuits? These differences, IMO, are what made this suit unique and produced, IMO, bitter feelings. This is precisely why, IMO, these other lawsuits focus on the legal issues and refrain from personal, inflammatory comments. At some point, you have to again work and deal with your legal opponents. IMO, a "scorched earth" strategy - as this suit seemed to embody - hardly seems like a productive stratgey. I think the results prove my point.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/105570

(02-13-2014 10:50 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:11 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:58 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:23 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:09 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I have never understood the disdain that people have for Wake Forest. They always had decent Basketball and even the Football has made a BCS Bowl. They even beat out Kentucky a few times in Basketball recruiting over the years for some players. WF is a respected team player in the ACC and is a good example for why the ACC will stay together.

Pretty similiar to Uconn's resume minus the whole 3 national championships thing, yet folks are more than happy to say UConn is where they belong.

If the ACC were to ever fold WF would not find a home in a power conference. They are simply a P5 school by association. That is why there is disdain.

With all due respect, IMO, Uconn has largely itself to blame for its situation. Wake Forest has been paying FB at the highest level for DECADES. Uconn made the decision to jump to the FBS level only in the past 15 years or so. IMO, Uconn was late to the party and that has consequences. Add to this was Uconn taking what was clear to many to be the leading role in a nasty and contentious lawsuit against the ACC, Miami, and BC - not a great way to make friends and build alliances, wouldn't you agree? Let me ask you, do you think that if Uconn knew then what it knows now, would they have supported the launch of that lawsuit?

The lawsuit was fine. There have been suits involved in every move thus far. The school/state had just invested 100 million dollars into the move to the Big East after being asked by the conference to do so. The problem was the AG agreeing to allow Connecticut to be the venue. Pitt was understood by many to be the leader in the process at the time, yet they are in the ACC. Virginia Tech was a plaintiff, yet they are in the ACC.

Looking back it reflects poorly on UConn as everyone remembers Blumenthal using the lawsuit to boost his political ambitions and taking a center stage in things.

If the lawsuit really mattered, both Pitt and Virginia Tech would not be the in the ACC.

EDIT: also, I have no idea how my comment you responded to prompted the rehashing of this garbage, but if that is the road you want to go down so be it.

Hank, I was responding to your comment about their being "disdain" over the fact that WF is in a P5 Conference and Uconn (who you used in your example - I assume because you are a Uconn fan) was not. I brought these issues up because, IMO they reflect two decisions made by Uconn which negatively impacted them in the realignment saga (again, IMO).

I am sorry, but the lawsuit DID have an impact, IMO. Sure, there were many other issues, but this was a factor, I believe. I also think you minimize the nastiness that was a big part of this lawsuit. Sure, there have been other lawsuits, but none, I believe, where individuals were sued PERSONALLY. Also, take a look at the language used by CT state officials in their public statements. Have you ever heard any such similar statements in any of the other lawsuits? These differences, IMO, are what made this suit unique and produced, IMO, bitter feelings. This is precisely why, IMO, these other lawsuits focus on the legal issues and refrain from personal, inflammatory comments. At some point, you have to again work and deal with your legal opponents. IMO, a "scorched earth" strategy - as this suit seemed to embody - hardly seems like a productive stratgey. I think the results prove my point.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/105570

I think the lawsuit is a convenient thing for some fans to hang their hat on to deflect the real reasons why UConn isn't in the conference. Frankly, I take GDF's comments after the Syracuse Pitt add as the exact reason UConn is not the ACC. "It was a turf thing."

The naming of individuals in a lawsuit isn't that unusual. It's stupid, but to harbor ill feelings a decade later for being personally named in a lawsuit involving 100s of millions of dollars is almost laughable, especially when those feelings are only directed at 1 of the plaintiffs.

Did any of this help UConn? No! Of course not. But the end there is just no way IMO the lawsuit is the driving force behind UConn being left out of the ACC.

If the ACC truly despised UConn because of the lawsuit, why would the reports from 2011 cite UConn as the first target with Syracuse then again last year when UMD left as Uconn being the frontrunner. If the lawsuit meant UConn was to never be accepted in the ACC then the ACC 4x4x4 committee must have missed the memo as UConn's name has come up in every expansion and if the ACC ever decides to add teams again I am sure UConn's name will come up.

(02-13-2014 10:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, non-compete clauses are upheld all the time.

But a GOR agreement seems to bear little resemblance to a non-compete clause.

If it states that you cannot work in a certain industry then no, it is not upheld. You cannot keep an entity from earning. That simple... you can keep a person from contacting customers for a certain amount of time, but you cannot keep them from contacting your former employee. Once again, you cannot keep a person/entity from earning.

Actually there is usually a requirement for geographic specificity as well. For instance I can't be prevented from working for a "competitor" if I moved cross country. Usually its a state or more accepted is a X mile radius. My last job made me sign as non-compete as part of getting laid off. However, as my attorney stepfather pointed out reading it its completely unenforceable as it contained no geographic specificity.

(02-13-2014 11:02 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:50 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:11 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:58 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:23 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  Pretty similiar to Uconn's resume minus the whole 3 national championships thing, yet folks are more than happy to say UConn is where they belong.

If the ACC were to ever fold WF would not find a home in a power conference. They are simply a P5 school by association. That is why there is disdain.

With all due respect, IMO, Uconn has largely itself to blame for its situation. Wake Forest has been paying FB at the highest level for DECADES. Uconn made the decision to jump to the FBS level only in the past 15 years or so. IMO, Uconn was late to the party and that has consequences. Add to this was Uconn taking what was clear to many to be the leading role in a nasty and contentious lawsuit against the ACC, Miami, and BC - not a great way to make friends and build alliances, wouldn't you agree? Let me ask you, do you think that if Uconn knew then what it knows now, would they have supported the launch of that lawsuit?

The lawsuit was fine. There have been suits involved in every move thus far. The school/state had just invested 100 million dollars into the move to the Big East after being asked by the conference to do so. The problem was the AG agreeing to allow Connecticut to be the venue. Pitt was understood by many to be the leader in the process at the time, yet they are in the ACC. Virginia Tech was a plaintiff, yet they are in the ACC.

Looking back it reflects poorly on UConn as everyone remembers Blumenthal using the lawsuit to boost his political ambitions and taking a center stage in things.

If the lawsuit really mattered, both Pitt and Virginia Tech would not be the in the ACC.

EDIT: also, I have no idea how my comment you responded to prompted the rehashing of this garbage, but if that is the road you want to go down so be it.

Hank, I was responding to your comment about their being "disdain" over the fact that WF is in a P5 Conference and Uconn (who you used in your example - I assume because you are a Uconn fan) was not. I brought these issues up because, IMO they reflect two decisions made by Uconn which negatively impacted them in the realignment saga (again, IMO).

I am sorry, but the lawsuit DID have an impact, IMO. Sure, there were many other issues, but this was a factor, I believe. I also think you minimize the nastiness that was a big part of this lawsuit. Sure, there have been other lawsuits, but none, I believe, where individuals were sued PERSONALLY. Also, take a look at the language used by CT state officials in their public statements. Have you ever heard any such similar statements in any of the other lawsuits? These differences, IMO, are what made this suit unique and produced, IMO, bitter feelings. This is precisely why, IMO, these other lawsuits focus on the legal issues and refrain from personal, inflammatory comments. At some point, you have to again work and deal with your legal opponents. IMO, a "scorched earth" strategy - as this suit seemed to embody - hardly seems like a productive stratgey. I think the results prove my point.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/105570

I think the lawsuit is a convenient thing for some fans to hang their hat on to deflect the real reasons why UConn isn't in the conference. Frankly, I take GDF's comments after the Syracuse Pitt add as the exact reason UConn is not the ACC. "It was a turf thing."

The naming of individuals in a lawsuit isn't that unusual. It's stupid, but to harbor ill feelings a decade later for being personally named in a lawsuit involving 100s of millions of dollars is almost laughable, especially when those feelings are only directed at 1 of the plaintiffs.

Did any of this help UConn? No! Of course not. But the end there is just no way IMO the lawsuit is the driving force behind UConn being left out of the ACC.

If the ACC truly despised UConn because of the lawsuit, why would the reports from 2011 cite UConn as the first target with Syracuse then again last year when UMD left as Uconn being the frontrunner. If the lawsuit meant UConn was to never be accepted in the ACC then the ACC 4x4x4 committee must have missed the memo as UConn's name has come up in every expansion and if the ACC ever decides to add teams again I am sure UConn's name will come up.

Hank, I don't think I said, the lawsuit was the "driving force" in Uconn not getting into the ACC, I said it was, IMO, a factor. IMO, to think otherwise is naive.

Sure, IMO, BC would vote against Uconn's inclusion as a result of "turf issues". Why is that a surprise? You don't think these same issues exist between FSU and UF? Clemson and USC? Georgia and GT? I could go on, but you get my point.

BC is only ONE VOTE in the ACC. The fact is that Uconn had not mustered the necessary votes from the other members to gain entry. I agree with you that there are other reasons for this; but come on, this is a process where every vote is critical. To think that the lawsuit was not a factor in influencing at least one vote (perhaps, Miami, IMO?) seems naive to me.

Re: the lawsuit, I don't think any of the lawsuits related to realignment involved suing individuals personally. Also, when you have CT state officials accusing the defendants in the lawsuit of committing "fraud" and participating in a "back room conspiracy, born in secrecy, founded in greed, carried out through calculated deceit"; well, to suggest that such language is not going to have a longer term impact, is naive, IMO.

I am not suggesting that this will prevent Uconn from ever, ever getting into the ACC. Sure, Uconn will be on the list of considerations when and if openings come up. However, if its an "either-or" choice, to suggest that this will not be a factor in some member's deliberations is naive, IMO.

A wise mentor of mine once offered this insight...."wherever possible, work to maintain good, positive relationships....as a general rule, try to avoid trashing someone, especially in public. You never know when you will need that person on your side and, in my experience, one never-changing fact about people - they tend to have long memories."

Something to consider.

(02-13-2014 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:08 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Oh I wholeheartedly agree UConn, Cincinnati, USF, UCF, Houston and Memphis all should be in P5 conferences. All offer Something of Value.

But do they add $30m a year in value? Probably not close to that.

This is so far off base and the complete wrong way to look at it. 90% of the schools in the P5 don't bring that kind of money when looked at in isolation. These schools make that much money because the group as a WHOLE is worth that much.

For instance, if ESPN were to go to the ACC and say 'We need you to add inventory for the ACC Network you want to start'. The ACC then added 2 teams to get to 16. All of a sudden these 2 schools are worth a lot? Not really, its all situational. Louisville wasn't worth anything to the ACC until Maryland left. Then all of a sudden they are worth a lot. You can't look at it in isolated circumstances or you're just taking a short-sighted approach.

(02-13-2014 10:39 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, non-compete clauses are upheld all the time.

But a GOR agreement seems to bear little resemblance to a non-compete clause.

If it states that you cannot work in a certain industry then no, it is not upheld. You cannot keep an entity from earning. That simple... you can keep a person from contacting customers for a certain amount of time, but you cannot keep them from contacting your former employee. Once again, you cannot keep a person/entity from earning.

Non-competes are generally thrown out only if they don't meet "reasonableness" tests, like if they are not limited in geographic scope and have unlimited time durations. But non-competes that are limited in those areas are routinely upheld. For example, I sign a contract as an anchorman of a Tampa TV station, and the non-compete says I can never quit to work for any other TV station anywhere for the rest of my life? That won't be upheld.

But if it says I can't quit to work for another TV station within 100 miles of Tampa for 2 years after I quit, then those types are routinely upheld by courts.

And anyway, a GOR seems to have little similarity. It is simply the sale of a school's media rights to a conference for a limited number of years. Such sales of all kinds of things happen all the time.

How a GOR doesn't hold up:

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...rights.php

Thanks for that link. I think where the author slips up is here:

"School X, member of Conference A who has granted its media rights to Conference A, thinks it can make more money in Conference B. So School X leaves Conference A for Conference B placing its media rights in Conference B."

I don't see how School X can "place its media rights in Conference B" when Conference A already has those rights. So rather than Conference A being in the position of having to sue school X to get those rights back, X would have to sue Conference A to get them back.

Possession is 9/10 of the law, and in this scenario it is Conference A that would have possession of the rights at the start of the dispute, and School X would be in the difficult position of having to sue to get them back so as to transfer them to Conference B. And for obvious legal reasons, B won't touch those rights until it is clear that X has in fact gotten them back from Conference A. Not only would B not want to face a lawsuit from A, but B might very well have its own GOR agreement that it would not want to undermine by helping X break that of Conference A.

(02-13-2014 01:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:39 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, non-compete clauses are upheld all the time.

But a GOR agreement seems to bear little resemblance to a non-compete clause.

If it states that you cannot work in a certain industry then no, it is not upheld. You cannot keep an entity from earning. That simple... you can keep a person from contacting customers for a certain amount of time, but you cannot keep them from contacting your former employee. Once again, you cannot keep a person/entity from earning.

Non-competes are generally thrown out only if they don't meet "reasonableness" tests, like if they are not limited in geographic scope and have unlimited time durations. But non-competes that are limited in those areas are routinely upheld. For example, I sign a contract as an anchorman of a Tampa TV station, and the non-compete says I can never quit to work for any other TV station anywhere for the rest of my life? That won't be upheld.

But if it says I can't quit to work for another TV station within 100 miles of Tampa for 2 years after I quit, then those types are routinely upheld by courts.

And anyway, a GOR seems to have little similarity. It is simply the sale of a school's media rights to a conference for a limited number of years. Such sales of all kinds of things happen all the time.

How a GOR doesn't hold up:

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...rights.php

Thanks for that link. I think where the author slips up is here:

"School X, member of Conference A who has granted its media rights to Conference A, thinks it can make more money in Conference B. So School X leaves Conference A for Conference B placing its media rights in Conference B."

I don't see how School X can "place its media rights in Conference B" when Conference A already has those rights. So rather than Conference A being in the position of having to sue school X to get those rights back, X would have to sue Conference A to get them back.

Possession is 9/10 of the law, and in this scenario it is Conference A that would have possession of the rights at the start of the dispute, and School X would be in the difficult position of having to sue to get them back so as to transfer them to Conference B. And for obvious legal reasons, B won't touch those rights until it is clear that X has in fact gotten them back from Conference A. Not only would B not want to face a lawsuit from A, but B might very well have its own GOR agreement that it would not want to undermine by helping X break that of Conference A.

Good point. It'd definitely be interesting to see someone challenge the GOR if only to see how it would play out. I personally don't think anything is 100% set in stone with the legal system that we have today, but that's just my opinion.

(02-13-2014 11:48 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 11:02 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:50 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:11 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:58 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  With all due respect, IMO, Uconn has largely itself to blame for its situation. Wake Forest has been paying FB at the highest level for DECADES. Uconn made the decision to jump to the FBS level only in the past 15 years or so. IMO, Uconn was late to the party and that has consequences. Add to this was Uconn taking what was clear to many to be the leading role in a nasty and contentious lawsuit against the ACC, Miami, and BC - not a great way to make friends and build alliances, wouldn't you agree? Let me ask you, do you think that if Uconn knew then what it knows now, would they have supported the launch of that lawsuit?

The lawsuit was fine. There have been suits involved in every move thus far. The school/state had just invested 100 million dollars into the move to the Big East after being asked by the conference to do so. The problem was the AG agreeing to allow Connecticut to be the venue. Pitt was understood by many to be the leader in the process at the time, yet they are in the ACC. Virginia Tech was a plaintiff, yet they are in the ACC.

Looking back it reflects poorly on UConn as everyone remembers Blumenthal using the lawsuit to boost his political ambitions and taking a center stage in things.

If the lawsuit really mattered, both Pitt and Virginia Tech would not be the in the ACC.

EDIT: also, I have no idea how my comment you responded to prompted the rehashing of this garbage, but if that is the road you want to go down so be it.

Hank, I was responding to your comment about their being "disdain" over the fact that WF is in a P5 Conference and Uconn (who you used in your example - I assume because you are a Uconn fan) was not. I brought these issues up because, IMO they reflect two decisions made by Uconn which negatively impacted them in the realignment saga (again, IMO).

I am sorry, but the lawsuit DID have an impact, IMO. Sure, there were many other issues, but this was a factor, I believe. I also think you minimize the nastiness that was a big part of this lawsuit. Sure, there have been other lawsuits, but none, I believe, where individuals were sued PERSONALLY. Also, take a look at the language used by CT state officials in their public statements. Have you ever heard any such similar statements in any of the other lawsuits? These differences, IMO, are what made this suit unique and produced, IMO, bitter feelings. This is precisely why, IMO, these other lawsuits focus on the legal issues and refrain from personal, inflammatory comments. At some point, you have to again work and deal with your legal opponents. IMO, a "scorched earth" strategy - as this suit seemed to embody - hardly seems like a productive stratgey. I think the results prove my point.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/105570

I think the lawsuit is a convenient thing for some fans to hang their hat on to deflect the real reasons why UConn isn't in the conference. Frankly, I take GDF's comments after the Syracuse Pitt add as the exact reason UConn is not the ACC. "It was a turf thing."

The naming of individuals in a lawsuit isn't that unusual. It's stupid, but to harbor ill feelings a decade later for being personally named in a lawsuit involving 100s of millions of dollars is almost laughable, especially when those feelings are only directed at 1 of the plaintiffs.

Did any of this help UConn? No! Of course not. But the end there is just no way IMO the lawsuit is the driving force behind UConn being left out of the ACC.

If the ACC truly despised UConn because of the lawsuit, why would the reports from 2011 cite UConn as the first target with Syracuse then again last year when UMD left as Uconn being the frontrunner. If the lawsuit meant UConn was to never be accepted in the ACC then the ACC 4x4x4 committee must have missed the memo as UConn's name has come up in every expansion and if the ACC ever decides to add teams again I am sure UConn's name will come up.

Hank, I don't think I said, the lawsuit was the "driving force" in Uconn not getting into the ACC, I said it was, IMO, a factor. IMO, to think otherwise is naive.

Sure, IMO, BC would vote against Uconn's inclusion as a result of "turf issues". Why is that a surprise? You don't think these same issues exist between FSU and UF? Clemson and USC? Georgia and GT? I could go on, but you get my point.

BC is only ONE VOTE in the ACC. The fact is that Uconn had not mustered the necessary votes from the other members to gain entry. I agree with you that there are other reasons for this; but come on, this is a process where every vote is critical. To think that the lawsuit was not a factor in influencing at least one vote (perhaps, Miami, IMO?) seems naive to me.

Re: the lawsuit, I don't think any of the lawsuits related to realignment involved suing individuals personally. Also, when you have CT state officials accusing the defendants in the lawsuit of committing "fraud" and participating in a "back room conspiracy, born in secrecy, founded in greed, carried out through calculated deceit"; well, to suggest that such language is not going to have a longer term impact, is naive, IMO.

I am not suggesting that this will prevent Uconn from ever, ever getting into the ACC. Sure, Uconn will be on the list of considerations when and if openings come up. However, if its an "either-or" choice, to suggest that this will not be a factor in some member's deliberations is naive, IMO.

A wise mentor of mine once offered this insight...."wherever possible, work to maintain good, positive relationships....as a general rule, try to avoid trashing someone, especially in public. You never know when you will need that person on your side and, in my experience, one never-changing fact about people - they tend to have long memories."

Something to consider.

The Turf issues thing as it relates to BC and CT is so comical to me. To even suggest that a private university in Boston should have any sort of market protection over CT because it happens to be a New England state is so galling. It is bad enough as it pertains to NY and Boston claiming dominion over CT as far as pro-sports are concerned but for BC trying to claim some kind of market presence in CT, that's all kinds of ridiculous. New England is not a state.