Maryland Takes Ball and Goes Home...

[Wake08]

Yes, if you want to pay $500+ for a flight.

I think you're overstating it a bit, but not sure what price and availability would be like on a football weekend.

 

[ryalaman]

Was it passed by a 10-2 vote with no schools leaving immediately following the vote?

Sure, for argument's sake, say it was. Would a $1 billion fee be enforceable in that situation, or does there exist some reasonable standard by which entities are free to enter and exit contracts like everywhere else in the market?

 

[Deacfreak07]

Sure, for argument's sake, say it was. Would a $1 billion fee be enforceable in that situation, or does there exist some reasonable standard by which entities are free to enter and exit contracts like everywhere else in the market?

But $50 million is not $1 billion, is it? If the current landscape makes the ACC vulnerable to poaching from conferences that offer 25%-50% of that in increased revenue within a year, seems to be a reasonable amount, no?

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Sure, for argument's sake, say it was. Would a $1 billion fee be enforceable in that situation, or does there exist some reasonable standard by which entities are free to enter and exit contracts like everywhere else in the market?

Do you think $50 million is as unreasonable as $1 billion, given athletic budgets at most schools today?

 

[deacondamo]

I've asked a few times before, and I'll ask it again. If Wake, BC, Duke, and some of the other schools without much of a choice beyond the ACC decided they wanted to band together to pass a $1 billion exit fee to prevent a school from leaving, do you think that penalty would be enforceable? Does that penalty not still meet all of the criteria you just talked about?

If you are serious about getting an answer to this, you should start with the legal scholars on your board starting with ravensnterps and Coltsfan.

 

[ryalaman]

But $50 million is not $1 billion, is it? If the current landscape makes the ACC vulnerable to poaching from conferences that offer 25%-50% of that in increased revenue within a year, seems to be a reasonable amount, no?

It isn't the same amount, but its the same principle. If the $50 million can be upheld for all of the reasons given before, then a $1 billion penalty should be upheld for the same reasons. The legality of the fee (based on the arguments given) should not depend on the size of the fee. Now, if we're talking about what is and what is not a reasonable amount, then that's where Maryland can get away with paying less than $50 million. A court makes that distinction, and while its possible for it to be $50 million, it should also be possible for that court to determine a smaller fee of about $20 million is reasonable.

 

[lefty]

It isn't the same amount, but its the same principle. If the $50 million can be upheld for all of the reasons given before, then a $1 billion penalty should be upheld for the same reasons. The legality of the fee (based on the arguments given) should not depend on the size of the fee. Now, if we're talking about what is and what is not a reasonable amount, then that's where Maryland can get away with paying less than $50 million. A court makes that distinction, and while its possible for it to be $50 million, it should also be possible for that court to determine a smaller fee of about $20 million is reasonable.

$50 million is reasonable, $1 billion is not. A court can very well make that determination.

 

[Deacfreak07]

It isn't the same amount, but its the same principle. If the $50 million can be upheld for all of the reasons given before, then a $1 billion penalty should be upheld for the same reasons. The legality of the fee (based on the arguments given) should not depend on the size of the fee. Now, if we're talking about what is and what is not a reasonable amount, then that's where Maryland can get away with paying less than $50 million. A court makes that distinction, and while its possible for it to be $50 million, it should also be possible for that court to determine a smaller fee of about $20 million is reasonable.

Is there any precedent for a school using that argument to successfully get out of their exit fee?

 

[ryalaman]

Is there any precedent for a school using that argument to successfully get out of their exit fee?

No, but there's also no direct precedent for such a large and punitive exit fee either.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

then they are dumb. Ohio State and Penn State will be amazing and I have a special fondness for the Rutgers matchups in 2007 and 2009. I know that sounds weird, but its true for me at least.

Trips to Madison, Nebraska fans and their RVs, Assembly Hall (a bunch of people I know went out for the ACC-Big Ten Challenge in 2009 and loved the town)....there's plenty to look forward to.

LOl. I'll let them know that they're dumb for liking the conference match-ups the school has had for five decades, and having little interest in playing teams they currently have no rooting interest in at all. You are much wiser than they are.

 

[Deacfreak07]

No, but there's also no direct precedent for such a large and punitive exit fee either.

It's not large in the current market. It's a deterrent like $5MM was 5-10 years ago. You can thank your new BTN/ESPN TV deal for the dollar figure.

 

[lefty]

No, but there's also no direct precedent for such a large and punitive exit fee either.

But $50 million is not unconscionable; hell, its not even unpractical given league revenues. Although there's no precedence for it, courts would be much more likely to uphold a contract rather than revoke it.

Well, depending on the judge anyway

 

[norm]

Md, where in principle 50 million is just as unreasonable as 1 billion.

 

[jamesda3]

I think $50 Million is very reasonable when it could possibly destroy other universities athletic income like Wake, BC, and Duke.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Md, where in principle 50 million is just as unreasonable as 1 billion.

 

[JDawg]

Since you are selectively answering questions, can you please explain why you need to win over Wake fans to your plight? I really don't understand, help me.

I don't. I've stated it before but I'm only chiming in when I believe you guys are providing incorrect information. At least I'm trying to. But its something I'm very passionate and excited about and sometimes I get carried away. But for Christ's sake look at my post count, I'm a active member here however pathetic you may thing that is and its not like I'm just popping in to never be seen again

And to your point. You are within a 5-6 hour drive of six ACC schools. Your have 12 of 14 Big 10 schools at least 7 hours away at a minimum. Again, denial. Notice you didn't mention the non-revenue sports, cheerleaders, band, etc. They are students too, you know.

But hey, if you fuckin' love the B10, have at it, enjoy it, just as we will enjoy laughing at your mediocrity. I think you will compete in women's basketball, if that's any consolation.

I'm not denying that the average distance for the conference is futher. But if you look at the new division and how it will be set up:

Rutgers: 3:30
Penn State: 3:45
Ohio State: 7:00
Indiana: 11:00
Purdue: 11:00
Wisconsin: 15:00

Compared to
NC State: 5:00
Wake Forest: 6:15
Syracuse: 6:30
Boston College: 8:00
Clemson: 9:30
Florida State: 14:30

And tell me that its a HUGE difference. I dare you. Two easier drives, 1 that's slightly longer than drive #3. Fly to the rest.

No, the Md buses are used for all NC trips as well. I see them around campus often

Just asked a current football player. They are flying down to Chapel Hill on Friday.

Places like West Lafayette, Madison, Lincoln, Iowa City, Bloomington, etc. are not exactly the kind of places you get to in one flight either. You either have connecting flights or long drives from the nearest major airport. Major pain in the ass. I can't imagine too many students will go to any of those games.

Students don't go to many away games as it is. Moot point and not something that should be a factor

If you are serious about getting an answer to this, you should start with the legal scholars on your board starting with ravensnterps and Coltsfan.

:bowrofl:

 

[RHTB&G]

Why do Maryland fans think that their departure is a problem for the acc? I just really don't care. Maryland is a school that no one has really cared about since the 80's, so who cares if they leave? I frankly don't see what the big 10 sees in them.

Uh, the 2001 Final Four, 2002 National Championship, and three straight 10-win seasons in football in the 2000s say hi.

 

[ryalaman]

It's not large in the current market. It's a deterrent like $5MM was 5-10 years ago. You can thank your new BTN/ESPN TV deal for the dollar figure.

Sure it is. Similar institutions to Maryland (like Mizzou and A&M) paid about $13M to get out of their conference in the not too distant past. If we now agree that not every exit fee can be enforced, then past precedent (like those schools) and potential damages to the ACC would seem to be the more important criteria in determining what we pay to leave. I'm not saying that its entirely impossible that the fee gets upheld, because its not. But its also not hard to envision a scenario in which a court strikes it down and forces Maryland to pay a significantly smaller amount.

 

[JDawg]

LOl. I'll let them know that they're dumb for liking the conference match-ups the school has had for five decades, and having little interest in playing teams they currently have no rooting interest in at all. You are much wiser than they are.

Yes losing three games that are truly incomparable and without substitutes is really worth $15 million a year or whatever.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

I've asked a few times before, and I'll ask it again. If Wake, BC, Duke, and some of the other schools without much of a choice beyond the ACC decided they wanted to band together to pass a $1 billion exit fee to prevent a school from leaving, do you think that penalty would be enforceable? Does that penalty not still meet all of the criteria you just talked about?

One billion? No, of course not. But a jump from 20M to 50M? That won't be in the range of unconscionable, given the current state of dollars at play in college athletics. It won't even be considered close to unconscionable in this climate.

And again, MD had the choice to reject the increased bailout and leave the ACC before it was put into place. They could have rejected the vote, paid 20M, and gone independent. Instead, they accepted the result of the vote, and continue to enjoy the benefits of conference membership, and, specifically, the security that the 50M exit fee provided along with membership. The were able to continue operating while knowing that their flanks were secured by the high exit fee. That conferred a real and cognizable benefit, making the exit fee not a penalty, but instead an enforceable prerequisite for the continued enjoyment of the benefit conferred by membership. They knew the bylaws, and did not have to agree to accept the new figure. They did, and they're stuck with it.