ACC Basketball a Dud

[upstater]

Have you found a suitable sports bar in Albany yet for this weekend upstater? I noticed some gave you suggestions.

Oh, I'm in Buffalo. I do not like sports bars much. I'll be at home.

 

[Carl Spackler]

What really remains to be seen with the GOR is whether the courts would allow the conferences to seek specific performance of the contract upon breach by a departing school. If not, then the GOR simply becomes a measure of damages, namely the value of the media rights the school signed over to the conference. The real risk of that model is that it varies by school, and that it declines every year. It's not much different than an exit fee, except that shrinks over time.

I think it is relatively unlikely that the courts would require specific performance and actually let the conference retain the media rights of a departing member. It simply won't happen. Instead they will be compensated for the loss of those rights by the school. Just one lawyer's opinion. But if I am right, then as the GORs get closer to their end date, the cost of breaking them becomes much more reasonable to a departing school.

I had a talk over the weekend about this stuff. THese media rights grants are nothing more than a true paper tiger, for people that don't really understand what's going in with all the conference shifting and trying to show some kind of solidarity. The house of cards falls, because the majority of the money is tied up in tier 1 conference games only.

THe majority of the money is tied up in the revenue around CONFERENCE games. So theoretical Program X leaves Conference Y for Conference Z.

Program X - no longer has any conference games with Conference Y. Program X now has conference games scheduled with Conference Z. Conference Y is entitled to the revenue from Conference Z around Program X's Conference Z home games? That's going to be very tough legal road to enforce.

Say theoretically Kansas goes to the Big 10. Anyone really think that the Big 12 is going to collect Kansas' share of Big 10 money from the Big 10 from Kansas' new Big 10 conference games? What about Program X's out of conference games? Who's got those tier 2/ tier 3 rights? Never mind away games out of conference......which Program X has no control over revenue sharing....these things will not hold up for any conference.

These Grant of Rights things, nonsense. Maryland will prove that in due time.

 

[NickyNewark]

Oh, I'm in Buffalo. I do not like sports bars much. I'll be at home.

Maybe it was Coney who asked me for this weekend on a trip from out of town? Oh well it shouldn't be too hard for whoever it was to find. Thank you my friend. I don't frequent bar's anymore either!

 

[WestCoastHusky]

What really remains to be seen with the GOR is whether the courts would allow the conferences to seek specific performance of the contract upon breach by a departing school. If not, then the GOR simply becomes a measure of damages, namely the value of the media rights the school signed over to the conference. The real risk of that model is that it varies by school, and that it declines every year. It's not much different than an exit fee, except that shrinks over time.

I think it is relatively unlikely that the courts would require specific performance and actually let the conference retain the media rights of a departing member. It simply won't happen. Instead they will be compensated for the loss of those rights by the school. Just one lawyer's opinion. But if I am right, then as the GORs get closer to their end date, the cost of breaking them becomes much more reasonable to a departing school.

It also needs to take into account the conference that just lost a member can replace it with a new member. Therefore, what did the conference really suffered financially? In the case of Maryland, ACC got UL and got ESPN to bump its pay. Maryland can argue that ACC lost nothing in the process.

 

[SouthronCross]

As for Olympic sports, CA schools will ALWAYS dominate. In fact, close to 50% of Olympians in this country come from CA. It is not by accident either due to the weather and location. Oh yeah, I don't live far from the Stanford campus and I will be the first to tell you how nice the weather is. In fact, it is almost 6 PM now and it is like close to 60 degrees outside and sunny. I still get to get tennis in T-shirt and shorts every weekend.

A combination of nice weather and a great education make it easy to attract recruits for Olympic sports. Does it make it fair? No, but CA schools do have a built-in advantage no one on the East Coast can beat.

In fact, I also got a degree from Santa Clara University. It is a small school but it has higher Director's ranking than many P5 schools. It also sits right in the heart of Silicon Valley.

Santa Clara was the team who spanked Carolina in the season opener of the 2004-2005 season on the road. Won by 10, but, led by 12-16 points most of the 2nd half. No Ray Felton for us, but, it would not have mattered. They simply whipped us.

 

[HuskyHawk]

It also needs to take into account the conference that just lost a member can replace it with a new member. Therefore, what did the conference really suffered financially? In the case of Maryland, ACC got UL and got ESPN to bump its pay. Maryland can argue that ACC lost nothing in the process.

Yes, but that's a weakness of the GOR vs. liquidated damages in my view. Had Maryland voted for the $50M, and played in the ACC for a few years under those rules, I'd say they are stuck with the $50M despite the inclusion of UL. It's only the timing and process for the change to the ACC bylaws that gives them an argument (a decent one in my view). With a GOR on the other hand, the duty to mitigate would apply, and the value of the team you add would offset the value you lost to some degree. Actual damages would be reduced if they can find a good replacement. But if saw Kansas left the Big 12, it is unlikely that could replace them easily.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Santa Clara was the team who spanked Carolina in the season opener of the 2004-2005 season on the road. Won by 10, but, led by 12-16 points most of the 2nd half. No Ray Felton for us, but, it would not have mattered. They simply whipped us.

Santa Clara's biggest win was back in 1993 when it took down #2 seed Arizona as a #15 seed. PG for SCU was Steve Nash. That's probably the biggest win. I do remember that Carolina win. SCU plays in a very nice and cozy venue.

Although I follow SCU teams to a small extend, UCONN is the team I cheer for the most. I get some alumni stuff from UCONN. I get a TON of alumni stuff from SCU. UCONN needs to step up its marketing to alums.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Yes, but that's a weakness of the GOR vs. liquidated damages in my view. Had Maryland voted for the $50M, and played in the ACC for a few years under those rules, I'd say they are stuck with the $50M despite the inclusion of UL. It's only the timing and process for the change to the ACC bylaws that gives them an argument (a decent one in my view). With a GOR on the other hand, the duty to mitigate would apply, and the value of the team you add would offset the value you lost to some degree. Actual damages would be reduced if they can find a good replacement. But if saw Kansas left the Big 12, it is unlikely that could replace them easily.

This is a good point regarding Kansas replacement. I think most Jayhawk fans would prefer the B1G, especially if we are there too. If not, I hope B1G can target Missouri along with us. Kansas, however, is more likely to jump. I still don't know how they are going to resolve the KSU issue, but I am sure they will find a way if it means a B1G invite.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The problem with the GOR is the way that revenue sharing occurs around football scheduling. How the money is calculated and dispersed for in conference vs. out of conference, and also home vs. away scheduling arrangements. Where the revenue comes from. I don't really know much about basketball, but it's all about football anyway. There really are only about 4, maybe 5, games per year that any program that ever gets to the point of testing a broadcasting revenue grant of rights would really have a question about, and that would be their new conference home games. The only way any damages could be even close to be claimed, would be if the conference that was left, did not replace the program that left on any of their schedules, and it would be minimal if it came to it, in the grand scheme. schedules going empty not happening either. Florida State would play Savannah State clearly - before they let their schedule go empty.

I'll save the details for some other time, but it was laid out very clearly for me this past weekend in NYC by people I trust. No way a media "grant of rights" ever holds up if it's tested. Maryland will eventually blow up the concept of a grant of rights by the time their mess is all said and done. What the grant of rights is, is really the equivalent of promise ring, except the ring is just a piece of paper.

 

[dayooper]

The problem with the GOR is the way that revenue sharing occurs around football scheduling. How the money is calculated and dispersed for in conference vs. out of conference, and also home vs. away scheduling arrangements. Where the revenue comes from. I don't really know much about basketball, but it's all about football anyway. There really are only about 4, maybe 5, games per year that any program that ever gets to the point of testing a broadcasting revenue grant of rights would really have a question about, and that would be their new conference home games. The only way any damages could be even close to be claimed, would be if the conference that was left, did not replace the program that left on any of their schedules, and it would be minimal if it came to it, in the grand scheme. schedules going empty not happening either. Florida State would play Savannah State clearly - before they let their schedule go empty.

I'll save the details for some other time, but it was laid out very clearly for me this past weekend in NYC by people I trust. No way a media "grant of rights" ever holds up if it's tested. Maryland will eventually blow up the concept of a grant of rights by the time their mess is all said and done. What the grant of rights is, is really the equivalent of promise ring, except the ring is just a piece of paper.

Although I mostly agree with paper tiger that is a Grant of Rights, UMD's case has nothing to do with a GoR. The only GoR they signed is with The Big10. The ACC GoR was agreed to and signed after UMD announced they were leaving (UMD announced the change in conference membership in Nov 2012 and The ACC GoR was announced sometime in the spring of 2013).

What UMD and The ACC are arguing about is how much UMD will pay to leave the conference (exit fee).

 

[NotreDameJoe]

What really remains to be seen with the GOR is whether the courts would allow the conferences to seek specific performance of the contract upon breach by a departing school. If not, then the GOR simply becomes a measure of damages, namely the value of the media rights the school signed over to the conference. The real risk of that model is that it varies by school, and that it declines every year. It's not much different than an exit fee, except that shrinks over time.

I think it is relatively unlikely that the courts would require specific performance and actually let the conference retain the media rights of a departing member. It simply won't happen. Instead they will be compensated for the loss of those rights by the school. Just one lawyer's opinion. But if I am right, then as the GORs get closer to their end date, the cost of breaking them becomes much more reasonable to a departing school.

That's also this law school graduate's opinion while waiting for the bar.

I had a talk over the weekend about this stuff. THese media rights grants are nothing more than a true paper tiger, for people that don't really understand what's going in with all the conference shifting and trying to show some kind of solidarity. The house of cards falls, because the majority of the money is tied up in tier 1 conference games only.
THe majority of the money is tied up in the revenue around CONFERENCE games. So theoretical Program X leaves Conference Y for Conference Z.
Program X - no longer has any conference games with Conference Y. Program X now has conference games scheduled with Conference Z. Conference Y is entitled to the revenue from Conference Z around Program X's Conference Z home games? That's going to be very tough legal road to enforce.
Say theoretically Kansas goes to the Big 10. Anyone really think that the Big 12 is going to collect Kansas' share of Big 10 money from the Big 10 from Kansas' new Big 10 conference games? What about Program X's out of conference games? Who's got those tier 2/ tier 3 rights? Never mind away games out of conference.which Program X has no control over revenue sharing....these things will not hold up for any conference.
These Grant of Rights things, nonsense. Maryland will prove that in due time.

I can't imagine Conference Y would continue to broadcast their former member's home games. I can imagine that Conference Z would fork over a settlement to Y that was a bit below the value of X
's home and in-conference games.


The paper tiger argument is taking things way too far. I doubt the Court will rule that billion dollar entities can sign a 9 digit contract with other entities, and then simply walk away with no penalty any time they like.

 

[SouthronCross]

Santa Clara's biggest win was back in 1993 when it took down #2 seed Arizona as a #15 seed. PG for SCU was Steve Nash. That's probably the biggest win. I do remember that Carolina win. SCU plays in a very nice and cozy venue.

Although I follow SCU teams to a small extend, UCONN is the team I cheer for the most. I get some alumni stuff from UCONN. I get a TON of alumni stuff from SCU. UCONN needs to step up its marketing to alums.

UNC was pre-season No 1, IIRC, and, SCU played a tremendous game. Very impressed by them that night.

I remember that SCU-Arizona game. Nash went crazy against them.

 

[dayooper]

That's also this law school graduate's opinion while waiting for the bar.





I can't imagine Conference Y would continue to broadcast their former member's home games. I can imagine that Conference Z would fork over a settlement to Y that was a bit below the value of X
's home and in-conference games.


The paper tiger argument is taking things way too far. I doubt the Court will rule that billion dollar entities can sign a 9 digit contract with other entities, and then simply walk away with no penalty any time they like.

Of course they can't. What is the use of signing a GoR if they will. But there seems to be the sentiment among a certain group that any school that leaves will see no payment at all. I highly doubt the courts will see it that way too. If conference Z holds a schools rights, they have to pay them for it. They can't with hold funds if they keep the rights.

 

[huskypantz]

I can't imagine Conference Y would continue to broadcast their former member's home games.

The problem is that the conference doesn't choose who plays on national TV and when. This is why I think the GOR just ends up in a settlement. Otherwise, ESPN chooses to play conf X home game with the departing school instead of a conf Y game in a prime time slot. Conf Y can't stop ESPN without allowing the GOR to be broken.

 

[pj]

The GoR is funny. Suppose Oklahoma goes to the B1G and the GoR is valid, so their TV rights have been assigned to the B12 and its media partner. Yet Oklahoma isn't necessarily obliged to let the B12's TV partner come on campus to film games. And if they bring the B1G's TV partner on campus to film games, and that partner televises it, now you have a breach case.

Another aspect is that you'd have to look at the specific wording of who owns what. Traditionally teams own their home games, and the "home team" is specified in the agreement to play. You can have a home game anywhere. What if Oklahoma simply agreed that all its B1G games are away games, even the ones played at Oklahoma's campus stadium?

 

[HuskyHawk]

This is a good point regarding Kansas replacement. I think most Jayhawk fans would prefer the B1G, especially if we are there too. If not, I hope B1G can target Missouri along with us. Kansas, however, is more likely to jump. I still don't know how they are going to resolve the KSU issue, but I am sure they will find a way if it means a B1G invite.

Since I'm a Jayhawk and a Husky, I'd suggest that they never wanted the Big Ten. But the reality is that there are three teams they mostly care about playing. Missouri in any sport, KState in any sport, Nebraska in football. OSU has been a hoops rival and the best team in the league other than KU over the last 20+ years. OU is good at hoops occasionally, but never a rival (their football rivals were already Nebraska and UT). So Kansas is pretty well alone except for KState. The other teams are gone. Hell, even Colorado was a bit of a rival on the western border....gone. The Big 8 that was has been ripped apart already. I suppose they could become rivals of Iowa and Nebraska again.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Since I'm a Jayhawk and a Husky, I'd suggest that they never wanted the Big Ten. But the reality is that there are three teams they mostly care about playing. Missouri in any sport, KState in any sport, Nebraska in football. OSU has been a hoops rival and the best team in the league other than KU over the last 20+ years. OU is good at hoops occasionally, but never a rival (their football rivals were already Nebraska and UT). So Kansas is pretty well alone except for KState. The other teams are gone. Hell, even Colorado was a bit of a rival on the western border....gone. The Big 8 that was has been ripped apart already. I suppose they could become rivals of Iowa and Nebraska again.

If we are in the same conference, UCONN/Kansas would be a big hoops rivalry. It will just take a little time to develop, but it will be must see TV.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

UNC was pre-season No 1, IIRC, and, SCU played a tremendous game. Very impressed by them that night.

I remember that SCU-Arizona game. Nash went crazy against them.

Thank you sir. Those games put SCU on the map. Of course, one of the most famous alum we got is Brandi Chastain. There are some good players in the WCC. I still remember UCONN played on the Pepperdine campus before heading out to Maui for that tournament back in 2006.

 

[NotreDameJoe]

The GoR is funny. Suppose Oklahoma goes to the B1G and the GoR is valid, so their TV rights have been assigned to the B12 and its media partner. Yet Oklahoma isn't necessarily obliged to let the B12's TV partner come on campus to film games. And if they bring the B1G's TV partner on campus to film games, and that partner televises it, now you have a breach case.

Another aspect is that you'd have to look at the specific wording of who owns what. Traditionally teams own their home games, and the "home team" is specified in the agreement to play. You can have a home game anywhere. What if Oklahoma simply agreed that all its B1G games are away games, even the ones played at Oklahoma's campus stadium?

The court would be enforcing the old contract's terms, here the Big12's. I'm sure they have planned for that.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If we are in the same conference, UCONN/Kansas would be a big hoops rivalry. It will just take a little time to develop, but it will be must see TV.

It would be fantastic for me...would love to go back to Lawrence and see UConn at Allen. Grab some beers and food at Free State Brewery before the game.

 

[Waquoit]

UVA just had their best season in decades losing in the Sweet 16 to a team that was smoked by UConn.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The court would be enforcing the old contract's terms, here the Big12's. I'm sure they have planned for that.

So sure huh?

you'd think that being a ND person, you might grasp what I'm talking about. After all, ND owes it's independence to the fight Oklahoma and Georgia took to the Supreme Court 30 years ago. ND was the first program to cash in on the new rules, and the television networks quickly realized (as well as the NCAA itself - when the revenue sharing went haywire for a few years) that it was insanity for individual programs to contract their own media rights. ND still remains independent because of Dick Ebersol hinging the entire sports branch of the network on Notre Dame football and paying through the nose for it long term. BYU was able to work out it's independence through ESPN money years later, and because there are millions of Mormons in the country that support the school. BOth schools, are going to have more and more difficulty scheduling in the future. Notre Dame has two decades of experience in learning how to leach off of existing conferences for scheduling and maintaining their athletic department and sports, while BYU has gone a different kind of route. The military academies are different stories - and probably the only institutions left on the map, that have maintained the integrity of athletics and academics around revenue streams since the mid 1980s. The rest of the intercollegiate world around football has been caught up in a constantly changing money grab every few years ever since.

As an independent, you should grasp why these 'grants of rights' are nothing more than promise ring. A nice symbol of commitment, that in reality has no enforceable means of action, once the networks and broadcasting for games actually begin. Maryland isn't one bit concerned about the ACC grant of rights, and never has been. They don't want to pay $50 mill to leave. The grant of rights will not be enforceable. They will concede the grant of rights to get the exit fee dropped significantly if they need to, and then fight it later. The ACC leadership is probably dumb enough to accept it.

Trust me, there is NO way, that the Big 10 network (for example) is going to incur the expenses of broadcasting, justify charging the subscription fees, get the advertisements, etc...for a Maryland home games and away games vs. Big 10 opponents - and then turn over the profits to ESPN. Nor are they going to let ESPN come in and broadcast say - Maryland home games, and bring in all their own subscribers, advertising, etc....

Nor is Fox going to do it for CBS, or the Pac 14 network for the SEC network, etc. etc. The only possible recourse that can be upheld, will be to take the revenue from a program like Maryland's for non-conference away games and calculate a percentage off it, if anything at all - IF and only IF - the broadcasting company looking to collect - owns the rights to the program that program like Maryland is playing away against.

Protecting schools from things like a grant of rights, is probably the ONLY positive thing, that the 1984 anti-trust suit against the NCAA has done.

Let me put it this way....I have as much confidence in the grant of rights concept holding up if it's ever tested, that I did in the Big East lasting until the end of 2011, after Villanova had a year and half to come up with a plan to upgrade football to 1A, and came back to the table in spring 2011 with a shoebox diorama, and plan to play in an 18,000 seat soccer stadium, the management of which they hadn't even consulted yet.

 

[NotreDameJoe]

So sure huh?

you'd think that being a ND person, you might grasp what I'm talking about. After all, ND owes it's independence to the fight Oklahoma and Georgia took to the Supreme Court 30 years ago. ND was the first program to cash in on the new rules, and the television networks quickly realized (as well as the NCAA itself - when the revenue sharing went haywire for a few years) that it was insanity for individual programs to contract their own media rights. ND still remains independent because of Ebersol hinging the entire sports branch of the network on Notre Dame football and paying through the nose for it long term. BYU was able to work out it's independence through ESPN money years later, and because there are millions of Mormons in the country that support the school. BOth schools, are going to have more and more difficulty scheduling in the future. Notre Dame has two decades of experience in learning how to leach off of existing conferences for scheduling and maintaining their athletic department and sports, while BYU has gone a different kind of route. The military academies are different stories - and probably the only institutions left on the map, that have maintained the integrity of athletics and academics around revenue streams since the mid 1980s. The rest of the intercollegiate world around football has been caught up in a constantly changing money grab every few years ever since.

As an independent, you should grasp why these 'grants of rights' are nothing more than promise ring. A nice symbol of commitment, that in reality has no enforceable means of action, once the networks and broadcasting for games actually begin. Maryland isn't one bit concerned about the ACC grant of rights, and never has been. They don't want to pay $50 mill to leave. The grant of rights will not be enforceable. They will concede the grant of rights to get the exit fee dropped significantly if they need to, and then fight it later. The ACC leadership is probably dumb enough to accept it.

Trust me, there is NO way, that the Big 10 network (for example) is going to incur the expenses of broadcasting, justify charging the subscription fees, get the advertisements, etc...for a Maryland home games and away games vs. Big 10 opponents - and then turn over the profits to ESPN. Nor are they going to let ESPN come in and broadcast say - Maryland home games, and bring in all their own subscribers, advertising, etc....

Nor is Fox going to do it for CBS, or the Pac 14 network for the SEC network, etc. etc. The only possible recourse that can be upheld, will be to take the revenue from a program like Maryland's for non-conference away games and calculate a percentage off it, if anything at all - IF and only IF - the broadcasting company looking to collect - owns the rights to the program that program like Maryland is playing away against.

Protecting schools from things like a grant of rights, is probably the ONLY positive thing, that the 1984 anti-trust suit against the NCAA has done.

Let me put it this way....I have as much confidence in the grant of rights concept holding up if it's ever tested, that I did in the Big East lasting until the end of 2011, after Villanova had a year and half to come up with a plan to upgrade football to 1A, and came back to the table in spring 2011 with a shoebox diorama, and plan to play in an 18,000 seat soccer stadium, the management of which they hadn't even consulted yet.

I can't help you with your historical fiction but at least you should know how a contract works. Two parties exchange promises (I paint your house, you pay me $). IF they want to agree to be legally bound by the promises then they form a contract, usually written down and signed.

The school holds the rights to her own home football games, mostly the right to broadcast them to a greater audience. If a conference of schools decides their rights are more valuable when pooled together then the individual schools contract to GRANT them to the conference. (and if they decide they'd rather hang onto their own rights, they just remain independent). Now the conference as a corporate entity owns the rights to any home games during the contract's duration.

ESPN doesn't get a vote as to whether to pay the school or the conference or another network, they go by what the signed contract says. IF espn didn't pay the right people then they themselves wind up in court. Similarly if a camera crew tried to tape a football game without the rights to do so, they get sued by the rights holder. If you don't believe me, try walking into Gillette with your own camera crew next fall.

 

[Seaa Blue]

There's a bit much to quote there so let me just throw out:

BTN is not yet bidding for Tier 1 games. ESPN sends a boatload of cash to B1G for the right to choose games each week to be broadcast on their network. BTN is happy to broadcast games not selected by ESPN as ESPN/ABC can bring in a bigger audience for the selected games. The Notre Dame Network (NBC) gives them a national audience most of the time because NBC doesn't have much other content to broadcast. Works out well.

The question with the GoR is: if a team leaves a conference, does the former conference really not have to compensate them for broadcasting home games that feature 2 teams from another conference? The GoR and bylaws say as much, but would that hold up in court? Or, if the former conference opted not to broadcast the event, would the home team really be in breach of contract if it decided to broadcast the game? Yes, it would be a breach, but would it hold up in court?

 

[TerryD]

So sure huh?

you'd think that being a ND person, you might grasp what I'm talking about. After all, ND owes it's independence to the fight Oklahoma and Georgia took to the Supreme Court 30 years ago. ND was the first program to cash in on the new rules, and the television networks quickly realized (as well as the NCAA itself - when the revenue sharing went haywire for a few years) that it was insanity for individual programs to contract their own media rights. ND still remains independent because of Ebersol hinging the entire sports branch of the network on Notre Dame football and paying through the nose for it long term. BYU was able to work out it's independence through ESPN money years later, and because there are millions of Mormons in the country that support the school. BOth schools, are going to have more and more difficulty scheduling in the future. Notre Dame has two decades of experience in learning how to leach off of existing conferences for scheduling and maintaining their athletic department and sports, while BYU has gone a different kind of route. The military academies are different stories - and probably the only institutions left on the map, that have maintained the integrity of athletics and academics around revenue streams since the mid 1980s. The rest of the intercollegiate world around football has been caught up in a constantly changing money grab every few years ever since.

As an independent, you should grasp why these 'grants of rights' are nothing more than promise ring. A nice symbol of commitment, that in reality has no enforceable means of action, once the networks and broadcasting for games actually begin. Maryland isn't one bit concerned about the ACC grant of rights, and never has been. They don't want to pay $50 mill to leave. The grant of rights will not be enforceable. They will concede the grant of rights to get the exit fee dropped significantly if they need to, and then fight it later. The ACC leadership is probably dumb enough to accept it.

Trust me, there is NO way, that the Big 10 network (for example) is going to incur the expenses of broadcasting, justify charging the subscription fees, get the advertisements, etc...for a Maryland home games and away games vs. Big 10 opponents - and then turn over the profits to ESPN. Nor are they going to let ESPN come in and broadcast say - Maryland home games, and bring in all their own subscribers, advertising, etc....

Nor is Fox going to do it for CBS, or the Pac 14 network for the SEC network, etc. etc. The only possible recourse that can be upheld, will be to take the revenue from a program like Maryland's for non-conference away games and calculate a percentage off it, if anything at all - IF and only IF - the broadcasting company looking to collect - owns the rights to the program that program like Maryland is playing away against.

Protecting schools from things like a grant of rights, is probably the ONLY positive thing, that the 1984 anti-trust suit against the NCAA has done.

Let me put it this way....I have as much confidence in the grant of rights concept holding up if it's ever tested, that I did in the Big East lasting until the end of 2011, after Villanova had a year and half to come up with a plan to upgrade football to 1A, and came back to the table in spring 2011 with a shoebox diorama, and plan to play in an 18,000 seat soccer stadium, the management of which they hadn't even consulted yet.

Maryland never signed the ACC Grant of Rights. They had given notice prior to its execution.

The ACC/Maryland lawsuit is about exit fees, not a GOR.