FSU, ACC In It For The Long Haul

[RS9999X]

There's a difference between icing out UConn and looking out for your own seat at the table. I'm sure SU was quick to remind anyone who would listen they were passed over last time and are the good guys. Oliver Luck and Pitts AD were just as condescending in their conversations.

 

[ruskin]

If UConn was able to blow the other candidates away on current substantive issues, then I doubt that anyone would have thought twice about the lawsuit, but the fact that UConn didn't blow away the other candidates means that every little bit of negative information (whether real or perceived) can trickle in and make an impact on a school's overall profile.

Would like to hear Tank's view as an out-of-state person on ESPN's apparent inability/reluctance/refusal to give UConn a hand, especially in light of the recent tax breaks they received from the state. Already had two heated debates on the BY already about this. Sort of surprised a non-ESPN related out of state media entity hasn't hit this topic yet.

 

[alsacs]

Would like to hear Tank's view as an out-of-state person on ESPN's apparent inability/reluctance/refusal to give UConn a hand, especially in light of the recent tax breaks they received from the state. Already had two heated debates on the BY already about this. Sort of surprised a non-ESPN related out of state media entity hasn't hit this topic yet.

I honestly don't want to read through those 2 threads, but will answer as I can guess its a discussion of whether or not ESPN should have its lucrative tax breaks removed without helping UConn find a better home.

I would ask do you think ESPN can tell a conference to add a school if it the conference can't do it at that time? I believe ESPN told the ACC in an unofficial official way that the only way to fix your bad deal we signed with you was to expand the conference. I also believe that when Nordenberg, WVU, RU, and ND all talked the Big East into not signing that 14 million per football school contract ESPN got angry. However, looking back I don't think ESPN should have been worried if they had a right to match any contract provision like they had when they resigned the AAC from the awful deal NBC offered. If ESPN was worried about NBCSN or FOX making a play for the Big East I highly doubt the offer would have been significantly more than the offer ESPN offered the Big East in July 2011. If ESPN told the ACC to expand then looking at the Big East it was pretty obvious Syracuse was one target and one of Rutgers, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, and UConn would be the other target.

In September 2011, David Glenn who is a plugged in ACC reporter the week before Syracuse/Pitt announced their departures and went on the radio and said ACC expansion was going to happen and Syracuse was an obvious target and the ACC would look at Texas(this was when the Big XII was in chaos still), Connecticut, Pittsburgh, and West Virginia were the other possibilities. Then September 17th the Brett McMurphy article came out and Syracuse and Pittsburgh were gone. Gene DeFilippio gave his stupid comments and if the Big East wanted to sue ESPN(they would actually have a tortious interference claim against ESPN not the ACC though) with dumb statement that ESPN told the ACC what to do. Now, UConn fans believe that due to that Mark Blaudschun article Boston College/Miami are the ones that changed Syracuse/UConn to Syracuse/Pitt do I believe this? I believe that UConn was considered with Pittsburgh and West Virginia and BC/Miami was raised a stink(possibly more schools did, but we will never know without the minutes being leaked) and the other ACC officials on the 4x4x4 committee realized it wasn't worth splitting hairs over and decided to go with Syracuse/Pittsburgh over Syracuse/UConn because both Pitt/UConn were close enough that dealing with the hassle of BC/Miami and who else wasn't worth it.

I would state that your state legislature should weight the tax breaks being given to ESPN and the jobs they create in the state of Connecticut versus using those tax breaks revenues in other areas for the residents of the state of Connecticut. However, your Legislature/Governor can't Marc Warner ESPN into putting UConn in another conference as ESPN could probably move to Charlotte or LA if they wanted. I think ESPN in Bristol is great for the state of Connecticut and if those tax breaks help your local economy then the Governor/Legislature is doing its job. Cut the tax breaks and all ESPN will do is make the profits elsewhere by raising their carrier charge or moving more personnel to Charlotte and Los Angeles. UConn isn't dead in realignment, but if you wanted to declare war on ESPN you better off suing them and having them cut you a check rather than taking away tax breaks that could benefit your local economy if they are doing that. If the tax breaks are bad for the state of Connecticut then get rid of them.

Edit: Here is the radio clip I was referring with David Glenn right before Syracuse/Pitt left. http://www.wina.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=5469571

 

[ruskin]

FWIW I don't think anyone is talking about 'declaring war' on anyone. My feeling is our state political leaders have been much more passive about this than leaders in other states (North Carolina and California, to use those examples) might have been. At best ESPN has been a passive neighbor in this dumpster fire, which is bad enough.

 

[UPitt]

Would like to hear Tank's view as an out-of-state person on ESPN's apparent inability/reluctance/refusal to give UConn a hand, especially in light of the recent tax breaks they received from the state. Already had two heated debates on the BY already about this. Sort of surprised a non-ESPN related out of state media entity hasn't hit this topic yet.

I can not speak for the Tank, but I can give you an out of state, non ESPN related, point of view. I think the state has a responsibility to look out for what is best for the state and its whole population of people before it looks out for a single university such as Uconn. But, Uconn and its alumni and fans in this case, do make up part of that population and this needs to be weighed when considering the following options:

1) Give tax break to ESPN and put no pressure on ESPN to support Uconn

2) Give tax break to ESPN and put pressure on ESPN to support Uconn

3) Offer tax break to ESPN with contingency of ESPN trying to support Uconn

Obviously there is gray area between each of the above and I think the state should put some amount pressure on ESPN to help support Uconn getting into a major conference. But when acting for the best interests of the whole Connecticut population, the state needs to weigh the importance of maintaining a strong relationship with ESPN, it's workers, it's tax revenue, etc. vs the risk of forcing ESPN to relocate its studios in another state. It needs to weigh the financial and economic benefits of every decision its makes.

To try and put myself in your position, I will try to put Pitt and UPMC (a major hospical with close ties to Pitt and the Pittsburgh region) into a similar situation. Pitt is semi private and state affiliated, meaning that they recieve some state funding. In recent years the funding has been significantly decreased. UPMC receives a huge tax break because they file as non-profit but were making a profit. The state and city were threatening to remove the non-profit tag and require UPMC to pay taxes and they threatened to take the business out of the city. The state and city gave in, because this helped save hundreds or thousands of jobs. If I was asked if I would like the state to put pressure on UPMC to pay taxes so Pitt funding could be raised, I would say yes. But if I was asked if I would risk having UPMC move its facilities outside of the city or state so Pitt funding could be raised, I would say no. I know this is not an equal example, but I think sometimes a state and city have very difficult decisions to make, and Connecticut's government may be putting employment and business over athletics.

This is just my opinion as a non-ESPN related and never lived in Connecticut opinion, and feel free to disagree and explain your point of view. I know there are a lot of factors that I did not include above because I did not have the facts. Connecticut general population, percentage of alumni, percentage of fan base, number of Uconn workers, Uconn revenues, Uconn subsidies, ESPN workers, ESPN tax revenue, and many more facts would help create a better picture of the value of ESPN to the state vs having Uconn in a major conference. Lastly, as I said above I think the state can offer tax breaks and still put pressure on ESPN to work with major conferences to add Uconn, and I think the state of Connecticut has failed to do this.

 

[frankthetank]

Would like to hear Tank's view as an out-of-state person on ESPN's apparent inability/reluctance/refusal to give UConn a hand, especially in light of the recent tax breaks they received from the state. Already had two heated debates on the BY already about this. Sort of surprised a non-ESPN related out of state media entity hasn't hit this topic yet.

A few thoughts about this line of thinking:

I understand why the people here would make that connection since ESPN is right in your backyard. I also understand that most people here will believe that whatever mechanism is used to get UConn into a power conference is an inherently good mechanism, regardless of the consequences of how the sausage is made.

However, I don't think anyone outside of Connecticut is really making the connection between ESPN and the plight of its home state neighbor of UConn... and the thing is that if people actually did, it actually would NOT be favorable to UConn at all. While people might hate ESPN's real or perceived hand in conference realignment and how much it controls the sports world in general, there's some base level rationalization that it's pursuing the maximization of power and profits just like any other corporation. That's not necessarily popular in this increasingly populist political environment, but there's still a certain level of understanding there. On the flip side, if ESPN were found to be pushing UConn to join the ACC (or Big Ten or any other conference) in order to curry political favor for receiving tax breaks from the state of government of Connecticut, then that would be a tstorm beyond belief. It would NOT look good to the rest of the nation for either ESPN or UConn. Once again, you may not care as long as you get into a power conference, but rest assured there would not be ANY sympathy for UConn on the state tax break front. The only thing worse than ESPN meddling with conference affairs for profit is ESPN meddling with conference affairs for political gain.

Plus, you have to look at it like a politician. Within the UConn constituency, gaining entry into a power conference is probably #1, #2 and #3 on the priority list of things that need to get done and you probably believe that politicians in the Connecticut statehouse ought to agree with you, but many worthy causes have failed politically because their respective constituencies don't nearly have as much influence as they'd like to think. (Just look at what happened to all of the proposed gun control measures in Washington with bills that actually polled incredibly well with the general public.) From an economist's standpoint, how much does the state gain by the UConn athletic department receiving $20 million more per year in TV money compared to a more profitable ESPN that adds 100, 200 or 300 more jobs to the state economy (and those people hired in turn pay taxes, buy houses, shop in stores and eat in restaurants, which in turn spurs more job growth)? Is a more flush UConn athletic department really going to spur more job growth or is that money really just going to largely go to a handful of high profile coaches? I'm sure you'll find plenty of professors at UConn itself (much less the general populace that doesn't have any connection to UConn) that would testify that the money in college sports is frivolous and that all of that TV money won't go to furthering the school's academic mission. I'm not saying that I agree with that line of thinking and all of you probably have logical retorts to that argument (e.g. higher profile sports are a way to attract more student applicants with better academic credentials, etc.), but that's an undercurrent that's definitely out there (and I'd imagine that to be the case even more so in an area of the country where Ivy League and private school grads are more highly concentrated compared to the rest of the US).

At the same time, I've worked in corporate law long enough that there is *no* company that's too large to leave where it's based. From my Chicago office, I can see the Boeing headquarters across the street, and that's a company that's many times larger than ESPN (and is even bigger than the entire Disney empire overall) that had a whole lot more sunk physical location costs in the Seattle area compared to what ESPN has in Bristol. Boeing had an open bidding war between several large cities for its headquarters (and on the flip side of the size scale, even companies smaller than ESPN have been able to get major cities to do the same). If there's a location that's cheaper, ESPN can leave a whole lot easier than some people here are giving them credit for (such as expanding ESPN's own facilities in Charlotte, which can offer cheaper land and lower taxes compared to New England). ESPN has the lion's share of the leverage here because absolutely no politician wants to see such a large company with so many jobs leave the state on his/her watch (especially with the current moribund economic conditions).

The upshot is that what might be "obvious" to the commenters on this message board ("ESPN should be doing everything to help a public school in the state that's giving it tax breaks") can be perceived very differently by fans and economists across the country and the politicians and non-UConn-connected citizens of Connecticut. At the end of the day, UConn still needs to show that it's ultimately the best expansion addition to a power conference regardless of political help.

 

[UPitt]

I agree with the Tank, that you find most people outside of Connecticut feel that Connecticut's Governement needs to look out for everyone in the state and not put the ESPN tax breaks at stake because of realignment. I do think the state has a commitment to Uconn to help provide political support for the school when needed, including realignment. Virginia meddled in 2003 and VT landed a spot in the ACC. I think the state of Connecticut should do anything to help including suing Pitt and Nordy for turning down the ESPN deal of 14 mil/year. But I think you there is a fine line between helping politically to position Uconn into a major conference, and interferring with ESPN's business practices. I'm not a lawyer, but I think ESPN and Uconn would see expensive lawsuits if it is found that ESPN receives benifits because Uconn is in a major conference.

 

[noeynox]

What do you say about Mitch McConnell, Oren Hatch, and the west Virginia, pols getting involved to see to it that the respective schools whose interest they had at heart did not end up getting shitted on in conference realignment? How does the public about that Frank, tell us.

I don't advocate any state pressure that would force jobs to leave the state but lets be serious here, I don't see no one upset about politicians exerting pressure to a particular schools benefit.

 

[alsacs]

BTW I truthfully believe if UConn/USF/Cincinnati/AAC Office sued ESPN for tortious interference while it would unlikely see the day of a courtroom it would generate a settlement. As long as the claim survived summary judgment, if the lawsuit got through summary judgment you and the other schools could clearly show damages and if DeFilippio, the 4x4x4 committee members had to give depositions, or left any emails, paper chains it could show what ESPN told or did for to those schools. I think the claim is something to the effect that ESPN told the ACC to blow up the Big East, and while it was within the ACC right to speak with Big East schools, ESPN can't meddle with or retaliate against the conference for turning down a decent offer. Suing ESPN is something I would think has to be considered before any potential SOL has expired.

 

[HuskyHawk]

A few thoughts about this line of thinking:

I understand why the people here would make that connection since ESPN is right in your backyard. I also understand that most people here will believe that whatever mechanism is used to get UConn into a power conference is an inherently good mechanism, regardless of the consequences of how the sausage is made.

However, I don't think anyone outside of Connecticut is really making the connection between ESPN and the plight of its home state neighbor of UConn... and the thing is that if people actually did, it actually would NOT be favorable to UConn at all. While people might hate ESPN's real or perceived hand in conference realignment and how much it controls the sports world in general, there's some base level rationalization that it's pursuing the maximization of power and profits just like any other corporation. That's not necessarily popular in this increasingly populist political environment, but there's still a certain level of understanding there. On the flip side, if ESPN were found to be pushing UConn to join the ACC (or Big Ten or any other conference) in order to curry political favor for receiving tax breaks from the state of government of Connecticut, then that would be a tstorm beyond belief. It would NOT look good to the rest of the nation for either ESPN or UConn. Once again, you may not care as long as you get into a power conference, but rest assured there would not be ANY sympathy for UConn on the state tax break front. The only thing worse than ESPN meddling with conference affairs for profit is ESPN meddling with conference affairs for political gain.

Plus, you have to look at it like a politician. Within the UConn constituency, gaining entry into a power conference is probably #1, #2 and #3 on the priority list of things that need to get done and you probably believe that politicians in the Connecticut statehouse ought to agree with you, but many worthy causes have failed politically because their respective constituencies don't nearly have as much influence as they'd like to think. (Just look at what happened to all of the proposed gun control measures in Washington with bills that actually polled incredibly well with the general public.) From an economist's standpoint, how much does the state gain by the UConn athletic department receiving $20 million more per year in TV money compared to a more profitable ESPN that adds 100, 200 or 300 more jobs to the state economy (and those people hired in turn pay taxes, buy houses, shop in stores and eat in restaurants, which in turn spurs more job growth)? Is a more flush UConn athletic department really going to spur more job growth or is that money really just going to largely go to a handful of high profile coaches? I'm sure you'll find plenty of professors at UConn itself (much less the general populace that doesn't have any connection to UConn) that would testify that the money in college sports is frivolous and that all of that TV money won't go to furthering the school's academic mission. I'm not saying that I agree with that line of thinking and all of you probably have logical retorts to that argument (e.g. higher profile sports are a way to attract more student applicants with better academic credentials, etc.), but that's an undercurrent that's definitely out there (and I'd imagine that to be the case even more so in an area of the country where Ivy League and private school grads are more highly concentrated compared to the rest of the US).

At the same time, I've worked in corporate law long enough that there is *no* company that's too large to leave where it's based. From my Chicago office, I can see the Boeing headquarters across the street, and that's a company that's many times larger than ESPN (and is even bigger than the entire Disney empire overall) that had a whole lot more sunk physical location costs in the Seattle area compared to what ESPN has in Bristol. Boeing had an open bidding war between several large cities for its headquarters (and on the flip side of the size scale, even companies smaller than ESPN have been able to get major cities to do the same). If there's a location that's cheaper, ESPN can leave a whole lot easier than some people here are giving them credit for (such as expanding ESPN's own facilities in Charlotte, which can offer cheaper land and lower taxes compared to New England). ESPN has the lion's share of the leverage here because absolutely no politician wants to see such a large company with so many jobs leave the state on his/her watch (especially with the current moribund economic conditions).

The upshot is that what might be "obvious" to the commenters on this message board ("ESPN should be doing everything to help a public school in the state that's giving it tax breaks") can be perceived very differently by fans and economists across the country and the politicians and non-UConn-connected citizens of Connecticut. At the end of the day, UConn still needs to show that it's ultimately the best expansion addition to a power conference regardless of political help.

Spot on. Completely agree that overt favoritism towards UConn would look very bad.

And for those who don't think ESPN would leave because of proximity to NY and Boston (which is a value for them) think long and hard about the value to Disney of putting ESPN HQ in Anaheim or Orlando, and turning it into the centerpiece of a sports themed attraction/park. If Disney hasn't considered that even under the current scenario, they are morons.

I don't understand our fixation on ESPN. Did they not offer the Big East a contract that UConn would love to have today? Why do that if they had any hostile intent at the outset? With respect to Pitt, I don't think ESPN cared whether the ACC took UConn or Pitt, but there were objections to UConn and none to Pitt, so decision made.

 

[UPitt]

What do you say about Mitch McConnell, Oren Hatch, and the west Virginia, pols getting involved to see to it that the respective schools whose interest they had at heart did not end up getting ted on in conference realignment? How does the public about that Frank, tell us.

I don't advocate any state pressure that would force jobs to leave the state but lets be serious here, I don't see no one upset about politicians exerting pressure to a particular schools benefit.

I think you nailed it. I think a only a few people outside of West Virginia were upset with Mitch McConnell when he tried to push Louisville over West Virginia. And as soon as the Big 12 chose a team, just about everyone forgot that Mitch McConnell was ever involved. Similar thing happened to VT. A few schools, Uconn and Pitt mainly, remember Virginia getting involved in 2003. Ask yourself if you feel any discent towards VT or Virginia? I suspect the answer is no or very little. I see no reason why Connecticut's political leaders can not help promote Uconn or at least fight for money in courts via lawsuit. But I do not think it is fair to ask political leaders to enter into possible unfair business ethics and trade practices by forcing ESPN to include Uconn if it wants to accept tax breaks.

 

[frankthetank]

I agree with the Tank, that you find most people outside of Connecticut feel that Connecticut's Governement needs to look out for everyone in the state and not put the ESPN tax breaks at stake because of realignment. I do think the state has a commitment to Uconn to help provide political support for the school when needed, including realignment. Virginia meddled in 2003 and VT landed a spot in the ACC. I think the state of Connecticut should do anything to help including suing Pitt and Nordy for turning down the ESPN deal of 14 mil/year. But I think you there is a fine line between helping politically to position Uconn into a major conference, and interferring with ESPN's business practices. I'm not a lawyer, but I think ESPN and Uconn would see expensive lawsuits if it is found that ESPN receives benifits because Uconn is in a major conference.

I hear you, and the important distinction is that's on Connecticut's politicians themselves to do that (much in the way that West Virginia and Kentucky politicians respectively fought for WVU and Louisville) as opposed to putting ESPN (however unsympathetic people might find them to be) in a position where it's inserting itself into conference realignment issues for state tax reasons. I disagree with the lawsuit route, though. Unless you can show that Pitt was talking to the ACC at the time that they moved to reject the ESPN offer (and to be extremely fair, the overwhelming sentiment from TV industry people and Big East fans at that time was to turn that offer down since the Pac-12 had just received a massive windfall from going to the open market only a week or two prior to that - absolutely no one wanted to sign that deal once they saw the Pac-12's numbers), it's likely a loser on the merits and, further to the discussion earlier in this thread, the last thing that UConn needs is to have another legal challenge attached to its name. There are also perfectly reasonable business reasons why Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville were chosen for the ACC - even if you could show that UConn would have been more profitable than any of them (which may or may not be the case), courts give a wide amount of latitude on those decisions. Even speaking as a lawyer (albeit a pragmatic dealmaking type as opposed to a litigator), if you essentially can't show that the business case in favor of Louisville (or Syracuse or Pitt) was completely insane by the ACC where they just threw out all reasoning simply to spite UConn (and objectively speaking, I don't think it was insane), then this type of lawsuit isn't going anywhere. Plus, Pitt, Syracuse and everyone else that has left the Big East have settled up their exit fees and damages, so UConn likely couldn't bring a lawsuit at this point even if it wanted to if there was a standard settlement agreement put into place that ensured that the parties would not seek further claims from each other on this subject matter (which I'm 99.9% certain would have happened).

 

[specialisthusky]

BTW I truthfully believe if UConn/USF/Cincinnati/AAC Office sued ESPN for tortious interference while it would unlikely see the day of a courtroom it would generate a settlement. As long as the claim survived summary judgment, if the lawsuit got through summary judgment you and the other schools could clearly show damages and if DeFilippio, the 4x4x4 committee members had to give depositions, or left any emails, paper chains it could show what ESPN told or did for to those schools. I think the claim is something to the effect that ESPN told the ACC to blow up the Big East, and while it was within the ACC right to speak with Big East schools, ESPN can't meddle with or retaliate against the conference for turning down a decent offer. Suing ESPN is something I would think has to be considered before any potential SOL has expired.

You have been lecturing on the ramifications of UConn having been a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the ACC, yet you are suggesting suing the most powerful media corporation in sports who has been, if not dictating ACC CR, having a strong influence and whom pays the bills for that conference entirely. No thank you.

While I believe UConn was damaged in both instances, this lawsuit would be an enormous mistake.

 

[alsacs]

You have been lecturing on the ramifications of UConn having been a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the ACC, yet you are suggesting suing the most powerful media corporation in sports who has been, if not dictating ACC CR, having a strong influence and whom pays the bills for that conference entirely. No thank you.

While I believe UConn was damaged in both instances, this lawsuit would be an enormous mistake.

I didn't say I would file the lawsuit I just it would likely be successful, and secondly based on the responses UConn fans have given me most don't believe the ACC lawsuit has done much damage. BTW, I don't consider myself lecturing I am bringing a different perspective I don't feel I am smarter or better than anybody just bringing another opinion.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Alsacs - I usually don't agree with you, but I do appreciate a diversity of opinion around here. You, UPitt, Frank and some of our other B1G posters help to keep us sharp and check our assumptions. Hope you (or others) don't feel discouraged about posting here.

 

[specialisthusky]

I didn't say I would file the lawsuit I just it would likely be successful, and secondly based on the responses UConn fans have given me most don't believe the ACC lawsuit has done much damage. BTW, I don't consider myself lecturing I am bringing a different perspective I don't feel I am smarter or better than anybody just bringing another opinion.

Lecturing was a poor choice of wording. No disrepect intended.

 

[frankthetank]

You have been lecturing on the ramifications of UConn having been a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the ACC, yet you are suggesting suing the most powerful media corporation in sports who has been, if not dictating ACC CR, having a strong influence and whom pays the bills for that conference entirely. No thank you.

While I believe UConn was damaged in both instances, this lawsuit would be an enormous mistake.

Yeah, attempting to sue ESPN on this issue would be an extremely bad idea on a lot of levels (legally, business-wise, politically). I know a lot of people think that the comments from the BC AD that "ESPN told us what to do" is some type of smoking gun, but that's pretty easily refuted when taking that statement into context. Suing ESPN on conference realignment matters is in the category of something that you can talk yourselves into thinking is a good idea within the echo chamber of a message board, but almost any impartial observer that knows what it would take to win that type of case would see it as a terrible idea.

 

[alsacs]

Thank you to WestHartHusk and SpecialistHusky, I don't expect to have my posts liked, but as long as I am respectful I figure another opinion is welcome. If you check my posts on the SU board, I am pretty reasonable and haven't been really negative to any schools (except Rutgers who act like they are Ohio State on the gridiron when they have been like Purdue and that is insulting to Purdue) obviously I have an Orange slant, but I feel I am objective when I am posting as a guest on another team's board.

 

[alsacs]

Yeah, attempting to sue ESPN on this issue would be an extremely bad idea on a lot of levels (legally, business-wise, politically). I know a lot of people think that the comments from the BC AD that "ESPN told us what to do" is some type of smoking gun, but that's pretty easily refuted when taking that statement into context. Suing ESPN on conference realignment matters is in the category of something that you can talk yourselves into thinking is a good idea within the echo chamber of a message board, but almost any impartial observer that knows what it would take to win that type of case would see it as a terrible idea.

I don't disagree with this Frankthetank, and I wouldn't file the case and obviously nobody has filed the case, but if the AAC schools signed with FOX/NBC for significantly less money I think could have been discussed for the reasons I stated, and plus if the case survived summary judgment you know ESPN would want to settle the case. ESPN has no problem suing conferences when it feels it has been hurt see the CUSA lawsuit.

 

[UPitt]

Frank, being a lawyer you should have a better/different point of view. Please shed insight on the thoughts below:

Do you think that any lawsuit brought by Uconn would be harmful at this point?

You partly covered the reasons for not sueing over the 14 mil/year contract decline (and I think you have a valid point), but do you feel they could bring a lawsuit recouping additional money from Pitt, Cuse, and even WVU? This additional money would be because they agreed to let them leave at additional exiting costs assuming that Rutgers, C7, and Boise would remain in the league. Because the conditions for granting the early exit have changed, can the exit fee settlement be reconsidered, or can Uconn bring an additional lawsuit for new damages?

Can Uconn bring a civil suit that requires Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Rutgers, C7, or others to play home games in the future at Uconn? Similar to the settlement with the ACC in 2003/2004.

 

[frankthetank]

Frank, being a lawyer you should have a better/different point of view. Please shed insight on the thoughts below:

Do you think that any lawsuit brought by Uconn would be harmful at this point?

You partly covered the reasons for not sueing over the 14 mil/year contract decline (and I think you have a valid point), but do you feel they could bring a lawsuit recouping additional money from Pitt, Cuse, and even WVU? This additional money would be because they agreed to let them leave at additional exiting costs assuming that Rutgers, C7, and Boise would remain in the league. Because the conditions for granting the early exit have changed, can the exit fee settlement be reconsidered, or can Uconn bring an additional lawsuit for new damages?

Can Uconn bring a civil suit that requires Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Rutgers, C7, or others to play home games in the future at Uconn? Similar to the settlement with the ACC in 2003/2004.

It would be subject to the terms of the respective settlement agreements that Pitt, Syracuse and the others signed with the Big East (now AAC). If those settlement agreements are "normal" where the parties waive any rights to bring further claims about the underlying subject matter, it's very doubtful that UConn (or Cincinnati or anyone else in the AAC) can get anything more out of the Big East defectors at this point. You can try to argue that the conditions for the exit have changed, but that's not likely going to get you anywhere. Besides, the Catholic 7, Notre Dame, Rutgers and Louisville have all done their own settlements in the meantime, so UConn's ability to go back to the well with Syracuse and Pitt is virtually nil. The time to have gotten any scheduling concessions with them was in those settlement discussions. Unless Pitt et. al is actually breaching a settlement agreement, I can't see how a typical court would want to touch opening up those issues again. They HATE HATE HATE doing that (as a primary benefit of settlement agreements is to put less strain on the court system AKA not give more work to the judges reviewing your case).

 

[Cleanface]

The only conference FSU was ever going to leave the ACC for is/was the SEC.

Uhhhh, no.

Expansion 101 for the B1G/SEC - do not add schools already in your footprint.

SEC already owns FL with U of FL. FSU was NEVER going to the SEC.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Uhhhh, no.

Expansion 101 for the B1G/SEC - do not add schools already in your footprint.

SEC already owns FL with U of FL. FSU was NEVER going to the SEC.

That is the point. The wouldn't leave the ACC for anybody but the SEC, and the SEC wasn't taking them. Hence, FSU was driven to stabilize the ACC.

 

[Cleanface]

Well, the BXII was always the other option, but IMO that was a long shot, altho heavily rumored.

B1G as well. Don't think they ever seriously considered FSU.

Out of the B1G, SEC, and BXII, the BXII was the only Conf that I think they legitimately considered RE leaving the ACC.

 

[upstater]

????

Let me get this straight. ESPN, because of a loss of $15 million in tax breaks, is going to abandon a billion dollars worth of infrastructure in Bristol in order to move to much more expensive Westchester County or even worse Northern New Jersey?

Does this really seem plausible to you?