If you could go back in time would you want UCONN to sue BC and the ACC?

[HuskyFan16]

October 26, 1997, The New York Times
"...the university appears on the verge of building a new football stadium on the Storrs campus that will accommodate a Husky team that will, by 2003, be playing the likes of Miami and Syracuse as a full-fledged member of the Big East football conference." Debate that.

What are you talking about "got UConn 10 more years in a major conference"? Where was UConn going? Back to the Yankee Conf? The Big East offered UConn membership for football. The Big East delivered that membership. That lawsuit didn't deliver Big East membership to UConn. That was promised long before the initial raid.


http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/26/nyregion/will-huskies-embrace-big-time-football.html

Nelson has somehow convinced himself that the lawsuit was the reason that the major conferences continued to allow the Big East to have a BCS bid after the raid, despite not having one source with qualified knowledge having disclosed that.

 

[HuskyFan16]

Also, when he says "There is no debating that" it means he can't definitively prove his assertion, so he would prefer not to debate that.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Also, when he says "There is no debating that" it means he can't definitively prove his assertion, so he would prefer not to debate that.

Sounds like what you're trying to say is "he's tedious."

 

[UCPusky]

One thing is for sure, the OP is lurking and laughing at the pi$$ing match this thread has turned into.

 

[CL82]

Laughed out of court is my euphemism. In fact, UConn settled out of court. The court awarded us nothing. We sued for hundreds of millions of dollars, realized their position was as close to meritless as one could be and settled for a million offered to make its nuisance lawsuit disappear.

A million dollars, and that's just the portion that UConn received, the total was likely about $5M, isn't "nuisance value." That's significant money to the entities involved. Pretending that it isn't is silly.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

A million dollars, and that's just the portion that UConn received, the total was likely about $5M, isn't "nuisance value." That's significant money to the entities involved. Pretending that it isn't is silly.

$5 million is completely insignificant compared to the value of the repositioning the ACC was attempting accomplish. What was the increased value of the new ACC to its media partners? I'll bet it was at least an order of magnitude greater. Pretending that 5 mill was significant to Swofford considering what he was attempting is what's silly. He got a bargain.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

?It is a sad day for higher education and intercollegiate athletics when universities initiate this kind of unwarranted action ? suing faculty members and conference officials over an institution?s freedom to associate itself with whatever conference it chooses,? ACC Commissioner John Swofford said in a written statement.

Interesting quote

 

[06029]

A million dollars, and that's just the portion that UConn received, the total was likely about $5M, isn't "nuisance value." That's significant money to the entities involved. Pretending that it isn't is silly.

The Big East and the plaintiffs did lose on the one case that did go to trial. They lost on all points. In addition, some of the documentation that came out during that lawsuit showed how inept the BE leadership was at the time. It also illustrated how fractured the conference had become between the FB and BB schools and showed me that the final split was inevitable. Also, a CT court dismissed all other claims at one point as well in addition to the MA judgement.

To your point on the award, $5mm probably paid legal fees. I forget who it was that represented the BE but it was a big NYC firm and the billing rates must have been incredibly high. I am sure there was local counsel engaged for all of the schools as well. There was no big net gain to any of the plaintiff schools on this one.

 

[John Greene]

One thing is for sure, the OP is lurking and laughing at the pi$$ing match this thread has turned into.

Over the years I noticed that when things get slow around here someone (usually a purported BC poster) starts a thread about the original BE breakup. It must work to generate traffic since I just posted.

 

[nomar]

I find it pretty hilarious that someone could swallow the whopper that UConn got blocked from the ACC because it sued the ACC. This is a business and sophisticated companies like universities and conferences (a) understand that litigation is a part of business and (b) make business decisions based on the bottom line. UConn got screwed because the ACC thought Louisville made more sense not because of some prior squabble. The blame, to the extent some should be assigned, is on the administration's relatively recent moves or lack thereof.

The stuff about Blumenthal speaks only to the people harping on it. Blame the politician!

 

[HuskyPete]

What's a BC???

I think BC stands for Bull Crap

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The Big East and the plaintiffs did lose on the one case that did go to trial. They lost on all points. In addition, some of the documentation that came out during that lawsuit showed how inept the BE leadership was at the time. It also illustrated how fractured the conference had become between the FB and BB schools and showed me that the final split was inevitable. Also, a CT court dismissed all other claims at one point as well in addition to the MA judgement.

To your point on the award, $5mm probably paid legal fees. I forget who it was that represented the BE but it was a big NYC firm and the billing rates must have been incredibly high. I am sure there was local counsel engaged for all of the schools as well. There was no big net gain to any of the plaintiff schools on this one.

And yet the Big East kept its BCS bid despite the consensus at the time that the bid was gone.

BTW, the CT judge ruled that he did not have jurisdiction on the ACC, but that had no impact on BC or Miami. He did not dismiss all claims. Nice try though.

Do you realize that almost every major conference realignment move has resulted in litigation?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Nelson has somehow convinced himself that the lawsuit was the reason that the major conferences continued to allow the Big East to have a BCS bid after the raid, despite not having one source with qualified knowledge having disclosed that.

And you think that the BCS bid remained behind by magic or maybe the goodwill of the leagues that were trying to destroy the Big East.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Registered, HuskyFan, and the rest of the lawsuit critics,

I get a little tired of arguing with shadows who refuse to take a position themselves. What do you think would have happened if the Big East did not sue? Do you honestly think the other leagues would have let the Big East keep its BCS bid?

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Registered, HuskyFan, and the rest of the lawsuit critics,

I get a little tired of arguing with shadows who refuse to take a position themselves. What do you think would have happened if the Big East did not sue? Do you honestly think the other leagues would have let the Big East keep its BCS bid?

Hey everybody, two and two is five. Let's argue.

You've made no case. What's to argue about? You think a baseless lawsuit put the fear of god into the SEC, B10, PAC whatever it was, Texas, ESPN, et al? I sure as hell don't.

Know where I see shadows? Your avatar.

I'm out.

 

[CL82]

$5 million is completely insignificant compared to the value of the repositioning the ACC was attempting accomplish. What was the increased value of the new ACC to its media partners? I'll bet it was at least an order of magnitude greater. Pretending that 5 mill was significant to Swofford considering what he was attempting is what's silly. He got a bargain.

So let's recap. Your opening position was that the Big East suit was "laughed out of court." You moved from that to a position that the significant monies paid to the Big East schools in settlement were just the "nuisance value" of the suit. Your latest position is that the ACC got a good return on the $5 million that it ponied it up. I guess I can agree with that. Really instead of dancing around the issue why not just say "Oh yeah, I forgot about the $5M" Isn't that easier?

 

[frankthetank]

Registered, HuskyFan, and the rest of the lawsuit critics,

I get a little tired of arguing with shadows who refuse to take a position themselves. What do you think would have happened if the Big East did not sue? Do you honestly think the other leagues would have let the Big East keep its BCS bid?

My understanding, believe it or not, is that the primary reason why the Big East kept its BCS bid was that Jim Delany, Mike Slive and the other BCS commissioners not named Swofford thought *very* highly of then-Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese (and still do to this day as evidenced by him being one of the first people chosen to be on the new college football playoff committee). The other power conference commissioners understood that the Big East was undercut by the ACC, so they gave the Big East a reprieve based on their respect for Tranghese. When the Big East actually ended up performing fairly well in football after the ACC defections were finalized, that turned that temporary reprieve into a permanent one that lasted until the league split apart this past year.

Now, one could argue that Tranghese's leadership of the Big East (or lack thereof) was a big reason why schools like Miami wanted to defect in the first place, but regardless of how fans felt about him, it's definitely widely known that he's close to the power club guys like Delany.

 

[Fishy]

The lawsuit did not preserve the BCS bid - it's not like the ACC had that gift in their basket to entice a settlement of the lawsuit.

 

[HuskyFan16]

Registered, HuskyFan, and the rest of the lawsuit critics,

I get a little tired of arguing with shadows who refuse to take a position themselves. What do you think would have happened if the Big East did not sue? Do you honestly think the other leagues would have let the Big East keep its BCS bid?

My opinion is similar to Frank's. Obviously, I have no idea what the actual settlement terms were, but I think its ridiculous to think that somehow one law suit by five schools put the fear of God in 4 power conferences other than the ACC. It seems like the secrecy behind the settlement was to allow all parties to move on, especially once the merits of the case became a little more clear.

My assumption is that the conferences other than the ACC for whatever reason [whether it be: 1) Hank's theory of benevolence, or 2) possibly the thought that if they let the Big East start as a BCS league, and fail like they thought it would, then they could save face/liability when they pulled the bid later] had their own reasons for wanting the Big East to keep its bid.

 

[HuskyFan16]

And Nelson, I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I have just as little proof as you do. What i'm saying is that you can't just have a theory based on facts you can't prove and declare it indisputable.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

My proof is that the big east kept its bid.

As for the "benevolence" theory, that is also false. Every single decision related to the BCS and the playoffs factors in the threat of litigation. You think the P5 are handing over almost $100 million a year to the non P5 conferences because they are nice?

 

[TouchdownHusky]

In hindsight, UConn got thrown under the bus in the aftermath of the lawsuit. They have gotten screw in CR, no doubt. So maybe it wasn't worth it. However, despite the fact that I was very much in favor of gutting the ACC and the Bendict Arnolds, I didn't count on the uselessness of the courts. When it comes to $$$$$ and college athletics (the Notre Dame, OSU, Texas, UNC & Kentucky in hoops), the courts look the other way. Proof??? How does the old USFL (the Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Herschal Walker league) WIN in an antitrust suit against the NFL and end up being awarded treble damages (the "endzone" in these types of cases) and end up being awarded $3.00. The judge presiding over that case should have been immediately disbarred and jailed - or executed. He made a mockery of the legal system why? Because it was just football?

So the Big East suit against the ACC should have been a major, devastating blow to that conference and the schools abandoning ship. Instead the suit was treated like a joke.

 

[HuskyFan16]

My proof is that the big east kept its bid.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

 

[UConn9604]

UConn's expenses to upgrade were seen as the easiest way to demonstrate potential damages.

Actually, the tie was ESPN -- our argument was that the ACC was subject to the jurisdiction of Connecticut courts based on its contracts with, and appearances on, a Bristol-based network.

 

[SubbaBub]

Registered, HuskyFan, and the rest of the lawsuit critics,

I get a little tired of arguing with shadows who refuse to take a position themselves. What do you think would have happened if the Big East did not sue? Do you honestly think the other leagues would have let the Big East keep its BCS bid?

Or would ESPN have honored the balance of the TV deal. The threat of discovery was the only weapon UConn had and they sold it for what ultimately turned out to be a handful of not so magic beans.

As for the lawsuit, it didn't seem to affect they other litigants. It was fear of competition and an unproven FB market. That's it.