Maryland’s $157 million counterclaim: ACC recruited B1G schools

[WestHartHusk]

The irony of ironies is that the B1G has a Grant or Rights, but apparently Swofford thinks they can be broken.

 

[UConn9604]

View attachment 4756

As the saying goes, good lawyers generally don't ask a question to which they don't already know the answer.

Maryland's President is a lawyer, and was probably aware of what was going on when the ACC discussed adding Syracuse and Pitt. These paragraphs are included in the complaint for a reason.

 

[SAMCRO]

If the ACC goes to ESPN "we are considering adding schools X and Y, what are their valuations in your opinion", and ESPN responds with the dollar figure...that isn't saying "ADD THESE TEAMS AND SCREW UP OUR OTHER CONTRACT!"

It's answering the question that's asked. Maybe the Big East should have asked if the ACC was mentioning any of their teams to ESPN.

If schools X and Y are currently in a contract with ESPN, the answer should be "we are currently in contract with the schools you're inquiring about, so to provide an answer would be a conflict of interest and inappropriate and unethical for us to provide you such valuation. Just as we would not provide similar information on schools in your conference to other leagues Mr. Swofford."

 

[Jarhead_1775]

If schools X and Y are currently in a contract with ESPN, the answer should be "we are currently in contract with the schools you're inquiring about, so to provide an answer would be a conflict of interest and inappropriate and unethical for us to provide you such valuation. Just as we would not provide similar information on schools in your conference to other leagues Mr. Swofford."

When did ethics and business ever go together?

 

[CL82]

If the ACC goes to ESPN "we are considering adding schools X and Y, what are their valuations in your opinion", and ESPN responds with the dollar figure...that isn't saying "ADD THESE TEAMS AND SCREW UP OUR OTHER CONTRACT!"

It's answering the question that's asked. Maybe the Big East should have asked if the ACC was mentioning any of their teams to ESPN.

BIG EAST: Television partner. Oh television partner..... are you planning on paying another conference a premium if they raid us?

ESPN: Why no that would be despicable, if not an outright breach of our fiduciary duty to you Big East. We would never do that...wait I gotta go Swofford's on the other line.

BIG EAST: Hello? Hello?

 

[Fishy]

If the ACC goes to ESPN "we are considering adding schools X and Y, what are their valuations in your opinion", and ESPN responds with the dollar figure...that isn't saying "ADD THESE TEAMS AND SCREW UP OUR OTHER CONTRACT!"

It's answering the question that's asked. Maybe the Big East should have asked if the ACC was mentioning any of their teams to ESPN.

You're being willfully naive. Either that or you're just simple.

The ACC is ESPN's house brand.

They're not in a sit-quietly-and-consult mode with their house brand and they certainly didn't shed a tear when the Big East was destroyed. Their money underwrote the massacre - if you don't want your checkbook being used as a machete, you don't let your checkbook be used as a machete.

Now, is that wrong? It certainly wasn't nice, but wrong?

No, it's business.

I'm not sure what kind of smoking gun the rest of the board thinks we're going to find or if a smoking gun can even exist when you're talking about a network favoring one conference over another.

The Big East overplayed whatever hand it thought it had and it got leveled by the ACC and ESPN.

Indisputable.

 

[CL82]

You're being willfully naive. Either that or you're just simple.

...or deliberately disingenuous.

 

[Fishy]

I don't think ESPN cares.

Say that it comes out tomorrow that ESPN willfully engineered the destruction of the Big East....

Who's left to be outraged?

Us?

The national media and the world that is served by the ACC, SEC, Pac 12, Big 12 and Big Ten would probably applaud. They certainly welcomed the Big East's demise when it happened.

 

[Chin Diesel]

You're being willfully naive. Either that or you're just simple.

The ACC is ESPN's house brand.

They're not in a sit-quietly-and-consult mode with their house brand and they certainly didn't shed a tear when the Big East was destroyed. Their money underwrote the massacre - if you don't want your checkbook being used as a machete, you don't let your checkbook be used as a machete.

Now, is that wrong? It certainly wasn't nice, but wrong?

No, it's business.

I'm not sure what kind of smoking gun the rest of the board thinks we're going to find or if a smoking gun can even exist when you're talking about a network favoring one conference over another.

The Big East overplayed whatever hand it thought it had and it got leveled by the ACC and ESPN.

Indisputable.

A pretty good analogy. For whatever reason ESPN made the ACC it's Market Place or Great Value product.

Sure they buy, sell, promote other brands that are more valuable and higher quality but at the end of the day the ACC is what ESPN figured was the highest quality brand that they could control.

 

[Adios]

This pales what Blumenthal did with the ACC. I can see the ACC or B1G welcoming us with open arm now. Who's left to take? UCF? Gotta love the drama of college sports...

If ND is forced to join the ACC as a full member for D4, we're probably in for #16.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

If the ACC goes to ESPN "we are considering adding schools X and Y, what are their valuations in your opinion", and ESPN responds with the dollar figure...that isn't saying "ADD THESE TEAMS AND SCREW UP OUR OTHER CONTRACT!"

It's answering the question that's asked. Maybe the Big East should have asked if the ACC was mentioning any of their teams to ESPN.

You are miles off. ESPN helped a key vendor to destroy not just one competitor (the Big East), but attempt to destroy another (the Big 10).

ESPN is in big trouble here. The problem with most anti-trust investigations is there usually isn't enough direct evidence of the illegal activity to warrant a conviction. Most successful anti-trust trials have a Mark Whitacre that is on the inside feeding the feds information. ESPN/ACC's problem could be that Maryland just decided to become Mark Whitacre. Who knows what memos they kept. They wouldn't put it all in the initial complaint. That initial complaint is just a tease for the ACC and ESPN to play ball.

The problem for the ESPN brass is that the allegations may cross into criminal anti-trust and price fixing behavior. There is no settlement for that. Federal prosecutors like sending executives to jail, and the prosecutions are generally straightforward and pretty easy. There is no Omerta in media and advertising. Most guys sing pretty quickly when faced with even the credible hint of jail time.

 

[The Viking]

Yeah, I have no doubt I am an idiot when it comes to law but I find it hard to believe that if ESPN has a contract with league A and league B, that they are allowed to assist league A in a raid of some of the best properties in league B.
Now if league A was asking about properties not under contract with ESPN, maybe that is different.

But again, I'm not a big law guy so maybe I'm way off.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

It was over for the BE the minute BE presidents voted to not accept ESPiN's media deal. At that point, ESPiN worked with their gopher the ACC to destroy the BE by getting the ACC to take BE's properties one by one. They knew they taking CUSE and PITT in the middle of the night, BE would crumble and BE did. ESPiN played the card (ACC) they control to destroy the BE. Also, because there was threat of B12 (FOX) taking UL, ESPiN probably engineered that move to get the ACC to prevent that as well.

As a result, they got the AAC on the cheap. UCONN was the victim in this whole thing but ESPiN does not care. How are damage did we suffer because of ESPiN's actions? I think we need someone to help us find out. ESPiN did well for itself. The only issue we got with that is we got left out in the cold.

 

[Hoophound]

You're being willfully naive. Either that or you're just simple. The ACC is ESPN's house brand. They're not in a sit-quietly-and-consult mode with their house brand and they certainly didn't shed a tear when the Big East was destroyed. Their money underwrote the massacre - if you don't want your checkbook being used as a machete, you don't let your checkbook be used as a machete. Now, is that wrong? It certainly wasn't nice, but wrong? No, it's business. I'm not sure what kind of smoking gun the rest of the board thinks we're going to find or if a smoking gun can even exist when you're talking about a network favoring one conference over another. The Big East overplayed whatever hand it thought it had and it got leveled by the ACC and ESPN. Indisputable.

The key here is that the Big East was under contract with ESPN. I believe ESPN had the duty to act in the best interests of its client (Big East) or stay out of it. In this case ESPN had a duty to the Big East and the ACC to act in their best interests, but to do so ethically.

By diving in as an active member of the conspiracy with the ACC, they damaged the financial future of the Big East and it's members. The football schools left behind- UConn, Cincy and USF, suffered all of the consequences. I would think that another lawsuit from those three schools is very possible. I would figure that something along the lines of 14 years lost revenue (I think that is the length of the ACC contract) is a starting point. While I don't think we should spearhead a lawsuit, if other parties pursue this matter and it becomes obvious we should win damages, I don't see how you pass on the opportunity. We are talking $100,000,000 per school lost.

 

[coachcap]

Where's Bizlaw when you need him? I need a view from Section 241 to clear this up.

 

[billybud]

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury.

ESPN conspiracy theory folks, wearing their pointy tin foil hats, will excitedly reduce and sift every sentence and discuss details until the voice rasps.

The suit is more the doing of a State AG seeking reelection then it is a legal proceeding that will impact the ACC or Maryland or ESPN.

The truth is that all media that contract with conferences, and ESPN contracts with a few, are consulted regarding the value of future conference moves. Fox is consulted by the Big 12. The SEC consults with CBS and ESPN.

When all is done, nothing much will be different, nor changed. There will be some settlement between the ACC and Maryland that will range be about $20 million. And the ACC will have withheld most of that already.

What is somewhat laughable, is that Dr. Loh, at Maryland, was shopping Maryland and discussing (with Delany)moving to the Big Ten two years in advance of their top secret maneuvering.

Naw...sound and fury without much substance....

 

[Hoophound]

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. ESPN conspiracy theory folks, wearing their pointy tin foil hats, will excitedly reduce and sift every sentence and discuss details until the voice rasps. The suit is more the doing of a State AG seeking reelection then it is a legal proceeding that will impact the ACC or Maryland or ESPN. The truth is that all media that contract with conferences, and ESPN contracts with a few, are consulted regarding the value of future conference moves. Fox is consulted by the Big 12. The SEC consults with CBS and ESPN. When all is done, nothing much will be different, nor changed. There will be some settlement between the ACC and Maryland that will range be about $20 million. And the ACC will have withheld most of that already. What is somewhat laughable, is that Dr. Loh, at Maryland, was shopping Maryland and discussing (with Delany)moving to the Big Ten two years in advance of their top secret maneuvering. Naw...sound and fury without much substance....

We don't care about that. What we care about is that we had a contract with Espn and they blatantly kicked us in the nuts. It isn't right, it isn't ethical and it isn't commonplace for any company or individual to slash the financial throat of its own client.

This is akin to your lawyer using his discussions with you against you by helping another one of his clients destroy your company.

It is akin to the Realtor you hired to sell your house trying to get you to sell it to one of her friends for below market value through deceit.

It is akin to your surgeon coerced by your nemesis to kill you on the operating table.

This is bad business. Not much will likely come of it but it isn't because it is ok to operate that way.

 

[billybud]

ESPN made what they thought was a fair business offer to the Big East.

The BE said "no"....

Sound to me like the Big East made a decision.

It is more akin to a realtor working with a developer....the developer makes realtor an offer for a large piece of property based on what he thinks he can do with the property. And the realtor says that the client declines.

The developer then determines that pieces of that property
may be purchased separately...and several pieces do add value to his adjacent holdings and make sense for buying.

He makes an offer and it is accepted. The realtor is left holding a less desirable property.

 

[Hoophound]

ESPN made what they thought was a fair business offer to the Big East. The BE said "no".... Sound to me like the Big East made a decision. It is more akin to a realtor working with a developer....the developer makes realtor an offer for a large piece of property based on what he thinks he can do with the property. And the realtor says that the client declines. The developer then determines that pieces of that property may be purchased separately...and several pieces do add value to his adjacent holdings and make sense for buying. He makes an offer and it is accepted. The realtor is left holding a less desirable property.

No, those situations would only be similar if the Realtor taught the developer the strategy to pull off the deal without that parcel. He also needed to make a side deal to get compensation from the developer since his client's property was now worthless and would never sell.

Further, did the property seller have a partner? Let's call him Mr. Pitt. Well it turns out Mr Pitt was behind rejecting the developer's original offer. He is now a VP at the developer's office and he got a big signing bonus. The Realtor has exclusive right to sell all the new homes the developer is building on the site.

Everyone wins, except the poor seller. He had no chance, everybody was working together to squash him, even those contractually and ethically obligated to look out for him.

 

[billybud]

The BE has been incredibly foolish.

From originally trying to shop its football schools to the ACC (which the ACC finally took them up on later)...to naming Notre Dame to head the expansion committee, to turning down the ESPN contract offer.

I do not know much about Pitt's involvement that you alluded to, but things are fluid (to quote the Dude).

 

[UPitt]

I don't think ESPN cares.

Say that it comes out tomorrow that ESPN willfully engineered the destruction of the Big East....

Who's left to be outraged?

Us?

The national media and the world that is served by the ACC, SEC, Pac 12, Big 12 and Big Ten would probably applaud. They certainly welcomed the Big East's demise when it happened.

This is key. I discussed this a few months ago. ESPN is only viewed as a villian by a few select schools. Aside from Uconn, Cincy, and USF, the latest conference realignment has benefitted everyone. Schools moving into the P5 benefitted, and schools replacing them in the AAC benefitted. Current members of P5 conferences have increased the value of the conference and payouts. Many fans around the country are also happy to see the Big East (football) dissolve and lose its automatic bid. The Big East Catholics have what they wanted.

Although Uconn, Cincy, and USF did not benefit from this past realignment, they benefitted from the realignment discussions in the late 90's and early 2000's. Uconn upgraded to D1a and USF and Cincy moved to a major conference. It could be argued that these 3 schools are in a better position today than they were in 2000. These 3 schools are likely "next in line", and after the dust settles, I think most everyone will be happy with their landing spot, with the exception of WVU if it remains on an island in the Big12.

 

[WestHartHusk]

This is key. I discussed this a few months ago. ESPN is only viewed as a villian by a few select schools. Aside from Uconn, Cincy, and USF, the latest conference realignment has benefitted everyone. Schools moving into the P5 benefitted, and schools replacing them in the AAC benefitted. Current members of P5 conferences have increased the value of the conference and payouts. Many fans around the country are also happy to see the Big East (football) dissolve and lose its automatic bid. The Big East Catholics have what they wanted.

Although Uconn, Cincy, and USF did not benefit from this past realignment, they benefitted from the realignment discussions in the late 90's and early 2000's. Uconn upgraded to D1a and USF and Cincy moved to a major conference. It could be argued that these 3 schools are in a better position today than they were in 2000. These 3 schools are likely "next in line", and after the dust settles, I think most everyone will be happy with their landing spot, with the exception of WVU if it remains on an island in the Big12.

ESPN should hope that UConn, Cincy, and USF find a safe landing spot. There is nothing more dangerous than someone with nothing left to lose.

 

[upstater]

ESPN made what they thought was a fair business offer to the Big East.

The BE said "no"....

Sound to me like the Big East made a decision.

It is more akin to a realtor working with a developer....the developer makes realtor an offer for a large piece of property based on what he thinks he can do with the property. And the realtor says that the client declines.

The developer then determines that pieces of that property
may be purchased separately...and several pieces do add value to his adjacent holdings and make sense for buying.

He makes an offer and it is accepted. The realtor is left holding a less desirable property.

You're missing the key.

The 3 that said no went to the ACC.

 

[upstater]

The BE has been incredibly foolish.

From originally trying to shop its football schools to the ACC (which the ACC finally took them up on later)...to naming Notre Dame to head the expansion committee, to turning down the ESPN contract offer.

I do not know much about Pitt's involvement that you alluded to, but things are fluid (to quote the Dude).

BC headed the reorganization.

 

[upstater]

This is key. I discussed this a few months ago. ESPN is only viewed as a villian by a few select schools. Aside from Uconn, Cincy, and USF, the latest conference realignment has benefitted everyone. Schools moving into the P5 benefitted, and schools replacing them in the AAC benefitted. Current members of P5 conferences have increased the value of the conference and payouts. Many fans around the country are also happy to see the Big East (football) dissolve and lose its automatic bid. The Big East Catholics have what they wanted.

Although Uconn, Cincy, and USF did not benefit from this past realignment, they benefitted from the realignment discussions in the late 90's and early 2000's. Uconn upgraded to D1a and USF and Cincy moved to a major conference. It could be argued that these 3 schools are in a better position today than they were in 2000. These 3 schools are likely "next in line", and after the dust settles, I think most everyone will be happy with their landing spot, with the exception of WVU if it remains on an island in the Big12.

You have to understand UConn's timeline. UConn was an original BE member, a founder.
The discussions and agreements to have UConn move up began in 1991. UConn had promises from the BE long before 2000. It was those promises that allowed it to move up in football. Cincy and USF were not in the conversation at all during this period. They came up in 2004. But UConn's assurances in the 1990s is what lead to the $200 million investment in football.

 

[Fairfield 1st]

You're being willfully naive. Either that or you're just simple.

The ACC is ESPN's house brand.

They're not in a sit-quietly-and-consult mode with their house brand and they certainly didn't shed a tear when the Big East was destroyed. Their money underwrote the massacre - if you don't want your checkbook being used as a machete, you don't let your checkbook be used as a machete.

Now, is that wrong? It certainly wasn't nice, but wrong?

No, it's business.

I'm not sure what kind of smoking gun the rest of the board thinks we're going to find or if a smoking gun can even exist when you're talking about a network favoring one conference over another.

The Big East overplayed whatever hand it thought it had and it got leveled by the ACC and ESPN.

Indisputable.

I would submit that the Big East (aka the new Big East) knew exactly what it was doing and was intent to blow up the old Big East. Just look at the Tagliabue connection to G;Town and how it all shook out.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I'll go through the rest tonight, but as far as I've gotten, Maryland has made a solid case for itself. IMO

Certainly enough to survive a motion to dismiss in my opinion. That means discovery, and then the Pandora's box opens.

 

[UConn990411]

This is key. I discussed this a few months ago. ESPN is only viewed as a villian by a few select schools. Aside from Uconn, Cincy, and USF, the latest conference realignment has benefitted everyone. Schools moving into the P5 benefitted, and schools replacing them in the AAC benefitted. Current members of P5 conferences have increased the value of the conference and payouts. Many fans around the country are also happy to see the Big East (football) dissolve and lose its automatic bid. The Big East Catholics have what they wanted.

The Catholics certainly aren't better off, even if their fans want to convince themselves otherwise. Those athletic departments are gonna miss the fat a checks they were making by being associated with the football schools. Plus, after seeing what's happened to BC, Miami an West Virginia, you my not want to count your chickens with regard to Pitt's success before they hatch.

Also, I know you've been a pleasant poster here, but kindly duckk off about this topic. There's a long list of scumbags in this conference realignment process, and your school's president is sitting at the very top.

 

[Stinger92860]

ESPN made what they thought was a fair business offer to the Big East.

The BE said "no"....

Sound to me like the Big East made a decision.

It is more akin to a realtor working with a developer....the developer makes realtor an offer for a large piece of property based on what he thinks he can do with the property. And the realtor says that the client declines.

The developer then determines that pieces of that property
may be purchased separately...and several pieces do add value to his adjacent holdings and make sense for buying.

He makes an offer and it is accepted. The realtor is left holding a less desirable property.

Unless Pitt knew what was coming next.

 

[businesslawyer]

You're being willfully naive. Either that or you're just simple.

The ACC is ESPN's house brand.

They're not in a sit-quietly-and-consult mode with their house brand and they certainly didn't shed a tear when the Big East was destroyed. Their money underwrote the massacre - if you don't want your checkbook being used as a machete, you don't let your checkbook be used as a machete.

Now, is that wrong? It certainly wasn't nice, but wrong?

No, it's business.

I'm not sure what kind of smoking gun the rest of the board thinks we're going to find or if a smoking gun can even exist when you're talking about a network favoring one conference over another.

The Big East overplayed whatever hand it thought it had and it got leveled by the ACC and ESPN.

Indisputable.

Only the last point is indisputable. I fully disagree that just because something is "business," that means antitrust laws and principles of good faith and fair dealing get thrown out the window.