Maryland files $157 million suit against ACC

[Echo Hawk]

Getting nasty. Pitt mention.....alleges that two ACC schools attempted to recruit Big Ten members into switching conferences and the league has violated Maryland Antitrust laws.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...and-files-157-million-countersuit-against-acc

WAPO article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...leges-acc-tried-to-lure-big-ten-schools-away/

 

[SubbaBub]

There is a thread on the CR board.

 

[Palatine]

The countersuit also alleges that two ACC schools — prompted by ESPN and motivated by the desire for more lucrative television contracts — attempted to persuade several Big Ten schools to switch conferences.

Interesting. ESPN has never prompted anyone to act in UConn's interest even though our state has given them hundreds of millions in tax breaks.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm not a lawyer, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'm relatively sure that ESPN has a problem now. This is a bit different than Eugene being quoted in the Boston Globe, and then issuing a retraction. This is now a matter of legal record, and should somebody really decide to pursue it, I think ESPN has some issues with their involvement in all of this. Eugene and Boston College - Tobacco Road must be so happy that they hooked them up a decade ago. This is also something that's not going to make a certain James Delany happy.

Section 99-100 Pages 24-26
http://media10.washingtonpost.com/generic/media/document_cloud/document/pdf/acclawsuit.pdf

 

[huskymedic]

Getting nasty. Pitt mention.....alleges that two ACC schools attempted to recruit Big Ten members into switching conferences and the league has violated Maryland Antitrust laws.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...and-files-157-million-countersuit-against-acc

WAPO article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...leges-acc-tried-to-lure-big-ten-schools-away/

I pointed this out in the thread on the conference realignment board but I couldn't help but smile at the destination article the first hyperlink in this paragraph of the WAPO takes you:

>>The claim cites a 2011 quote from former Boston College Athletic Director Gene DeFilippo, who told the Boston Globe: “You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85% football money. TV — ESPN — is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball.” DeFilippo apologized two days later for those comments, saying he “spoke inappropriately and erroneously.”<<

 

[ZooCougar]

ESPN isn't in trouble. ESPN is the pusher and the conferences are the addicts. Except ESPN already has amnesty.

 

[ZooCougar]

So who were those B1G schools exactly.

Eliminate, Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota

That leaves..... Okay so just assume that the ACC had no interest in adding Purdue, Ill, Ind and NW, for obvious reasons.


Wisc
Mich
MSU
Northwestern
Ill
Purdue
Ind
OSU
Penn State

That leaves: and pretty much I bet that the ACC wanted nothing to do with Ped State because of Sandusky, and MSU is the #2 school in Michigan so I am betting that ESPN told them that adding botn Michigan Schools would yield diminishing returns..

Wisc
Mich
MSU
OSU
Penn State

Pick Two

Wisc-Don't discount, they have ties with Shalala
Mich-duh, Notre Dame connection
OSU-double duh

But really I am think any of these three would have gotten a polite laugh in response to an ACC offer.

 

[Carl Spackler]

ESPN isn't in trouble. ESPN is the pusher and the conferences are the addicts. Except ESPN already has amnesty.

Wouldn't be interesting if say representatives of say the Western Athletic Conference, which had been in business of football for 50 years, were to decide to open up exploration of collusion against interests against ESPN, based on the fact that their entire conference was destroyed as an effect of the changes in the closed market.......by the advice ESPN provided to institutions they had existing broadcasting contracts with, and with whom they themselves stand to profit and benefit by the success of those same programs institutions........

again, I'm no lawyer - just an observer - but people in the state's of new mexico and Idaho, sure would be interested, seeing that their state institutions were forced to go independent in football against their wishes.

 

[Palatine]

My guess is that the ACC wanted Penn State. They probably didn't give the Sandusky issue a second thought.

 

[Adios]

Is this growing polarization between these two conferences going to make us look more attractive to either one as an expansion candidate now since they won't be picking from each other??

 

[ZooCougar]

Wouldn't be interesting if say representatives of say the Western Athletic Conference, which had been in business of football for 50 years, were to decide to open up exploration of collusion against interests against ESPN, based on the fact that their entire conference was destroyed as an effect of the changes in the closed market..by the advice ESPN provided to institutions they had existing broadcasting contracts with, and with whom they themselves stand to profit and benefit by the success of those same programs institutions...

again, I'm no lawyer - just an observer - but people in the state's of new mexico and Idaho, sure would be interested, seeing that their state institutions were forced to go independent in football against their wishes.

Nah. The only ones that matter are in the MWC now.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Nah. The only ones that matter are in the MWC now.

If for some reason, the 65 or so football programs (that currently, are being asked to consider giving autonomy in decision making in football by the NCAA to a group of another 65 schools - based on television money) were to get organized for some reason.....say....feeling like they are getting shafted and unfairly excluded from a $500 million contract given by ESPN for the post season bowl system..........while ESPN itself was giving advice out to those same institutions about who to include and not include in that $500 million dollar pot.......

 

[UConn Dan]

Are you gentleman afraid of the CR forum? lol

 

[UCONNRPh]

My guess is that the ACC wanted Penn State. They probably didn't give the Sandusky issue a second thought.

I agree , they wanted another foot stamp in Pennsylvania as well as a Pitt/Penn State rivalry.

 

[BlueDogs]

ESPN could be looking at some major liability in this for tortious interference with contract as well as violating state antitrust and unfair trade practices laws.

From the revised BCS bowl system on down, it's about consolidating and driving out non-elite schools and capturing more TV revenue at the expense of competition. The biggest problem is nobody cares whose somebody because the lawmakers with elite teams are captured, and the Feds won't touch it with a 10 foot pole for political reasons.

 

[upstater]

UConn's problem right now is that we WANT ESPN to shoehorn us into conference.

This was the problem in 2011. There were rumors that ND and UConn were going to be added quickly. Then BC came out and said ESPN was orchestrating things, and that put the kibbosh on it.

In other words, moving ESPN out of the mix doesn't help UConn.

 

[noeynox]

UConn's problem right now is that we WANT ESPN to shoehorn us into conference.

This was the problem in 2011. There were rumors that ND and UConn were going to be added quickly. Then BC came out and said ESPN was orchestrating things, and that put the kibbosh on it.

In other words, moving ESPN out of the mix doesn't help UConn.

This is my view as well. We are in a catch 22, we know they fugged us, but need them to get unfugged. Not fun sitting here.