nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,262
- Reaction Score
- 33,168
But Nelson was talking about other schools, not Maryland. Maryland at least has a plausible argument to make since they voted against the fee. But Virginia, or anyone that's not Maryland or FSU, voted for the fee. They have a tougher argument to make. This isn't a consumer protection issue. These are sophisticated entities entering into a business deal. I don't know how Virginia can make a believeable argument that they wanted to bind themseelves and others to a $50 million exit fee and then turn around and say it really should not be enforced because I no longer like it and feel it should be illegal.
I'd also add, the idea that $50 million is "punitive" becomes less believeable the more money these schools make on athletics. It wasn't that long ago the Big 10 was distributing $10 million per school. In a few years that figure could be $40 million. In light of that info and the crazy money being paid for TV rights, it no longer seems that punitive to ask a school to pay $50 million.
I think punitive is an uphill battle too. If UVa leaves for the Big 10, the exit fee will be less than 2x their annual distribution from the Big 10, and the ACC will definitely have a case that UVa has created $50MM in present value of future damages to the league in leaving. UVa may be able to cut $5 or $10MM off. That's it.
The schools would be better off coordinating a simultaneous mass exodus of NC State, FSU, VTech, Clemson, GTech, Miami, UNC and UVa, all coordinating to vote to eliminate exit fees, then announcing their departure. That is a strategy guaranteed to get them sued, but would give them the upper hand on the contract side of the argument. There would be some case and statutory exposure in this situation, to put it mildly.