Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Lou_C, post: 1079896, member: 3201"] Sheesh...here you go. [url]https://floridastate./content.asp?CID=1408459[/url] [B]"President Barron voted against it. I personally think that $50 million is punitive. I'm not sure that holds up," said Bense, who was named the chairman of the Board of Trustees for a two-year term in June. Bense also said that Maryland voted against the increased buyout. "I'm not implying that there's going to be any changes, but $50 million is a lot of money." The Charlotte Observer's Andrew Carter reported Wednesday that nine of the 12 ACC schools had to vote for the increase for it to be approved. Bense, the former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, (2004-06), was clear that he approved of the move to add Notre Dame to the league, saying "it's good for the ACC and Florida State." Bense also emphasized that Florida State has no plans to explore any other conferences. However, the staggering figure could hamstring the school if it had any plans to make changes down the road. "Don't construe his vote against it to mean anything about anything, it's just that in my business that when you get in something you better figure out a way to get out of something," Bense said. "We have no desire to get out, but $50 million makes it pretty tough to do anything." According to Bense, if Florida State desired to make a move at any point in the years to come, the payout would make it "very difficult." "I haven't talked with a lawyer about it, but that's almost punitive, you know?"[/B] I agree with that. You would agree with that too...if UNC, UVA, VT, NC State, FSU and Clemson left the conference, and the B1G was deciding between UCONN and Syracuse, but Pitt, Wake, Duke, BC, etc got together and voted for a $500M exit fee before anyone else could leave, you'd think that was unfair as well. Now, as I mentioned before, as it turns out $50M was not insurmountable for Maryland, but at the time it was clearly believed that they were putting in an exit fee that would prevent anyone from leaving, not simply compensate for the change. Everyone knew what they were trying to do, and when you say it was for "stability", that's exactly what you are saying as well. And I'm philosophically against that idea, not necessarily against any exit fee, but financially trying to hold a member hostage. And it's all irrelevant because of the GOR, which I have no problem with in any way. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?