"Cuse and Pitt leave before a possible lawsuit

[arbitragegls]

...as Baylor and other Big 12 teams sought legal action against AtM...BE teams could have done so against 'Cuse and Pitt. Reason being, media contracts in place could be increased/decreased dependent on number of teams and which teams left.

Fortunately, no new media contract was signed...in fact, majority of BE teams rejected the most recent contract ('Cuse wanted/Pitt not so sure). If signed, there may have been precedent to sue...but since nothing signed no harm in leaving...very fortunate for 'Cuse and Pitt.

Just another poor strategy by the BE and a nail in its coffin.

 

[Townie72]

...as Baylor and other Big 12 teams sought legal action against AtM...BE teams could have done so against 'Cuse and Pitt. Reason being, media contracts in place could be increased/decreased dependent on number of teams and which teams left.

Fortunately, no new media contract was signed...in fact, majority of BE teams rejected the most recent contract ('Cuse wanted/Pitt not so sure). If signed, there may have been precedent to sue...but since nothing signed no harm in leaving...very fortunate for 'Cuse and Pitt.

Just another poor strategy by the BE and a nail in its coffin.

SU and all the others have a contract with the Big East. That contract has provisions for leaving the Conference ($5M, 27 months, etc)? How could SU's exercising their rights under that contract make it liable for damages. Unless, of course, they had to sign a new contract when ESPN renewed the deal at a higher rate.

As far as I can tell the Big East suit against BC and the ACC was a huge failure. All that BS about "collusion" and "seeking to destroy the Big East' was pretty much laughed out of court. BC paid the $1M they would have anyway and the BE schools paid huge legal bills.
The winners in that deal were the lawyers, who must have marvelled at their good luck. And that sleazebag Blumenthal, who rode this and other pure-politics stuff into a seat in the US Senate.

 

[arbitragegls]

the newest contracts in media contain specific provisions by the networks...not the conference. The $5mm and 27 months is a conference rule...not a networks or ESPN. The newer contract that was signed by Big 12 and contains similar wording in the up for vote by BE carried stipulations on # teams and which teams. So if Big 12 could not find a suitable and approved candidate by networks and ESPN contract would be adversely affected...same if newer contract had been signed by BE.

Please see news articles under ACC today on this site...

"The benefit of expansion is that many conferences, if not just about all, have provisions in their TV rights contracts that allow the two parties to revisit the terms of the agreement if the conference grows. Likewise, a deal can be nullified if a conference loses too many members and/or its attractiveness"

Baylor and others did not sue because TX and OKLl did not leave...but a contract includes promises of execution and these teams leaving would have caused harm to the schools that stayed..(AtM) was not in same category as TX and OKL. This is entirely a different circumstance than the earlier suit filed by some BE teams a while ago.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I doubt it. The Big East agreement has a specific provision if teams want to leave: 27 months and $5,000,000. Hard to say SU or Pitt breached a contracat that forsees this possibility and provides an agreed upon remedy. Now, if SU and Pitt just leave b/4 the 27 months or an agreement is reached to let them out early and the league/teams could prove damages, then there might be a lawsuit. However, less teams dviding up the same money would make them hard pressed to show damages.

 

[SWC75]

You keep hearing about leagues passing draconian measures to keep their teams in line, I wonder if we could see a brief revival of the independent as schools bug out before the leagues can pass such measures through, expecting to be snapped up by the leagues they want in the near future.

 

[NKR1978]

O

SU and all the others have a contract with the Big East. That contract has provisions for leaving the Conference ($5M, 27 months, etc)? How could SU's exercising their rights under that contract make it liable for damages. Unless, of course, they had to sign a new contract when ESPN renewed the deal at a higher rate.

As far as I can tell the Big East suit against BC and the ACC was a huge failure. All that BS about "collusion" and "seeking to destroy the Big East' was pretty much laughed out of court. BC paid the $1M they would have anyway and the BE schools paid huge legal bills.
The winners in that deal were the lawyers, who must have marvelled at their good luck. And that sleazebag Blumenthal, who rode this and other pure-politics stuff into a seat in the US Senate.

The ACC lawsuit had nothing to do with his election. He was a popular AG from the minute he got that office and remained so. I was fortunate to meet him a couple of times and he seemed like a good guy. I imagine uconn wishes it handled things differently but the lawsuit was supported by the uconn administration and pushed by the governor,the felon john Rowland.

 

[JOC44]

Arbitragegls:

Assuming that the BE bylaws provide for the $5M/27 months departure, there's no viable lawsuit as long as Syracuse complies with the stated terms for leaving (or those rules are waived by the conference. If Syracuse had said things that could be taken as a promise that it was staying, there could be a cause of action MAYBE, but only if the plaintiff could prove it did something in reliance on that promise. But I suspect Syracuse was careful not to make any long term promises AND I can't think of something these schools would have done in reliance on such a theoretical (and unlikely) promise.

 

[All4SU]

Wouldn't you love to have transcripts of these BE meetings?