slu72 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Why would ND want in the NBE when they're in the ACC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share Posted April 6, 2014 Why would ND want in the NBE when they're in the ACC? Did you read the linked article? Good chance you won't be able to recognize the ACC in a couple years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sludevil Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Did you read the linked article? Good chance you won't be able to recognize the ACC in a couple years. That seems unlikely. This journalist's questionable legal arguments aside, the grant of rights is probably going to keep the ACC (and the Big 12) together for the foreseeable future. It seems to me the ACC is refusing to settle mostly because $52 million is a lot of money, and Maryland has not exactly endeared itself to ACC membership on its way out the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 It's a hair-brained-wild-ass-guess to speculate in this manner, this precisely, about the future of Notre Dame as it relates to the ACC and the NBE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share Posted April 6, 2014 That seems unlikely. This journalist's questionable legal arguments aside, the grant of rights is probably going to keep the ACC (and the Big 12) together for the foreseeable future. It seems to me the ACC is refusing to settle mostly because $52 million is a lot of money, and Maryland has not exactly endeared itself to ACC membership on its way out the door. The guy who wrote it is a lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sludevil Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 The guy who wrote it is a lawyer. Super. I'm still going to side with the overwhelming consensus over his opinion. Edit: Just for fun, I looked up his Wikipedia page: "Travis is best known for his bold predictions in his columns, often stating his opinion or prediction and supporting it with the statement "that's a fact" or "this will happen, really". He once guaranteed that Super Bowl winning coach Jon Gruden would take the Tennessee head coaching position after Derek Dooley's departure from the program. Travis backed up his claim by citing an unnamed UT booster with inside information. Gruden subsequently turned down the offer from UT and Butch Jones was hired instead." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share Posted April 6, 2014 Super. I'm still going to side with the overwhelming consensus over his opinion. What overwhelming consensus exist that granting of rights would hold up? Who outside of certain conference offices is making that case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 The guy who wrote it is a lawyer. A lawyer? A lawyer? That impresses you? Have you ever heard one lawyer state "the facts", then an opposing lawyer state "the facts"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share Posted April 6, 2014 A lawyer? A lawyer? That impresses you? Have you ever heard one lawyer state "the facts", then an opposing lawyer state "the facts"? It doesn't impress me. Sludevil was acting like the writer had no clue when it came to the law. I was just pointing out the writer is a lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sludevil Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 It doesn't impress me. Sludevil was acting like the writer had no clue when it came to the law. I was just pointing out the writer is a lawyer. I mean, let's put things in context. Based on a quick Google search, it looks like he's a "lawyer" in the sense that he's a full-time journalist who has a JD and writes the occasional memo. Does this give him a more informed perspective than the average Joe? Sure. Does it mean we should say there's a "good chance" of his prediction coming to pass? No. Particularly when this guy apparently has a track record of making bold predictions and guarantees that don't pan out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 A lawyer? A lawyer? That impresses you? Have you ever heard one lawyer state "the facts", then an opposing lawyer state "the facts"? MB fully agree, for every lawyer there is an equal and opposite lawyer (maybe not equal), for every statement of "the facts" of a case, there is an equal and opposite statement of "the facts" of a case (maybe not equal). A JD granted to someone who makes a living as a journalist only means he could find no work as a lawyer. If you do not practice law, you forget what you learned, whatever much that was, soon enough. Journalists are journalists, the fact that he has a JD is not meaningful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 To say that a person with a JD but works at something else does so because he could not find work as a lawyer is clearly not a fair statement. Many people find out that they do not like practicing law - yes some have difficulty finding work as a lawyer but not all - so why keep trying or doing something you dislike. Now that being said who knows what the reasons are why this guy does not practice - he could still go back to it as long as he keeps his license active. Does his opinion even on legal issues make him right because he has a JD - no - does it make him wrong - no - what it does do is open him up for question once he prints his opinion. I can tell you that just because you are a lawyer does not mean you are an expert in all fields - for example, a very competent real estate broker probably know much more about real estate law then a lawyer who does not practice regularily in that field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 It doesn't impress me. Sludevil was acting like the writer had no clue when it came to the law. I was just pointing out the writer is a lawyer. Come on, admit it. You were impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 Come on, admit it. You were impressed. I was. I heard he hung out with bankers, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Cheeseman, nowadays close to 40% of all law school graduates cannot get jobs as lawyers, they make a living bussing tables, of being tennis pros, or even journalists. Those that do not like law have ample time to find out while doing the atrocious amount of work they are required to do in law school. That is the time to quit, not after you have been inside the profession. And the licensure is called a BAR, each state has its own BAR exams and procedures which you must pass before you practice, not an altogether simple issue with a certain percentage of the graduating students seemingly unable to pass the BAR despite multiple attempts at it. And if you get a job as a lawyer after graduation they do work you to the bone once you enter a law firm. If you are not willing to pay these dues and get through all the requirements then you can become whatever else fits your fancy. Those that do not make it have JDs but they are journalists, FBI agents, hotel concierges, etc... anything that they can become and make a living out of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 Here is another piece on the myth of granting of media rights. This by a lawyer that practices contract law. http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drkelsey55 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Can anyone translate all that to common terms for those of us that don't speak "lawyerese" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billslasttermdropout Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Yo, I think what the cat is saying is that exit fees are wack, and thats a fact, jack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 Can anyone translate all that to common terms for those of us that don't speak "lawyerese" The way I read it is that the person writing the article believes a court would only hold a school responsible for actual damages to the conference from leaving. That means he doesn't see a the court ultimately enforcing the granting of media rights since a conference has never seen a reduction in media rights value after a school has left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billslasttermdropout Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I know MB stopped buying his Dukie gear the moment the Terps walked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drkelsey55 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 The way I read it is that the person writing the article believes a court would only hold a school responsible for actual damages to the conference from leaving. That means he doesn't see a the court ultimately enforcing the granting of media rights since a conference has never seen a reduction in media rights value after a school has left. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sludevil Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 But that argument hasn't worked in other contexts (exit fee challenges by schools in the last round of realignment); why do we think it will work now? And for what it's worth, the GOR doesn't contain a liquidated damages clause: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8jb5kvZz0PcUzJpdV9YaVZHaFE/edit (That's a copy of the Big 12 GOR, presumably very similar or identical to the ACC GOR.) In fact, it looks as though the contract is intentionally ambiguous re: damages upon breach. Which, for a large school with millions at stake, is scary as hell. Because, while lawyers on each side can offer their informed opinion as to what a court may decide, neither side will be able to offer such opinion with any real level of authority. It would be a coinflip. And if the coinflip is not in your favor, then you lose millions and millions of dollars (+ legal fees and associated costs) and will be forced to start making some difficult decisions about your university and your athletics programs. And if you're a public school (as almost all of these schools are), then you have taxpayers and politicians to deal with, too. All of this is, of course, a huge deterrent from challenging the GOR in court. May the Maryland lawsuit move the needle one way or the other? Possibly. But at the end of the day, the Maryland suit is centered around exit fees, and not the GOR contract. (And this suit is also more palatable to Maryland, because, at worst, they lose $52 million + costs, which still makes the Big 10 - and its larger revenue stream - a worthwhile proposition for a cash-starved school.) So you'll still have the GOR contract - and its potential consequences - looming over any decision to exit a GOR conference. Of course, it's possible that some bold school will choose to roll the dice on the GOR. But it seems unlikely, given that it could end up as a monumentally stupid decision. More likely, GOR schools (and the conferences that covet them) will wait the 9 or 10 years for these contracts to expire before looking again to realignment. Edit: Forgot to mention that a judge's decision to effectively nullify the GOR could have big consequences for the entertainment industry (which uses these agreements all the time). So that means 1) any given judge is probably less likely to throw out the agreement, and 2) you might see an amicus brief or two filed by some very influential people (and their very expensive lawyers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RF1 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Just wait until they start adding up the expenses of the spring sports, and that just might get their attention. Providence sending BB and SB teams to Omaha and vice versa. Add in Lacrosse, track, golf, etc they might wake up and say we need two divisions. Ten teams w/ one an extreme outlier makes no sense, especially when they're flying over two good athletic programs. Providence doesn't field a team in America's pastime as it has no baseball team. No football as well. They do however play that most Canadian sport, hockey, as they have both men's and women's D1 teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.