MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

[FL Cane]

i think the issue is purely the optics of if the admin and athletic dept of Miami are on the Same page

I think they are. Frenk isn’t gonna be here much longer. He doesn’t have the support of the BOT (they’re not extending him again), and he’s got Rad, Rudy Fernández, and a host of other people advising him here.

One thing I know about Frenk to his credit and talking with people who regularly interact with him, is that he listens. He’s not a guy that comes into a meeting with a predetermined decision, especially if he doesn’t know a topic too well (he self admittedly knows he’s out of his depth with college athletics).

Imho if we’re voting yes it’s because the athletic dept. is on board too. Keep an eye on Rudy Fernandez. In terms of power within the school, he’s amassing a lot it.

 

[Alex Del Piero]

ICYMI: Excerpt from The Athletic's look back at 1990 SEC expansion (7/25/23):

Miami wanted to help its basketball program and add some football schedule flexibility, which the Big East offered. And it was clear the SEC, which had for many years told Miami it wasn’t interested in adding them, had prioritized the Seminoles throughout the entire 1990 expansion process (FSU had just announced for the ACC). SEC commissioner Roy Kramer tried to downplay that in the media.

“Nobody is a second choice,” Kramer said at the time — after Arkansas had agreed to join the SEC but before the league pivoted to South Carolina as the second invitee. “We’ve only made one addition to the conference. As for other teams, Miami is an outstanding institution and has a lot to offer. I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t serious about Miami. But we haven’t set a timetable on anything. We will continue to move forward and talk with several schools.”

Former Miami coach and administrator Dave Scott said Miami discussed joining the SEC but felt a pull to play among other private schools in the Big East.

“I know these were words used — ‘We should have something in common with our conference opponents,’” Scott said. “Now, that doesn’t matter anymore. But back then, looking at Miami as a private institution, Vanderbilt might’ve been the only other one like us in the SEC. The other schools — for the most part — were rural, agricultural-based institutions. So we had those discussions: How does a student at the University of Miami relate to someone in Starkville, Mississippi? The thought was with the Big East there were more private institutions like us, and our alumni base, beyond South Florida, was New York, New Jersey and Chicago. Not Mississippi or Alabama.

“We felt like we didn’t fit.”

Obviously they had their reasons at the time, sliding doors I suppose.

 

[IndayArtHauz]

Obviously they had their reasons at the time, sliding doors I suppose.

I’m a huge fan of a well made sliding door. A lot of people think they prefer French, because it’s romanticized as the choice of “nice homes”. But the functional reality is often far inferior to a well designed slider.

 

[Alex Del Piero]

I’m a huge fan of a well made sliding door. A lot of people think they prefer French, because it’s romanticized as the choice of “nice homes”. But the functional reality is often far inferior to a well designed slider.

 

[Fluffhead]

I think they are. Frenk isn’t gonna be here much longer. He doesn’t have the support of the BOT (they’re not extending him again), and he’s got Rad, Rudy Fernández, and a host of other people advising him here.

One thing I know about Frenk to his credit and talking with people who regularly interact with him, is that he listens. He’s not a guy that comes into a meeting with a predetermined decision, especially if he doesn’t know a topic too well (he self admittedly knows he’s out of his depth with college athletics).

Imho if we’re voting yes it’s because the athletic dept. is on board too. Keep an eye on Rudy Fernandez. In terms of power within the school, he’s amassing a lot it.

Agreed on all the above but 1) this is why Frenk should have minimal input and 2) what scares me is this somewhat blurs the lines between athletics and academics. Even the B10 seems to have started focusing on academics with our AAU sand quickly it pivoted to athletics with ratings and viewership.

 

[RightSaidFred]

We have 10 more months for the nuclear option.

My info might be outdated and I'm not claiming to have knowledge about everything going on, but whenever I've asked I was always told that SEC was the play for Miami, which funny enough goes against everything I've been reading on this board for months. Not saying that's definitely what's going to happen, but just putting that possibility on the table. I've never heard a single word about the Big 10 ever being the plan for Miami. Not that we would say no to the BIG if we were free and clear, but just never heard of us being connected to that.

My assumption was that had to do with the GOR, that blowing up the conference was never needed for our path. I get the assumption that Clemson/FSU are the natural fits for the SEC, but it's difficult for the SEC (internal politics) to admit FSU and Clemson. Miami and, say, a VA Tech, would be a good compromise position for the SEC's current membership.

My 2 cents but there's a reason why Miami hasn't been trying to finance a half a billion dollar exit like FSU. But I would say never underestimate Sankey or the SEC's abilitiy to A.) Sneak around and shock everyone at the 11th hour and B.) Come out ahead when all is said and done.

 

[passitback]

Good lord, I wish I would have punched this guy at the Final Four...


View attachment 253904

Very punchable face…

I was looking for an excuse to show these hand wraps off today.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Bananas. A max of 10 mil per year isnt keeping anyone around long term.

That isn't the point of the agreement.

The Big10, SEC, and ACC are now ungovernable entities wrt to all members' interests. There simply is no common cause to bind them between the haves and have nots.

The MWC, AAC, and Big12 (without OU and UT) are far more perfect unions.

The only reason we aren't seeing Big10/SEC internecine wafare is there are no reasons for it...yet. OSU/Mich and Bama/Jawga will drop kick Rutgers/NW and Vandy/Kentucky in a microsecond if they have to when the super conference circus rolls into town sometime in 2030s.

 

[Tony4Canes]

Interesting

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Yes, yes, yes! The consideration! What exactly did they get? To me, this has always been the key.

 

[Eric The Midget]

View attachment 254326

Fred, if you hit that button one more time Im going to fly to New York and break all your fingers.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

One of the publicly stated reasons that most of the ACC ADs wanted the GOR was to ensure the ACC would stay intact. Consideration doesn't have to mean monetary. Peace of mind can count as consideration, and given that multiple ADs and the ACC Commish said that the GOR would ensure that teams don't leave, I don't think "lack of consideration" would be a winning argument. Courts tend to avoid looking at "lack of consideration" in freely negotiated contracts, especially when you are dealing with "sophisticated parties" like a TV network and a P5 football conference. This isn't a case of some little old lady in a one stop-light town getting duped by a big city lawyer. Courts tend to allow sophisticated parties to agree to whatever terms they want as long as it's legal, even if the agreement is obviously dumb and short-sighted. And the fact that no ACC team ever said a word about lack of consideration from 2016-2021ish and tried to get out of the GOR until now (only after the SEC and B1G had big jumps in revenue) means the "lack of consideration" argument isn't going to fly. Everyone was happy until the other conferences signed massive new contracts.

You are a completely un-knowledgeable person yapping about stuff that is way over your head.

"Wanting something" is NOT consideration.

Please produce your caselaw that says "peace of mind can count as consideration".

You are a clown who really needs Purgatory for lying so blatantly.



"Consideration is a promise, performance, or forbearance bargained by a promisor in exchange for their promise. Consideration is the main element of a contract. Without consideration by both parties, a contract cannot be enforceable."



Maybe I missed it, but I just didn't see "wanting peace of mind" in that definition.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Does ESPN/Disney's failure to negotiate a deal with Spectrum (the nation's 2nd largest provider) lend credence to the argument that the ACC brand is being damaged purposely, and therefore the potentiality of a breach of contract?

I mean...if they pay us the full amount, I'm not sure we would win on "breach". There's an alternate argument to be made.

I'd also add that they are damaging the SEC and every other conference that they carry.

End the GOR in 2027. ESPN knew what they were getting. They can't "demand" that we add 9 years to our GOR, when the ACC gives us NOTHING in return for our exchange of 9 more years of servitude.

 

[MiamiCanesFan77]

Does Shalala still have any influence in Big 10 circles?

 

[Squid Bumciorek]

You are a completely un-knowledgeable person yapping about stuff that is way over your head.

"Wanting something" is NOT consideration.

Please produce your caselaw that says "peace of mind can count as consideration".

You are a clown who really needs Purgatory for lying so blatantly.



"Consideration is a promise, performance, or forbearance bargained by a promisor in exchange for their promise. Consideration is the main element of a contract. Without consideration by both parties, a contract cannot be enforceable."



Maybe I missed it, but I just didn't see "wanting peace of mind" in that definition.

I've had you on ignore for several years now because you are in insufferable blowhard, but I'll respond because it's hilarious that you googled "consideration" and now think you are a lawyer.

[BGCOLOR=initial]There were multiple things that a court would consider to be adequate consideration for purposes of establishing a valid co[/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]ntract. Two are absolutely indisputable. [/BGCOLOR]

[BGCOLOR=initial]1. Creation of Acc network[/BGCOLOR]
[BGCOLOR=initial]2. Increased a[/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]nnual revenue [/BGCOLOR]

The acc gave up the right to sign other tv deals after the original expiration in 2026/2027 in exchange for the above. The agreement extended it to 2035. Freely bargained. Both sides got something of value. There is not a court in the country that would say the contract is invalid due to a lack of consideration. It's simply a stupid argument.

As for caselaw showing that peace of mind can be acceptable cons[BGCOLOR=initial]ideration, go back to your Google search and look up the concept of insurance contracts. [/BGCOLOR]

I am sure you are salty since I was right about UM voting for expansion and you were wrong, but stick with being 0-1. It's not a good look to lose to me again.

 

[Hegemon]

To land where? Is a place in the B1G really a lock? Sounds to me that could go either way.

I think it all ultimately goes to two super conferences in time.

 

[RozayCane]

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I've had you on ignore for several years now because you are in insufferable blowhard, but I'll respond because it's hilarious that you googled "consideration" and now think you are a lawyer.

[BGCOLOR=initial]There were multiple things that a court would consider to be adequate consideration for purposes of establishing a valid co[/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]ntract. Two are absolutely indisputable. [/BGCOLOR]

[BGCOLOR=initial]1. Creation of Acc network[/BGCOLOR]
[BGCOLOR=initial]2. Increased a[/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]nnual revenue [/BGCOLOR]

The acc gave up the right to sign other tv deals after the original expiration in 2026/2027 in exchange for the above. The agreement extended it to 2035. Freely bargained. Both sides got something of value. There is not a court in the country that would say the contract is invalid due to a lack of consideration. It's simply a stupid argument.

As for caselaw showing that peace of mind can be acceptable cons[BGCOLOR=initial]ideration, go back to your Google search and look up the concept of insurance contracts. [/BGCOLOR]

I am sure you are salty since I was right about UM voting for expansion and you were wrong, but stick with being 0-1. It's not a good look to lose to me again.

You dope, the "creation of ACC Network" was by a different entity. That's not consideration between the ACC and its member institutions. It's not consideration, and it never will be. Nor is "increased annual revenue". You are just making **** up.

The deal for the ACC Network was signed in 2016. We were ALREADY under a Grant of Rights contract for 11 years. In order to grant NINE MORE YEARS to the ACC (the party on the contract), the ACC had to provide consideration, and never did.

It has nothing to do with what ESPN may or may not do later.

I know you're not smart, but you're one of the typical "acts smarter than you are" blowhards (along with @NorthernVirginiaCane ) who are trying to conflate and commingle two or three separate agreements into one.

Unlike you, I've actually worked with and applied TV rights contracts. You can't just sit around doing consideration-free "extensions".

The ACC (not ESPN) got 15 schools to sign an extension IN EXCHANGE FOR NOTHING. Subsequent events do not change that.

As for the rest of your crap about "oh, it was freely bargained" and "oh, the parties are sophisticated" is just garbage. You can't just insert terms like "for valuable consideration" into a contract and expect them to be self-executing. Again, you choose to ignore the fact that the ACC schools were ALREADY under 11 more years of GOR obligation. You can't extend a DIFFERENT contract by extending a GOR and then act like THAT was the consideration. You can't boostrap.

Again, there was no consideration given for the extension. None. Zero. Stop using completely separate agreements to justify one for which no consideration was provided.

You are still the same fraud you have always been. "Insurance contracts". Hilarious. Insurance contracts that you actually pay money for. Directly. Not through some OTHER contract that OTHER parties will negotiate. What a moronic example.

 

[Liebenator]

I find it interesting that SMU offered 7 years free to Big12 & PAC10 and they passed. I know they bumped it up to 9, but am worried we just invited a fox into the henhouse.

 

[NorthernVirginiaCane]

You dope, the "creation of ACC Network" was by a different entity. That's not consideration between the ACC and its member institutions. It's not consideration, and it never will be. Nor is "increased annual revenue". You are just making **** up.

The deal for the ACC Network was signed in 2016. We were ALREADY under a Grant of Rights contract for 11 years. In order to grant NINE MORE YEARS to the ACC (the party on the contract), the ACC had to provide consideration, and never did.

It has nothing to do with what ESPN may or may not do later.

I know you're not smart, but you're one of the typical "acts smarter than you are" blowhards (along with @NorthernVirginiaCane ) who are trying to conflate and commingle two or three separate agreements into one.

Unlike you, I've actually worked with and applied TV rights contracts. You can't just sit around doing consideration-free "extensions".

The ACC (not ESPN) got 15 schools to sign an extension IN EXCHANGE FOR NOTHING. Subsequent events do not change that.

As for the rest of your crap about "oh, it was freely bargained" and "oh, the parties are sophisticated" is just garbage. You can't just insert terms like "for valuable consideration" into a contract and expect them to be self-executing. Again, you choose to ignore the fact that the ACC schools were ALREADY under 11 more years of GOR obligation. You can't extend a DIFFERENT contract by extending a GOR and then act like THAT was the consideration. You can't boostrap.

Again, there was no consideration given for the extension. None. Zero. Stop using completely separate agreements to justify one for which no consideration was provided.

You are still the same fraud you have always been. "Insurance contracts". Hilarious. Insurance contracts that you actually pay money for. Directly. Not through some OTHER contract that OTHER parties will negotiate. What a moronic example.

First rule of holes: if you are in one, stop digging.

You have been literally wrong about 100% of everything on this thread and now you are failing the first week of 1L Contracts. Pathetic.