USC and UCLA to Big Ten

rapier7 said:
theathletic.com

Staples: How would a school challenge a grant of rights? We asked a lawyer

There are four ways to challenge such a deal. Most of them involve a lot of money and patience.
theathletic.com theathletic.com

This is probably the best article that's been written on the legality of the GOR. It would be years of expensive litigation with no guarantee of success.
Click to expand...
Great. Can't read it. Personally I don't think it would be that difficult. Page 1 of the ACC GOR says that ESPN required us to sign it. If so, you could probably sue ESPN for discrimination since they didn't require the same GOR of the SEC members. If not, if ESPN says "no we didn't require them to sign that" then you could literally discard the entire agreement. I'm not a lawyer so yes I can see how it would potentially create years of litigation. But I think it only takes 1-2 teams to try it before the whole thing falls apart.
 
rocky top buzz said:
If so, you could probably sue ESPN for discrimination since they didn't require the same GOR of the SEC members.
Click to expand...

How would that work? Discrimination is generally only prohibited against discriminated classes -- so you can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc., but you can discriminate on the basis of ability, potential, etc.

I'd be extremely shocked if it was illegal to have different contracts for different college football conferences. If it is then all of this realignment would be for moot since the whole thing revolves around securing better media contracts than rival conferences.
 
Last edited:
rocky top buzz said:
Great. Can't read it. Personally I don't think it would be that difficult. Page 1 of the ACC GOR says that ESPN required us to sign it. If so, you could probably sue ESPN for discrimination since they didn't require the same GOR of the SEC members. If not, if ESPN says "no we didn't require them to sign that" then you could literally discard the entire agreement. I'm not a lawyer so yes I can see how it would potentially create years of litigation. But I think it only takes 1-2 teams to try it before the whole thing falls apart.
Click to expand...
ACC teams wish they had as good lawyers as you!
 
rocky top buzz said:
Great. Can't read it. Personally I don't think it would be that difficult. Page 1 of the ACC GOR says that ESPN required us to sign it. If so, you could probably sue ESPN for discrimination since they didn't require the same GOR of the SEC members. If not, if ESPN says "no we didn't require them to sign that" then you could literally discard the entire agreement. I'm not a lawyer so yes I can see how it would potentially create years of litigation. But I think it only takes 1-2 teams to try it before the whole thing falls apart.
Click to expand...
Dissolving the league seems to be the easiest route. There are 11 schools including ND who may want out. It only takes 9 to have a majority.
 
andrew said:
How would that work? Discrimination is generally only prohibited against discriminated classes -- so you can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc., but you can discriminate on the basis of ability, potential, etc.

I'd be extremely shocked if it was illegal to have different contracts for different college football conferences. If it is then all of this realignment would be for moot since the whole thing revolves around securing better media contracts than rival conferences.
Click to expand...
He already said "I'm not a lawyer." As if that wasn't the most obvious ööööing thing since Rosie O'Donnell came out.

I absolutely LOVE IT when some asswipe admits he doesn't know jack öööö about the law . . . but doesn't let that slow his roll in offering up his expert legal analysis. I need all the laughs I can get.
 
1982Jacket said:
He already said "I'm not a lawyer." As if that wasn't the most obvious ööööing thing since Rosie O'Donnell came out.

I absolutely LOVE IT when some asswipe admits he doesn't know jack öööö about the law . . . but doesn't let that slow his roll in offering up his expert legal analysis. I need all the laughs I can get.
Click to expand...

You are on a sports message board and somehow you just disappeared up your own asshole.
 
BioJacket06 said:
You are on a sports message board and somehow you just disappeared up your own asshole.
Click to expand...
BrentwoodJacket said:
Dissolving the league seems to be the easiest route. There are 11 schools including ND who may want out. It only takes 9 to have a majority.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, I think the ACC would look a lot better if it just said any team can leave at any time for any reason. I think it should also say, "Sorry. No more partial members. Every school is equal in the ACC." Right now, it seems like most member teams are looking for a way out of the ACC, or at least their fans are saying that. I'm no exception. I want Tech to join the Big 10 or the SEC, which seems like an extremely unlikely possibility. Still, the present situation of America watching while ACC teams just talk about how much they want to get out is pathetic. Call their bluffs. If the great Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, UVA, etc want to go to greener pastures, let them go. Won't they be amazed when they are the littlest fish in their new ponds? Now, since they can't get out, they all talk like the only thing keeping them in is the GOR. Let them go! Will the Big 10 and the SEC have a bidding war for these great ACC teams? To tell you the truth, if the ACC was loaded with teams that the SEC and Big 10 wanted, it wouldn't be the pathetic and pitiful conference it is right now.
 
1982Jacket said:
He already said "I'm not a lawyer." As if that wasn't the most obvious ööööing thing since Rosie O'Donnell came out.

I absolutely LOVE IT when some asswipe admits he doesn't know jack öööö about the law . . . but doesn't let that slow his roll in offering up his expert legal analysis. I need all the laughs I can get.
Click to expand...
.... Almost like this is a message board where fans chat about things relating to the program. Have to be a lawyer to comment? Is everyone here a professional football coach too? No? Then why do we discuss what might or should happen? Next game thread should be great. "Well that's disappointing that we ran the ball 3 times and couldn't get a first down but since that was what the high paid professional coaches decided to do, that was clearly the right decision."
 
andrew said:
How would that work? Discrimination is generally only prohibited against discriminated classes -- so you can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc., but you can discriminate on the basis of ability, potential, etc.

I'd be extremely shocked if it was illegal to have different contracts for different college football conferences. If it is then all of this realignment would be for moot since the whole thing revolves around securing better media contracts than rival conferences.
Click to expand...
I'm not referring to discrimination against individuals. I'm talking about contract discrimination. For example if I offer to cut your grass and tell you all of my customers have to sign a contract for the full season, you sign but then you find out some of my customers didn't have to sign a contract and also are getting their grass cut for less you could argue to void your contract on that basis. Again, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know but I do know you just have to find the right court to plead your case.
 
rocky top buzz said:
.... Almost like this is a message board where fans chat about things relating to the program. Have to be a lawyer to comment? Is everyone here a professional football coach too? No? Then why do we discuss what might or should happen? Next game thread should be great. "Well that's disappointing that we ran the ball 3 times and couldn't get a first down but since that was what the high paid professional coaches decided to do, that was clearly the right decision."
Click to expand...
I would take that over a FELTCH thread in a heartbeat
 
rocky top buzz said:
I'm not referring to discrimination against individuals. I'm talking about contract discrimination. For example if I offer to cut your grass and tell you all of my customers have to sign a contract for the full season, you sign but then you find out some of my customers didn't have to sign a contract and also are getting their grass cut for less you could argue to void your contract on that basis. Again, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know but I do know you just have to find the right court to plead your case.
Click to expand...

Well you changed the situation a bit there. I agree that if ESPN told the ACC they were requiring all conferences to lock in but they weren't actually doing that, there would probably be some sort of fraud-related lawsuit there. I had never heard about that and just assumed that the ACC negotiated the contract independently.

In fact, the way I remember it, I thought the ACC was actually the party that pushed for the very restrictive GOR, because it was their way of preventing teams from getting poached.
 
andrew said:
Well you changed the situation a bit there. I agree that if ESPN told the ACC they were requiring all conferences to lock in but they weren't actually doing that, there would probably be some sort of fraud-related lawsuit there. I had never heard about that and just assumed that the ACC negotiated the contract independently.

In fact, the way I remember it, I thought the ACC was actually the party that pushed for the very restrictive GOR, because it was their way of preventing teams from getting poached.
Click to expand...
Sure I get that. But I didn't change the situation, you just read the word discrimination to mean something specifically revolving around individual rights. Regardless, here is the document - https://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/...238/ACC-Grant-of-Rights-1-DMID1-5vgd1w2if.pdf

Page 1, 3rd paragraph from the bottom says, essentially, as a condition of the agreement of ESPN... each of the member institutions is required to grant the conference those rights herein. Yes there is a lot more legal language there which is why attorneys get involved but it seems reasonable you could argue that ESPN required us to agree to something that was not required of other peer institutions they deal with, and in addition their requirement is resulting in us receiving less revenue than those peer institutions that were not required to make the same commitment. That's why I am saying if a team leaves the ACC the lawsuit would be against ESPN not the ACC since this implies that ESPN is the one who "required" this agreement to be signed in the first place.
 
rocky top buzz said:
Sure I get that. But I didn't change the situation, you just read the word discrimination to mean something specifically revolving around individual rights. Regardless, here is the document - https://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/...238/ACC-Grant-of-Rights-1-DMID1-5vgd1w2if.pdf

Page 1, 3rd paragraph from the bottom says, essentially, as a condition of the agreement of ESPN... each of the member institutions is required to grant the conference those rights herein. Yes there is a lot more legal language there which is why attorneys get involved but it seems reasonable you could argue that ESPN required us to agree to something that was not required of other peer institutions they deal with, and in addition their requirement is resulting in us receiving less revenue than those peer institutions that were not required to make the same commitment. That's why I am saying if a team leaves the ACC the lawsuit would be against ESPN not the ACC since this implies that ESPN is the one who "required" this agreement to be signed in the first place.
Click to expand...

You changed the situation in that in your first post you never said ESPN told us they were requiring all conferences to sign a retsrictive GoR ("tell you all of my customers have to sign a contract for the full season.")

If ESPN really told us that they were requiring all conferences to sign a restrictive guarantee, like in your lawn example, then I agree there could be something there. Any time a business lies to get money there's the possibility of a fraud case.

But it seems like you're saying we can just sue ESPN because the SEC has a better deal than us. I don't see how that would have any merit at all. If that argument works, then contracts are basically meaningless -- what's the point of, say, a ten year contract, if it can be immediately voided when someone else signs a better one in two years? And what law says that a business has to give all businesses that it enters into contracts with the same terms?

The world is fully of companies that give different contracts to different clients depending on what each client wants. The ACC wanted strong guarantees about their future, so they entered into a restrictive contract with ESPN that sacrificed flexibility for stability. The SEC was less concerned about their future, so they entered into a contract with ESPN that wasn't nearly as restrictive, but also didn't have the long term guarantees that the ACC got. The idea that the ACC can break its contract simply because the SEC has a different one doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
GT is about to be left out in the cold in a completely irrelevant ACC basketball conference. Say goodbye to football.
 
DustJacket said:
#toddpocalypse
Click to expand...
How many times do you guys have to post something stupid about the AD without realizing that the AD has absolutely no decision making capability here?

This is a GT President decision, just like it was in 2012. DRad was our AD then and wanted to go to the B1G and said as much to the GT President. Bud Peterson shot that down and signed the GOR. Similarly, TStan could suggest the same now and Cabrera could go right ahead and make the same decision to stick with ACC.

B1G actually wanted Tech in 2012 and Bud signed this albatross of an agreement instead. Those with paid membership on Quinlan's site likely read his message where he confirmed that this happened in 2012 and confirmed that Radakovich badly wanted Tech to go to the Big 10 for the increased money so that we could pay off the debt. Instead, Bud hung this millstone around our neck.
 
Last edited:
daBuzz said:
Similarly, TStan could suggest the same now and Cabrera could go right ahead and make the same decision to stick with ACC.
Click to expand...
I'd bet Cabrera is probably as big a supporter of moving to the B1G as anyone on campus. He's pushing inter-school research collaborations hard. Purdue, Michigan and Illinois are with us in the Top 10 in engineering. Northwestern is Top 20. Maryland is #21. I could see him pushing hard for this change and getting some solid support from those schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top