Mavric Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 New Hampshire beat Northwestern without a Hail Mary. What? New Hampshire beat Northwestern in 2006. Relevant. And I should care, why? Give him a break. Notre Dame Joe likes to live in the past. 1 Quote Link to comment
deedsker Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 New Hampshire beat Northwestern without a Hail Mary. What? New Hampshire beat Northwestern in 2006. Relevant. And I should care, why? Give him a break. Notre Dame Joe likes to live in the past. Makes sense. Whole lot of nonsense. Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Maryland is countersuing the ACC for +$150 million for anti-trust issues or something...they've also alleged that either the ACC as a conference or Pitt and Wake Forest tried to recruit at least two Big Ten schools to join the ACC. http://college-footb...hing/?eref=sihp Quote Link to comment
GM_Tood Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Maryland is countersuing the ACC for +$150 million for anti-trust issues or something...they've also alleged that either the ACC as a conference or Pitt and Wake Forest tried to recruit at least two Big Ten schools to join the ACC. http://college-footb...hing/?eref=sihp NIce! Quote Link to comment
nic Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Maryland is countersuing the ACC for +$150 million for anti-trust issues or something...they've also alleged that either the ACC as a conference or Pitt and Wake Forest tried to recruit at least two Big Ten schools to join the ACC. http://college-footb...hing/?eref=sihp Pitt certainly would have wanted PSU. I wonder if MSU was the other? They have good hoops and think they get a lack of respect by the Big10. Anyway, it was one of the schools with good hoops I am sure. Seems like a silly lawsuit however. Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Maryland is countersuing the ACC for +$150 million for anti-trust issues or something...they've also alleged that either the ACC as a conference or Pitt and Wake Forest tried to recruit at least two Big Ten schools to join the ACC. http://college-footb...hing/?eref=sihp Pitt certainly would have wanted PSU. I wonder if MSU was the other? They have good hoops and think they get a lack of respect by the Big10. Anyway, it was one of the schools with good hoops I am sure. Seems like a silly lawsuit however. Yea PSU was definitely one. They've had a portion of their fan base clamoring for ACC membership since they joined the Big Ten. No idea who the other was. Probably MSU or one of the Indiana schools. Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 The entire counterclaim: http://media10.washi.../acclawsuit.pdf paragraph 104 includes the bit about the ACC trying to snag two Big Ten Schools. Apparently they were both east of the Mississippi river which doesn't help much, so it wasn't Nebraska, Iowa or Minnesota. Kind of guessed that already. Quote Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 so what? The ACC recruiting new members in no way means that existing members are exempt from an exit fee. Far more interesting is the news that ESPN was encouraging the ACC expansion because the Big East was holding out for more money. Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 so what? By itself it means nothing, it's one small piece of information (1 out of nearly 200 paragraphs in the suit) that Maryland's lawyers are using to show that the ACC is unfairly preventing competition. It's amusing to people that follow the the Big Ten. I for one, don't care about the ACC raiding the Big East or why they did it. Far more interesting that the B1G and ACC both tried scooping each other and only one was successful, it sort of shows the conference pecking order. I think the general goal here is to get the suit moved from NC to Maryland and then win it there, settle or just get the ACC to straight up drop it. There's no chance the ACC or UMD pay the amounts that are being thrown around and it's not as if they're going to cancel their move to the B1G, this is just the ACC trying to milk UMD for what money they can and embarrass them. Quote Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 so what? By itself it means nothing, it's one small piece of information (1 out of nearly 200 paragraphs in the suit) that Maryland's lawyers are using to show that the ACC is unfairly preventing competition. It's amusing to people that follow the the Big Ten. I for one, don't care about the ACC raiding the Big East or why they did it. Far more interesting that the B1G and ACC both tried scooping each other and only one was successful, it sort of shows the conference pecking order. I think the general goal here is to get the suit moved from NC to Maryland and then win it there, settle or just get the ACC to straight up drop it. There's no chance the ACC or UMD pay the amounts that are being thrown around and it's not as if they're going to cancel their move to the B1G, this is just the ACC trying to milk UMD for what money they can and embarrass them. Agree except for the jurisdictional part. Guy on Shaggy said that it was an intimidation move, to threaten discovery and depositions to turn up dirt, even if said dirt doesn't really impact the lawsuit. ARod's lawyers are basically doing the same thing. Quote Link to comment
Coqui Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 so what? The ACC recruiting new members in no way means that existing members are exempt from an exit fee. Far more interesting is the news that ESPN was encouraging the ACC expansion because the Big East was holding out for more money. Agreed. And people still think ESPN doesn't have it out for the Big Ten? They were trying to weaken the brand itself. 1 Quote Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 so what? The ACC recruiting new members in no way means that existing members are exempt from an exit fee. Far more interesting is the news that ESPN was encouraging the ACC expansion because the Big East was holding out for more money. Agreed. And people still think ESPN doesn't have it out for the Big Ten? They were trying to weaken the brand itself. Probably because y'all put you championship game on Fox. Quote Link to comment
Coqui Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 so what? The ACC recruiting new members in no way means that existing members are exempt from an exit fee. Far more interesting is the news that ESPN was encouraging the ACC expansion because the Big East was holding out for more money. Agreed. And people still think ESPN doesn't have it out for the Big Ten? They were trying to weaken the brand itself. Probably because y'all put you championship game on Fox. Because we started the Big Ten Network. This was long before we had a championship game. Quote Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Probably because y'all put you championship game on Fox. Because we started the Big Ten Network. This was long before we had a championship game. It's ESPN being petty little bitches in this instance--they were the first network Delaney went to with the idea for the BTN, and ESPN did everything but laugh Delaney out of Bristol. Of course, that was a stupid, *stupid* move for ESPN, and now that Delaney had the audacity to show ESPN up and succeed, we see negative/slanted B1G coverage as retaliation. What everyone in the B1G should be concerned with is what happens if ESPN loses the B1G games completely: There's talk that Fox is willing to ante up for most to all B1G rights to shore up their Fox Sports Network (they have the inside track as majority partner of the BTN). Add to this the talk that NBC (for NBC Sports) and CBS are interested in leftover second-tier and first-tier B1G football inventory (respectively) and there's a possible scenario where the B1G isn't on ESPN at all. 2 Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Probably because y'all put you championship game on Fox. Because we started the Big Ten Network. This was long before we had a championship game. It's ESPN being petty little bitches in this instance--they were the first network Delaney went to with the idea for the BTN, and ESPN did everything but laugh Delaney out of Bristol. Of course, that was a stupid, *stupid* move for ESPN, and now that Delaney had the audacity to show ESPN up and succeed, we see negative/slanted B1G coverage as retaliation. What everyone in the B1G should be concerned with is what happens if ESPN loses the B1G games completely: There's talk that Fox is willing to ante up for most to all B1G rights to shore up their Fox Sports Network (they have the inside track as majority partner of the BTN). Add to this the talk that NBC (for NBC Sports) and CBS are interested in leftover second-tier and first-tier B1G football inventory (respectively) and there's a possible scenario where the B1G isn't on ESPN at all. Why should we be concerned with this? Quote Link to comment
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.