Exit Fee

[bostonbaron]

Now that the big ten has formally come out and said that they are exploring for a twelve member,lets revisit the exit fee process of the big east and big x12.

Here is a article explaining the big east position...

ent
In 2003 the Big East was put on watch as the ACC announced plans to expand from nine teams to twelve. Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College were rumored to be the three schools under consideration, and all three met with officials from the ACC regarding membership. At the same time, the Big East itself was contemplating its future.

It was later revealed that Miami had been dissatisfied with the Big East and its leadership since a formal letter of complaint was issued by Miami to Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese in 1999. Their issues went unresolved, leading to Miami's interest in the ACC - a league which had been pursuing the college football superpower since the mid-1990's, at the request of football-oriented Florida State, Clemson and Georgia Tech. Those schools were concerned with the balance of power in the ACC, which they viewed as tilted towards "Tobacco Road", the nickname given to the four North Carolina ACC schools and their nationally prominent basketball programs.

Led by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the "remaining" football schools (Virginia Tech, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, and West Virginia) filed two lawsuits, one against the ACC, and the other against Miami and Boston College, accusing them of improper disclosure of confidential information and of conspiring to weaken the Big East. Syracuse was not named as a defendant in part because they never made public comments about the ongoing situation. The lawsuit against the ACC was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, though it was refiled later.

In an unexpected turn, due in large measure to political pressure applied by Governor Mark Warner of Virginia, the ACC replaced Syracuse with Virginia Tech in its expansion vote. Things became even more surprising when, reached by phone at a conference in Switzerland, then-N.C. State Chancellor Marye Anne Fox cast a shocking last-minute "no" vote against Boston College. [4] As a result, the ACC extended invitations only to Miami and Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech immediately accepted the invitation and filed court papers to get themselves out of the awkward position of suing their new conference. Miami, as stunned as everyone else with the outcome of the vote, delayed their acceptance until the last possible day. Miami President Donna Shalala explained the delay stating "We had numbers on Boston College-Virginia Tech. We had done numbers on Miami alone. But we had not anticipated that Virginia Tech and Miami would be the only two invitees." [5] The remaining four plaintiffs removed Boston College from the list of defendants and asked both B.C. and Syracuse to join their suit. Boston College and Syracuse declined.

Leaked minutes of Big East meetings have shed light on the confusing process surrounding the defection of three of its members. At a summer meeting of the "football schools", following the announced departures of Miami and Virginia Tech, discussion among the Presidents and Athletic Directors of the remaining schools focused on a potential split into two conferences; an all-sports conference including football, and a second conference focused primarly on basketball. The idea of a 16-team superconference of both basketball and football schools was discussed, as was merging with Conference USA. Minutes of a July 9, 2003 meeting of presidents and athletic directors show that Syracuse Athletic Director Jake Crouthamel and Boston College Athletic Director Gene DeFilippo went on record indicating they would resign their positions if the Big East expanded to 16 teams.

In response to a proposal for the establishment of a binding agreement among the six schools with a $5 million exit fee and 27-month notice requirement, Boston College President William P. Leahy, S.J. stated that he never felt the Big East had a commitment to excellence and the league had difficulty balancing football and basketball issues. He argued that schools should feel free to entertain alternatives if they became uncomfortable with the direction of the conference, subject to the $5 million fee and notice period. When the question of the member's commitment to each other was raised, Fr. Leahy suggested that discussion be deferred until the remaining agenda items were addressed. The presidents agreed to meet with and possibly extend invitations to Penn State and Notre Dame, however neither school showed interest in joining the conference. [6] The minutes also show that the presidents unanimously voted to support an eventual conference invitation fpr the University of Louisville. Several models for a new conference were discussed; and it was decided that the football schools would explore separating from the basketball-only schools to establish an 8-team all-sports conference. The presidents and athletic directors described the breakup of the football and basketball schools as "inevitable".

Additional meetings of the football conference members occurred between July and October of 2003. In the course of those meetings it was realized that the break-up scenario would not be feasible because the new football conference would lose its automatic NCAA basketball tournament berth and possibly its BCS bid, as well as the Big East name. Futher, the football schools had not been together long enough to satisfy certain NCAA rules. At a Big East meeting in Newark on Oct. 1, after a discussion of Notre Dame's concerns for stability, BC president Rev. William P. Leahy, S.J., addressed rumors surrounding the Eagles' intentions toward the Big East. Fr. Leahy conceded that the Eagles might indeed be leaving the conference and he would determine how genuine the ACC's reported interest in BC as a 12th member was. [7] He stated he could not agree to an exit penalty larger than the already agreed to $5,000,000. Fr. Leahy also expressed concern about the athletic graduation rates of proposed new members Louisville and Cincinnati, despite having voted to support Louisville's inclustion during the July 9 meeting (due diligence on the propsed new schools was conducted after the July vote). It was decided that for the time being, the conference would add additional football and basketball schools and continue in its bifurcated structure until such time as the football schools could establish their own conference. Unhappy with the vote on the future structure of the conference, the administration of Boston College entertained overtures from the Atlantic Coast Conference. After expansion, Jake Crouthamel resigned his position as athletic director at Syracuse.

Speculation that Chancellor Fox, a Notre Dame trustee, cast her vote against B.C. so that the ACC might consider extending membership to Notre Dame was fueled by press accounts reporting that a bid to the Fighting Irish was imminent. But in mid-October 2003, the ACC voted unanimously to invite Boston College to become their twelfth member. When B.C. accepted, they were returned to the lawsuit still pending against Miami by several Big East schools. In response, Boston College petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for a declaratory judgment to avoid paying the increased Big East "exit fee" that Father Leahy acknowledged had been agreed upon during the October 1 meeting. The court found for Boston College, but the Big East appealed. A secret settlement reported to be worth $5 million (the amount of the proposed exit fee) was reached in May 2005, ending both the lawsuit filed by the Big East and the Declaratory Judgment action filed by Boston College. As part of the settlement ACC member schools agreed to play a number of football games each year against Big East teams. Boston College joined the ACC in 2005, and the settlement agreement exempted them from having to play football against their former conference colleagues who had been party to the lawsuit. Boston College officials have stated that the university will not schedule games against any of their former Big East Football colleagues with the exception of Syracuse. (A six year BC-Syracuse football contract is reportedly close to signing.[8]) Several Big East schools have similarly declared that they have no desire to schedule Boston College in any sport.

In response to losing three football programs, the Big East extended invitations to five schools from Conference USA in order to replenish their football ranks and to create a 16-team basketball superconference. The schools that left Conference USA on July 1, 2005 for the Big East are:
*University of Cincinnati
*DePaul University (non-football school)
*University of Louisville
*Marquette University (non-football school)
*University of South Florida

The fallout from the Conference USA realignment instigated a chain reaction of conference realignments that affected the WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West, and Atlantic Ten Conferences. At the same time, the UConn Huskies completed their leap to Division I-A football and became a full member of the conference in 2004, resulting in their first-ever bowl bid. Rumors about expansion and raids regarding Conference USA, the ACC, the Big Ten, and their member institutions continue particularly amongst fans on internet forums.

I will try to get the big x12 exit fee for you guys.

[DuchesneEast]

I didnt think BC paid the 5mil only the original buyout of 1 or 2. Anyone know?

[HJS]

I didnt think BC paid the 5mil only the original buyout of 1 or 2. Anyone know?

I am 99% certain that Miami and VT had to pay a $1mm buyout and that the delay caused BC to have to pay a $2mm buyout (and remain in the conference an additional year). I am 99% sure BC never paid a penny more. Maybe it was $5mm when you add up the 3 buyouts (which gets you to $4mm) and maybe some sort of $1mm nuisance fee.

One of the best parts of that whole thing was that the voted upon exit fee was never properly brought, approved or documented. It is possible that BC would've had to pay the $5mm fee, but Mike T was too lazy to handle basic corporate governance matters.

[AdamBC]

I didnt think BC paid the 5mil only the original buyout of 1 or 2. Anyone know?

They only paid the $1M publicly, as the judge ruled that the Big East constitution had not been amended correctly, so the $5M clause was not valid.

[Onyx Blackman]

In the area under “do not write in this space,” Tranghese wrote “OK.”

[UnionvilleUConnFan]

I didnt think BC paid the 5mil only the original buyout of 1 or 2. Anyone know?

I am 99% certain that Miami and VT had to pay a $1mm buyout and that the delay caused BC to have to pay a $2mm buyout (and remain in the conference an additional year). I am 99% sure BC never paid a penny more. Maybe it was $5mm when you add up the 3 buyouts (which gets you to $4mm) and maybe some sort of $1mm nuisance fee.

One of the best parts of that whole thing was that the voted upon exit fee was never properly brought, approved or documented. It is possible that BC would've had to pay the $5mm fee, but Mike T was too lazy to handle basic corporate governance matters.

IIRC, our esteemed AG went bragging before the cameras (per his usual practice) about the 2-million settlement from BC. He, of course, failed to mention that over one million of that was going right back out as attorneys fees and the net to the state was no different than the original, uncontested 1-million buyout. BC never paid more than that, unless there was some "secret" settlement addendum, which I highly doubt.

[Oliver Closeoff]

The Big East should make sure their exits fees are up to snuff now. The Big 10 has given fair warning that some team will be asked to join and it's probably coming from a major TV market not cover by the Big 10 already. This will be interesting.

[pick6pedro]

The Big East should make sure their exits fees are up to snuff now. The Big 10 has given fair warning that some team will be asked to join and it's probably coming from a major TV market not cover by the Big 10 already. This will be interesting.

It needs to be increased to $1 MILLION!!!

[mezmrin]

DePaul is in the Big East? What?

[bostonbaron]

Ok this is the bylaw for the big 12 conference:

SECTION 3
DURATION
3.1 Membership. Each Member Inst tut on shall rema n a member of the Conference
until July 1, 2006 (the “Current Term”) and during any Additional Term (as defined
below). Unless a Member Inst tut on g ves wr tten not ce that t w ll w thdraw from
the Conference at the end of the Current Term or the then-current Add t onal Term to
all other Member Inst tut ons and the Conference (a “Not ce”) not less than two (2)
years before the end of the Current Term or the then-current Add t onal Term, as the
case may be, each Member Inst tut on shall rema n a member of the Conference for
an additional five-year period after the end of the Current Term or the then-current
Add t onal Term, as the case may be (each, an “Add t onal Term”) unless such member
s a Breach ng Member. Each Member Inst tut on agrees that n the event such Member
des res to w thdraw from the Conference, that t w ll n good fa th g ve Not ce not less
than two (2) years before the end of the Current Term or any Add t onal Term, as the
case may be. No Member Inst tut on shall be ent tled to d str but on of the then-current
revenues from the Conference after the effect ve date of ts w thdrawal, res gnat on, or
the cessat on of ts part c pat on n the Conference (the “Effect ve Date”).
3.2 Effect of Giving Notice. If a Member Inst tut on g ves proper Not ce pursuant to Sect on
3.1 (a “W thdraw ng Member”), then the Members agree that such w thdrawal would
cause financial hardship to the remaining Member Institutions of the Conference, and that
the financial consequences cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time.
Therefore, n recogn t on of the obl gat ons and respons b l t es of each Member Inst tut on
to all other Member Inst tut ons of the Conference, each Member Inst tut on agrees that the
amount of revenue that would have been otherw se d str butable to a W thdraw ng Member
14
pursuant to Section 2 herein for the final two (2) years of the Current Term or the thencurrent
Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), with
the rema nder to be d str buted to the other Member Inst tut ons who are not W thdraw ng
Members or Breaching Members (as defined below) as additional Conference revenues in
accordance w th Sect on 2 here n. The Member Inst tut ons agree that such reduct on n
the amount of revenues d str buted to a W thdraw ng Member s reasonable and shall be n
the form of liquidated damages and not be construed as a penalty.
3.3 Effect of Withdrawal From Conference Other Than by Giving Proper Notice. If,
other than by g v ng a proper Not ce pursuant to Sect on 3.1, a Member Inst tut on (a
“Breach ng Member”) w thdraws, res gns, or otherw se ceases to part c pate as a full
Member Inst tut on n full compl ance w th these Rules, or g ves not ce or otherw se
states ts ntent to so w thdraw, res gn, or cease to part c pate n the future (a “Breach”),
then the Member Institutions agree that such Breach would cause financial hardship
to the remaining Member Institutions of the Conference, and that the financial
consequences cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time. Therefore,
n recogn t on of the obl gat ons and respons b l t es of each Member Inst tut on to
all other Member Inst tut ons of the Conference, each Member Inst tut on agrees that
after such Breach, the amount of Conference revenue that would otherw se have been
d str buted or d str butable to the Breach ng Member dur ng the two (2) years pr or to
the end of the Current Term or the then-current Add t onal Term, as the case may be,
shall be reduced by an amount that equals the sum of the aggregate of such revenues
t mes the follow ng percentages (such sum be ng the “Aggregate Reduct on”); f Not ce
s rece ved less than two years but on or before e ghteen months pr or to the Effect ve
Date, 70%; if Notice is received less than eighteen months but on or before twelve
months prior to the Effective Date, 80%; if Notice is received less than twelve months
but on or before six months prior to the Effective Date, 90%; or if Notice is received
less than six months prior to the Effective Date, 100%.
After such Breach, none of the revenues that otherw se would be d str butable to a
Breach ng Member shall be pa d to the Breach ng Member unt l the aggregate amount
so withheld (the “Withheld Amounts”) equals the Aggregate Reduction; thereafter, all
revenues that would otherw se have been d str butable to the Breach ng Member shall
be so d str buted. If the W thheld Amounts are less than the Aggregate Reduct on, then
the Member Inst tut ons acknowledge and agree that the Conference shall assess such
Breaching Member an amount that equals the difference of the Aggregate Reduction
less the W thheld Amounts, and the Breach ng Member agrees that on or pr or to the
Effect ve Date t shall repay to the Conference such amount from revenue that prev ously
had been d str buted to such Breach ng Member. The W thheld Amounts and any such
repayment of the d fference of the Aggregate Reduct on less the W thheld Amounts
shall be d str buted to the other Member Inst tut ons who are not W thdraw ng Members
or Breach ng Members as add t onal Conference revenues n accordance w th Sect on
2 here n. The Member Inst tut ons agree that such reduct on n the d str but on of
revenues to a Breaching Member is reasonable and shall be in the form of liquidated
damages and not be construed as a penalty.

[DuchesneEast]

I didnt think BC paid the 5mil only the original buyout of 1 or 2. Anyone know?

One of the best parts of that whole thing was that the voted upon exit fee was never properly brought, approved or documented. It is possible that BC would've had to pay the $5mm fee, but Mike T was too lazy to handle basic corporate governance matters.

Thats exactly what I remembered.

[bostonbaron]

So my guess is they don't have a set exit amount.

[mod6A]

DePaul is in the Big East? What?

ha.

i saw depaul getting smoked by someone in hoops last week and it took me a few minutes to remember they were in the conference. what a Fing mess that thing is. the football schools should have split right there and then from the hoops schools.
i think pitt or syracuse goes, and the house of cards falls apart.

[RegalBCeagle]

Mary Anne Fox is a baby maker. What is that stupid bitch up to these days?

[AdamBC]

DePaul is in the Big East? What?

ha.

i saw depaul getting smoked by someone in hoops last week and it took me a few minutes to remember they were in the conference. what a Fing mess that thing is. the football schools should have split right there and then from the hoops schools.
i think pitt or syracuse goes, and the house of cards falls apart.

Map of the mess.

[DuchesneEast]

Mary Anne Fox is a baby maker. What is that stupid bitch up to these days?

I agree and she is she I hated NCst long before TOBy went there to coach.

I think she is at the University of San Diego last I heard but that was years ago.

[HJS]

She is at UCSD (which is sadly an excellent school). I understand that she had a tough time at NCS after dismissing BC in the final vote. There were those on the NCS Board who (correctly) felt that she put the interest of ND over her job as NCS President. It was not a good moment for her professionally. I found it interesting that the 3 Presidents that voted against BC were all gone by the time BC showed up.
http://www-chancellor.ucsd.edu/biography.html

[bostonbaron]

there was an original photo of the swc conference, wonder what it will look like in a year and a half.

[AMDG]

She is at UCSD (which is sadly an excellent school). I understand that she had a tough time at NCS after dismissing BC in the final vote. There were those on the NCS Board who (correctly) felt that she put the interest of ND over her job as NCS President. It was not a good moment for her professionally. I found it interesting that the 3 Presidents that voted against BC were all gone by the time BC showed up.
http://www-chancellor.ucsd.edu/biography.html

BC was also the only school that was admitted in a unaminous vote.

[DomingoOrtiz]

So I had jury duty recently. In the big jury pool room where you have to sit around with the Great Unwashed, they have panels up displaying the history of the Massachusetts judicial system with 10-15 significant cases (Lizzy Borden, Saco & Venzetti, Ponzi... ) one of which was the BC - Big East lawsuit. Apparently, it was one of the first cases heard by the newly created Business Litigation Session.
Also, one guy in the pool looked exactly like Wee-Bey Brice!

[twballgame9]

So I had jury duty recently. In the big jury pool room where you have to sit around with the Great Unwashed, they have panels up displaying the history of the Massachusetts judicial system with 10-15 significant cases (Lizzy Borden, Saco & Venzetti, Ponzi... ) one of which was the BC - Big East lawsuit. Apparently, it was one of the first cases heard by the newly created Business Litigation Session.
Also, one guy in the pool looked exactly like Wee-Bey Brice!

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4185

[b0mberMan]

(Lizzy Borden, Saco & Venzetti, Ponzi... )

When I was in 8th grade, I would interupt my history teacher's class by taking off my sock and using him as a sock puppet and re-enacting the Sacco & Venzetti trials, mainly by saying a lot of stereotypical Italian things in a Mario-like accent. So kind of impressive I was never really reprimanded for this.

"I'm-a no spy! I'm a grown-a man! I live at home with-a my mother and she cooks and-a cleans for me! I'm-a thirty!"