The Confidential

The ACC Sports Blog

Author Archive

26 Jul 2012
1 Comment

New NCAA Rule for 2013-2014 Hoops

Add Ohio State and Marquette to the list of teams that are going to play a game on an aircraft carrier.  In fact, the NCAA is set to announce that, by the 2013-2014, all teams must play all of their games on aircraft carriers.  Caveat: If there are not enough aircraft carriers, then teams must find some unusual place to play, such as on laundry ships (i.e. the USS Walter Mondale–see Simpsons episode 16, season 6)… a hockey ice rink… in a Dubai mall… in a Chuck-E-Cheese… on a ski slope… anywhere but a basketball court.  Playing inside is so 1990’s.

The Confidential now returns you to your Penn State schadenfreude.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by acaffrey in Sarcasm
26 Jul 2012
9 Comments

PSU: The United States Supreme Court Notes Your REAL Option

As previously discussed, the argument that the NCAA deprived Penn State of due process is weak.  It is even more weak given that Penn State agreed to the NCAA’s penalties.  Penn State is fully capable of marshaling a legal team to challenge the NCAA’s rulings, but chose not to do so.  The idea of appealing somehow is simply absurd.  However, Penn State fans have expressed concern that the Freeh report may be wrong–making the penalties unjust.  Fortunately, in the circumstance where the Freeh report is deemed inaccurate, Penn State would have options.

During the press conference by the NCAA to announce the penalties, a question was posed as to whether Penn State could do anything to reduce the penalties.  The question was not answered because of a desire not to delve into “hypotheticals.” However, a secondary concern by Penn State fans is what happens if the Freeh report is deemed to be wrong.  Apparently, this has happened with a Freeh report in the past.  And the upcoming trials may shed additional light on what the “evidence” is.  Is there anything that Penn State can do at that point?  The answer appears to be “yes.”

In National Collegiate Athletics Association v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179; 109 S. Ct. 454; 102 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1988), the United States Supreme Court ruled that popular UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian could not pursue a due process claim against the NCAA.  The Supreme Court observed, properly in the Confidential’s opinion, that the NCAA simply was not a government entity or somehow the equivalent of one because of its relationship with government entities.  However, in so ruling, the Supreme Court noted as follows:

Furthermore, the NCAA’s bylaws permit review of penalties, even after they are imposed, “upon a showing of newly discovered evidence which is directly related to the findings in the case, or that there was a prejudicial error in the procedure which was followed in the processing of the case by the Committee.” App. 107. UNLV could have sought such a review, perhaps on the theory that the NCAA’s investigator was biased against Tarkanian, as the Nevada trial court found in 1984.  The NCAA Committee on Infractions was authorized to “reduce or eliminate any penalty” if the university had prevailed.  [See Tarkanian, supra at 195 n.15 (citations omitted).]

Sure enough, the NCAA bylaws DO contemplate that an imposed penalty may be reviewed if there is “newly discovered evidence” or a “prejudicial error in the procedure”:

19.5.2.8 Review of Penalty.

19.5.2.8.1 Newly Discovered Evidence or Prejudicial Error. When a penalty has been imposed and publicly announced and the appeal opportunity has been exhausted, there shall be no review of the penalty
except upon a showing of newly discovered evidence (per Bylaw 19.02.3) that is directly related the findings in the case or that there was prejudicial error in the procedure that was followed in the processing of the case
by the committee. (Revised: 1/9/96)

19.5.2.8.1.1 Review Process. Any institution that initiates such a review shall be required to submit a brief of its appeal to the committee and to furnish sufficient copies of the brief for distribution
to all members of the committee. The committee shall review the brief and decide by majority vote whether it shall grant a hearing of the appeal.

19.5.2.8.1.2 Institution or Conference Discipline as New Evidence. Disciplinary measures imposed by the institution or its conference following the NCAA’s action may be considered to be
“newly discovered evidence” for the purposes of this section.

19.5.2.8.1.3 No Imposition of New Penalty. If a hearing of the appeal is granted, the committee may reduce or eliminate any penalty but may not impose any new penalty. The committee’s decision
with respect to the penalty shall be final and conclusive for all purposes.

19.5.2.8.2 Reconsideration of Penalty. The institution shall be notified that should any portion of the penalty in the case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the Association, the
penalty shall be reconsidered by the NCAA. In such cases, any extension or adjustment of a penalty shall be proposed by the Committee on Infractions after notice to the institution and hearing. Any such action by
the committee shall be subject to appeal.

It is difficult to envision a successful challenge to the procedure after the fact and given the agreement to the penalties by Penn State.  But the newly discovered evidence options provides hope. If the Freeh report is ultimately deemed inaccurate, there ARE steps that Penn State can take to have the NCAA re-review the penalties.  If Penn State has been fully compliant, and if the NCAA agrees that there were errors in the Freeh report, the NCAA bylaws would grant the NCAA the discretion to reduce the penalties.

So all is not lost for Penn State.  If the evidence changes, the NCAA has the power to revisit the penalties.

Posted by acaffrey in Football, Other Sports and tagged , , ,
25 Jul 2012
3 Comments

Due Process, Penn State, Blah Blah Blah

The Confidential has seen an argument in various places that Penn State was somehow deprived of due process.  For example, Tony Barnhart of CBS Sports has this nice article about how he is comfortable with the penalties imposed on Penn State, but not the due process.  Please note that the Confidential writes from the perspective of a licensed, practicing attorney, but is not the product of substantial research.  Nevertheless, a quick bit of research confirmed that it seems highly unlikely that there was a due process violation here.

First, what is due process anyway?  The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides as follows in Section 1: “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  The concept of “due process” has emerged over the decades to involve two components: substantive due process and procedural due process.  Procedural due process generally requires that, “when the state or federal government acts in such a way that denies a citizen of a life, liberty, or property interest, the person must first be given notice and the opportunity to be heard.”  See e.g. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/procedural_due_process.  Substantive due process generally “prohibits the government from infringing on fundamental constitutional liberties.”  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Substantive+Due+Process.

Setting aside these meanings, the question is whether the NCAA is somehow equivalent to a government.  Some courts have answered that question with a “no.”  See NCAA Due Process, Its Past and Its Future, Christopher V. Carlyle, Entertainment and Sports Lawyer, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring 1994).  In fact, no less than the United States Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA was not a state actor subject to the 14th amendment in National Collegiate Athletics Association v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179; 109 S. Ct. 454; 102 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1988).  Later, when Nevada tried to legislate a due process requirement into Nevada state law, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the legislation violated two separate provisions of the United States constitution: the Commerce Clause and the Contract Clause.   National Collegiate Athletics Association v. Miller, 10 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 1993).  In other words, it is unclear how Penn State could argue that the NCAA is required to afford them due process as a matter of law.  The NCAA is a private entity, not a state actor.

Second, even if the NCAA were somehow a state actor, the protests at issue surround the procedural tactics chosen by the NCAA, such as not taking sufficient time after reviewing the Freeh report to decide the sanctions and not conducting its own investigation.  There is no suggestion that Penn State has been deprived of substantive due process.  This is a procedural due process issue.

The problem for Penn State is that, as noted above, procedural due process only requires notice and the opportunity to be heard.  It is beyond dispute that the NCAA provided notice to Penn State in the form of a letter on November 17, 2011.  NCAA letter to PSU.  In this letter, the NCAA:

  • Provides notice to Penn State that it deems the Sandusky matter and its sequellae to be a lack of institutional control
  • Sets forth that the matter violated several NCAA provisions in its Bylaws and Constitution
  • Lists several questions
  • Gives Penn State until December 16, 2011, to respond.

Under the circumstances, it certainly appears that Penn State was given “notice” and an “opportunity to be heard.”  It does not appear, however, that Penn State ever took advantage of that notice/opportunity.  That does not equate to a deprivation of procedural due process.  It is up to the party claiming such a deprivation to exercise its rights once it is given notice and the opportunity to be heard.  Due process does not guarantee that you must be heard, after all.  As such, the Confidential is perplexed by the suggestion that Penn State was somehow deprived of due process.

Do you disagree?  Feel free to share some law supporting your argument.  The Confidential is opinionated, but on an issue like this, there may be a colorable argument that someone with more time to research this issue can come up with.  If so, the Confidential is free to change its opinion!

Posted by acaffrey in Football, Uncategorized and tagged , , ,
25 Jul 2012
2 Comments

Penn State and ACC Football

While the Penn State situation impacts all of college football, it may have a direct impact on ACC football.  Quite obviously, there is the proximity of many schools.  But the ACC’s recent expansion to include Syracuse and Pittsburgh may result in adding the two main beneficiaries in the Penn State decline that is inevitably to occur in the upcoming decade.

Interestingly, while the Florida State fans may dismiss the addition of Pittsburgh and Syracuse from a football standpoint, both schools have had substantial football moments.  Beginning in 1978, look at the records:

  • 1976: Pittsburgh 12-0, Penn State 7-5, Syracuse 3-8 = 22-13
  • 1977: Penn State 11-1, Pitt 9-2-1, Syracuse 6-5 = 26-8-1
  • 1978: Penn State 11-1, Pitt 8-4, Syracuse 3-8 = 22-13
  • 1979: Pitt 11-1; Penn State 8-4, Syracuse 7-5 = 26-10
  • 1980: Pitt 11-1; Penn State 10-2, Syracuse 5-6 = 26-9
  • 1981: Pitt 11-1, Penn State 10-2, Syracuse 4-6-1 = 25-9-1
  • 1982: Penn State 11-1, Pitt 9-3, Syracuse 2-9 = 22-13
  • 1983: Pitt 8-3-1, Penn State 8-4-1, Syracuse 6-5 = 22-12-2
  • 1984: Syracuse 6-5, Penn State 6-5, Pitt 3-7-1 = 15-17-1
  • 1985: Penn State 11-1, Syracuse 7-5, Pitt 5-5-1 = 23-11-1
  • 1986: Penn State 12-0, Pitt 5-5-1, Syracuse 5-6 = 22-11-1
  • 1987: Syracuse 11-0-1, Penn State 8-4, Pitt 8-4 = 27-8-1
  • 1988: Syracuse 10-2, Pitt 8-4, Penn State 5-6 = 23-12
  • 1989: Penn State 8-3-1, Pitt 8-3-1, Syracuse 8-4 = 24-10-2
  • 1990: Penn State 9-3, Syracuse 7-4-2, Pitt 3-7-1 = 19-14-3
  • 1991: Penn State 11-2, Syracuse 10-2, Pitt 6-5 = 27-9
  • 1992: Syracuse 10-2, Penn State 7-5, Pitt 3-9 = 20-16
  • 1993: Penn State 10-2,  Syracuse 6-4-1, Pitt 3-8 = 19-14-1
  • 1994: Penn State 12-0, Syracuse 7-4, Pitt 3-8 = 22-12
  • 1995: Penn State 9-3, Syracuse 9-3, Pitt 2-9 = 20-15
  • 1996: Penn State 11-2, Syracuse 9-3, Pitt 4-7 = 24-12
  • 1997: Penn State 9-3, Syracuse 9-4, Pitt 6-6 = 24-13
  • 1998: Penn State 9-3, Syracuse 8-4, Pitt 2-9 = 19-16
  • 1999: Penn State 10-3, Syracuse 7-5, Pitt 5-6 = 22-13
  • 2000: Pitt 7-5, Syracuse 6-5, Penn State 5-7 = 18-17
  • 2001: Syracuse 10-3, Pitt 7-5, Penn State 5-6 = 22-12
  • 2002: Pitt 9-4, Penn State 9-4, Syracuse 4-8 = 22-16
  • 2003: Pitt 8-5, Syracuse 6-6, Penn State 3-9 = 17-20
  • 2004: Pitt 8-4, Syracuse 6-6; Penn State 4-7 = 18-17
  • 2005: Penn State 11-1, Pitt 5-6, Syracuse 1-10 = 17-17
  • 2006: Penn State 9-4, Pitt 6-6, Syracuse 4-8 = 17-18
  • 2007: Penn State 9-4, Pitt 5-7, Syracuse 2-10 = 16-21
  • 2008: Penn State 11-2, Pitt 9-4, Syracuse 3-9 = 23-15
  • 2009: Penn State 11-2, Pitt 10-3, Syracuse 4-8 = 25-13
  • 2010: Syracuse 8-5, Pitt 8-5, Penn State 7-6 = 23- 16
  • 2011: Penn State 9-4, Pitt 6-7, Syracuse 5-7 = 20-18
  • 2012: TBD

During this entire period, there were only two seasons (2005 and 2007) where two of these teams were not bowl eligible at the end of the season.  Both of those seasons just happened to come during Syracuse’s dreadful Greg Robinson era.* Pitt had a similarly dreadful era from 1992 to 1995, where Paul Hackett and Johnny Majors led them to a combined 11-34.  But, for the most part, Syracuse and Pitt have ordinarily managed to have bad seasons with 4 wins or so.

If Penn State drops to a point where they are not capable of fielding a team able to win more than 2 or 3 FBS games a year, those players have to go  somewhere.  If Pitt and Syracuse are able to siphon off some of that talent, it only stands to reason that both can improve by one or two wins a year.

To be sure, there was not Rutgers or UConn to contend with in the 1980’s and 1990’s.  Even Temple is finally playing up to its potential.  So nothing guarantees that Pitt and Syracuse will pick up the slack.  The move to the ACC might, however, be the shot in the arm that convinces more of these players to go with Pitt and Syracuse (and BC), rather than Rutgers, UConn, and Temple.

Still, the three teams have historically averaged about 22 to 23 wins between them.  If Penn State is only  contributing 2 or 3 wins, that could mean 9 or 10 win seasons for Pitt and/or Syracuse.  If so, the ACC will have to be pleased with these two schools’ contributions to the football equation.

* In the three seasons preceding his era, coaches were 16-20.  In the three seasons after his era, coaches were 17-20.  During his era, Syracuse was 10-37.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Football and tagged , , ,
24 Jul 2012
1 Comment

Penn State Penalties: The Day After

The Confidential has spent more than 24 hours digesting the NCAA sanctions imposed on Penn State by the NCAA yesterday.  As part of that digestion, the Confidential engaged in debate with neutral observers and Penn State fans alike regarding the sanctions.  While the Confidential still approves the NCAA penalties and believes them just–there are a few aspects where the NCAA seems to have erred.

As a preliminary matter, as it relates to the NCAA imposing ANY sanctions, the Confidential remains steadfast in its opinion that the NCAA was free to sanction Penn State for the sheer embarrassment alone.  What happened at Penn State hurt the image of college football.  We applaud when the NBA suspends Ron Artest for jumping into the stands; we should similarly applaud when the NCAA seeks to protect its image against this embarrassment.  After all, it was the adults at Penn State–the leaders, in fact–that committed the errors.  It is a bit troubling that a school can be punished for the prior sins of a young man (see USC & Reggie Bush), but there is no such sympathy for Penn State here.  Guys in suits made big mistakes.  Punishment was appropriate… sorry.

As for the punishments themselves, here is a copy of the summary of the penalties:

  • $60,000,000 fine, with the funds used to support an endowment for child abuse victims.  1 year’s gross revenue of the football program.
  • Bowl ban for 4 years
  • 10 less scholarships per year for four years.  Maximum of 65 scholarship players on team for four years, beginning in 2014-2015.
  • Current players may transfer
  • Vacated all wins from 1998 to 2011.
  • Athletic department–5 years probation, with an athletic integrity monitor.

There is no real quarrel with the fine, the bowl ban, the loss of scholarships and the probation.  While the fine is heavy, it is only one year of gross revenue.  And spread out over five years, the cost is not that damaging–perhaps 1/2 of the TV revenue Penn State derives.  The bowl bans, loss of scholarships, and the probation are hefty, but not unprecedented in form.

The issue with these punishments relate to the transfer of players and the vacating of wins.  The Confidential agrees that players should be allowed to transfer.  It is certainly not THEIR fault that this punishment was handed down.  HOWEVER, the NCAA is going way too far with respect to the rules governing this transfer process.  Specifically, the NCAA is allowing schools to contact Penn State players.   While the schools must inform Penn State of the contact, this remains an absurd policy.  If players want to leave, so be it.  They can contact the schools.  There is no need to allow open-recruitment of Penn State players.  That just adds insult to injury.

Even worse, the NCAA will apparently allow punished programs like USC and Ohio State to add Penn State players:

And finally, a school already facing scholarship limits because of NCAA infractions, such as Ohio State or USC, may add a Penn State player as long as it doesn’t exceed the limits specified in its infractions ruling. So USC can add Penn State running back Silas Redd as long as it doesn’t exceed its NCAA-mandated scholarship limit of 75.

What?  The NCAA is punishing Ohio State and USC.  There is simply NO logical explanation for allowing these programs to even consider adding former Penn State players.  The whole purpose of punishing those programs was to impose a penalty on them for prior violations.  Those penalties have not ended yet.  They should be prohibited from sharing in the feast on the Penn State players.  This is simple common sense and fairness.

Finally, the Confidential opposes the vacating of wins from 1998 to 2011.  Of course, vacating wins is a stupid and pointless penalty anyway.  If a school cheats, then perhaps they should forfeit the game–with the losing team becoming the winner and vice-versa.  But vacating the wins is a useless gesture.  Whether it is applied to Joe Paterno, Bobby Bowden, or anyone else, it is simply a fiction.

Here, it is obvious that the cover-up of Sandusky’s deeds staved off a public relations disaster that arguably would have damaged the football program.  But those kids still went on the field and won (or lost) the games that they played.  The kids played within the rules and did not cheat.  The games were legitimate and should not be removed from the record simply because of the misdeeds of the administration unrelated to the games themselves.  Even the coaches/opponents must agree that vacating wins is pointless.  In the context of Joe Paterno, vacating the wins seems like a twisting of the knife in Penn State.  Perhaps the NCAA could have vacated the wins from 2001–the year that Penn State should have done more.  Had Penn State endured the negative public relations that year, the season might have been disappointing.  In striking 1998 to 2011, the NCAA simply went too far.

What do you think?  Did the NCAA get it all right?  All wrong?  Partially right?  Feel free to share your opinion!

 

Posted by acaffrey in Football and tagged , ,
24 Jul 2012

Random Thoughts on Sports, July 24, 2012

With the NCAA neutering the Nittany Lions yesterday, it is hard to believe that there are other sports stories of interest.  Here are a few that the Confidential is intrigued by:

  1. Ichiro Suzuki was traded to the New York Yankees for two players that, aside from relatives and perhaps a desperate groupie or two, nobody cares about.  Oh, and for the luxury of ridding itself of its most notable player and fan favorite, Seattle contributed money to the deal.  What?  Why give money???  If you are not getting a useful player back, make the Yankees eat his salary.  Otherwise, keep the money… enjoy some extra attendance for Ichiro’s presence… and move on.  To get nothing from the Yankees AND pay is just a terrible baseball move.
  2. The Big XII is shiny and happy at 10 teams right now.  Perhaps conference realignment can take a few years off?  Makes sense.  With the new playoff structure, the conferences and schools should give it some time to see how it plays out.  Perhaps the playoffs will be unfairly slanted towards the Big East, with Boise State winning four straight national championships.  Unlikely, but might as well play it out first.  Heck, maybe the ACC will win a few major bowls games.  Hey, it can happen.
  3. The Olympics are going to start soon.  In the old days, this was great.  An opportunity to see funny names.  Now we have televised NBA and NHL games for that.  It is still a great sports spectacle though.  Hopefully, it can be sports-focused and avoid scandals involving drugs and judges.  And let’s all hope that terrorism is not an issue.

NFL training camps open soon, with college football summer practices not far behind.  Remember to set the alarm on life to January 2013.

 

Posted by acaffrey in Other Sports
23 Jul 2012
2 Comments

Penn State Penalties

The NCAA has announced its penalties against Penn State.  The goal was to reflect the magnitude of the “terrible acts” and allow Penn State to re-establish a proper football culture at the University.  The penalties are severe, but reflect the Confidential’s twin desires that (a) something be done to address abuse generally; and (b) avoid the death penalty.

The following sanctions were handed down (for the NCAA’s explanation–see link):

  • $60,000,000 fine, with the funds used to support an endowment for child abuse victims.  1 year’s gross revenue of the football program.
  • Bowl ban for 4 years
  • 10 less scholarships per year for four years.  Maximum of 65 scholarship players on team for four years, beginning in 2014-2015.
  • Current players may transfer
  • Vacated all wins from 1998 to 2011.
  • Athletic department–5 years probation, with an athletic integrity monitor.

The Confidential believes that the NCAA’s punishments are strong, but appropriate.  As evidenced by the comments by Penn State fans, they just do not “get” how backwards the culture is there (or at least WAS).  This should serve to restore the proper balance between football and school.

Posted by acaffrey in Football and tagged , ,
22 Jul 2012
1 Comment

Penn State’s Future? Check Back in 14 Hours.

The NCAA has announced that it will be levying penalties against Penn State tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.  Previously, the Confidential has opined that the death penalty is inappropriate because it adds one more insult to the victims.  It appears that the NCAA has decided to eschew the death penalty.  However, the looming penalty is being described as “unprecedented” and so severe that a source said that Penn State “may prefer the death penalty.”  So, the college football world can brace itself for a serious set of sanctions against the football King of the Northeast.

What do we know?

Well, we know that Penn State will not appeal.  They do not have any interest in challenging the NCAA.

Nevertheless, we also know that many commentators seems to be tripping over themselves to state that the NCAA should not be punishing Penn State under NCAA rules.  Two weeks ago, everyone wanted the death penalty.  Now, the non-death-penalty is unwarranted.   Writers need to make up their minds, apparently.

The Penn State community remains in denial–arguing that the NCAA should not concern itself with the Nittany Lions’ athletic program’s failure to keep a recidivist pedofile out of its locker rooms and subsequent cover-up.  Yes, Joe Paterno did great things.  We all get it.  But his program terrorized a number of young boys.  It might not be JoePa’s FAULT, but he missed several opportunities to prevent it from happening.  Stop worrying about Paterno’s legacy and instead clean up your program.

Finally, let’s speculate about penalties.  Huge fines?  Guarantee it.  The aforementioned article even speculates that the money will be donated to charity.  Bowl bans?  Count on it.  Lost scholarships?  Absolutely.  More?  Who knows.  Tune in tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. to find out just how unprecedented it is.

Posted by acaffrey in Football and tagged , ,
21 Jul 2012

Yahoo Claims Miami’s NCAA Issues Persisted Under Al Golden

It was about one year ago that Yahoo’s Charles Robinson reported that the Miami Hurricanes provided illegal benefits to more than 70 players.  The report was significant enough to get everyone’s attention, from Miami to the NCAA.  Miami’s Al Golden promised that he would clean up the mess caused by the former regime and booster Nevin Shapiro; however, a new Yahoo report by Robinson suggests that Miami continued to violate NCAA rules under Al Golden.  This is very troubling news for “the U.”

The new report concerns an allegation that the Hurricanes used “Sean ‘Pee Wee’ Allen – a then-equipment manager and onetime right-hand man of convicted Ponzi schemer Nevin Shapiro – to circumvent NCAA rules in the recruiting of multiple Miami-area players.”  The troubling aspect is that Al Golden’s staff also used Allen to make impermissible contacts.  If so, the Miami scandal overlaps the hiring of Golden.

The Yahoo article includes a pointed response by Golden:

“I have been a college football coach for more than 18 years and I am proud of — and I stand by — my record of compliance over that span,” Golden said in a statement. “As my colleagues and players on all of my teams can attest, I believe strongly in doing things the right way with the best of intentions.

“The inferences and suggestions in the Yahoo! Sports story that my conduct was anything but ethical are simply false. I, like all of us at UM, have cooperated fully with the joint NCAA-UM inquiry and will continue to do so, so that our program and our university can move forward. Because the process is on-going, I am unable to address any specifics or answer questions on the matter.”

Despite Golden’s denial, the report does seem to have some pretty clear evidence that Allen was used improperly.

The saving grace for Golden may be that these violations happened so early in his tenure–perhaps before he even knew Allen’s role with the team.  Nevertheless, Allen was dispatched by current Miami coaches other than Golden, who certainly would have known.  All in all, it looks like Miami’s troubles are getting worse, not better.

The Atlantic Coast Conference needs Miami to return to its glory days.  And looming NCAA sanctions are only going to delay that.  Hopefully, these reported violation are either untrue or were quickly remedied by Golden’s staff to help mitigate the sanctions.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Football and tagged , , ,
16 Jul 2012
1 Comment

Lucky 13: Syracuse Will Officially Join the Atlantic Coast Conference on July 1, 2013

Syracuse University has announced that it has reached a deal with the Big East that will allow Syracuse to join the Atlantic Coast Conference on July 1, 2013.  Syracuse will pay $7,500,000–only $2,500,000 more than the buyout of $5,000,000.  With this move, the Atlantic Coast Conference is certain to have 13 teams for the 2013 football season.  It is likely that Pitt will join the ACC for 2013 as well, however, that dispute is in the court system right now.

Reports are that West Virginia paid $20,000,000 to exit the Big East in time for the 2012 football season.  However, the exit fee for West Virginia was $10,000,000, based on changes to the rules after Syracuse and Pitt announced they were leaving.  Kudos to Syracuse and the Big East for being able to resolve their differences without the need for attorneys.

For the ACC, it is not looking like there will be 7-team divisions in 2013.  Let’s hope that the powers that be finally get around to logical geographical divisions.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Basketball, Football and tagged , , , , ,

Post Navigation

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →