College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing happens with the ACC grant of rights. The Big Ten has trapped the SEC into the southeast while it has East and the Atlantic, North and the Great Lakes region and West SW and the Pacific. The SEC will be adding teams from the ACC in 2036.

The SEC has not shown any interest in expanding beyond the Southeast and Texas/Oklahoma.

Regarding 2036, it seems doubtful that the ACC will last that long under the current payment structure. Too many teams want to get out of the ACC contract. The ACC either needs to restructure payments or to expand and get a renegotiated contract.

Renegotiating opens the door to schools leaving or getting unequal payments. FSU blusters every year, but they have no way out. If there was a way to break the GoR, it would already be broken. The teams wanting to get out are going to take a long look at what happened to Cal and Stanford and wonder why they would be treated any differently.

1) The GOR is iron-clad.

https://www.tiktok.com/@ricoknows/video/7263626417080978734?_t=8eacyTmPgnG&_r=1

2)almost ACC schools are better off and have zero incentive to dissolve it
3) ESPN has a great deal and would require full payment .
4) the Big Ten would want to have nothing to do with any institution that stops at nothing to weasel out of a signed contract
5) all of the ACC schools have alumni base size/political/media weakness issues.

You do not know if points #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 are true. You are just guessing. My opinion is that I do not agree with any of your 5 points. Did these 5 points come from the tictok video ?

Not PP. But no doubt it is iron clad and will require the agreement of each member to change. There is no way out. If you read it you can see that it was entered into with what is playing out now in mind. So I agree with #1. #2 may be an overstatement but there are enough schools with no interest in breaking GOR that it is same difference. #3 is just true absent a renegotiation. #4 is false. Big10 now a full whore. Will do anything. #5 is not true for a couple of schools but true for the rest.

To break the GOR all would have to agree. The 7 plus GTech would agree if there had Big10 and SEC homes. Wake, Louisville and Syracuse can be bought off most likely and move somewhere. Duke and BC not likely to do anything unless they also have a home. Neither would fit in Big12.

ACC should push on ND and take Stanford, Cal and grab a couple of more out West so they can stay the #3 conference.

Agree to an extent, but also disagree.

What do commentators mean by the term "ironclad" ?

In my view, "ironclad" means little more than damages are likely to be assessed if a party in breach of a contractual agreement is sued and loses in court. In plain English: This is a dispute about money.

A substantial issue is how to assess any damages incurred--if any at all--since there is no liquidated damages clause regarding the GOR (grant of rights), but there is a clear formula for the exit fee.

Damages beyond the $120 million exit fee could be zero. Or the plaintiff could claim "unjust enrichment", but that might be a very weak argument after paying a $120 million exit fee.

(This is OP continuing):

A central issue might be whether or not the ACC/ESPN/Disney could obtain an injunction against any team that chooses to leave the ACC prior to 2036. If the answer is no, then it is simply a money issue which is a question of assessing damages, if any, in terms of money.

Could an argument be made that the $120 million exit fee covers payment for a release from the GOR as well as from ACC membership ? Of course such an argument can be made.

Many legal issues are present which have not been addressed in anything that I have read.

ESPN and Disney can't do anything about this at all. They may be able to sue the ACC but not a school for leaving. Could the ACC force a member to stay in -- no. But the ACC still owns their media rights until 2036. That means that the entity that gets the money from the Big10 or the SEC is the ACC. The exit fee is another issue. No there is no argument that the GOR covers the exit fee.

Again, anyone can leave. But they cannot profit from leaving until after 2036. They will still get their ACC share. It would work like this -- Big10 does not pay FSU they pay ACC. ACC then pays the lower amount to FSU.

Could they settle it for money -- sure. But the number on the GOR based on what the schools will be getting from the SEC or the Big10 would likely be a couple or a few hundred million on top of the 120 million. It may be more. That is why FSU has investment bankers looking into how to raise this money so they can try to make an offer. But such an offer is likely to be rejected by some of the schools and it would take all of the schools to agree.

The only correct statement that I read in your post is: "Could they settle it for money--sure."

This statement almost certainly negates the possibility of one party being able to get a court judgment for "specific performance" as the basis for specific performance or other judgments in equity is that monetary damages cannot rectify the harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing happens with the ACC grant of rights. The Big Ten has trapped the SEC into the southeast while it has East and the Atlantic, North and the Great Lakes region and West SW and the Pacific. The SEC will be adding teams from the ACC in 2036.

The SEC has not shown any interest in expanding beyond the Southeast and Texas/Oklahoma.

Regarding 2036, it seems doubtful that the ACC will last that long under the current payment structure. Too many teams want to get out of the ACC contract. The ACC either needs to restructure payments or to expand and get a renegotiated contract.

Renegotiating opens the door to schools leaving or getting unequal payments. FSU blusters every year, but they have no way out. If there was a way to break the GoR, it would already be broken. The teams wanting to get out are going to take a long look at what happened to Cal and Stanford and wonder why they would be treated any differently.

1) The GOR is iron-clad.

https://www.tiktok.com/@ricoknows/video/7263626417080978734?_t=8eacyTmPgnG&_r=1

2)almost ACC schools are better off and have zero incentive to dissolve it
3) ESPN has a great deal and would require full payment .
4) the Big Ten would want to have nothing to do with any institution that stops at nothing to weasel out of a signed contract
5) all of the ACC schools have alumni base size/political/media weakness issues.

You do not know if points #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 are true. You are just guessing. My opinion is that I do not agree with any of your 5 points. Did these 5 points come from the tictok video ?

Not PP. But no doubt it is iron clad and will require the agreement of each member to change. There is no way out. If you read it you can see that it was entered into with what is playing out now in mind. So I agree with #1. #2 may be an overstatement but there are enough schools with no interest in breaking GOR that it is same difference. #3 is just true absent a renegotiation. #4 is false. Big10 now a full whore. Will do anything. #5 is not true for a couple of schools but true for the rest.

To break the GOR all would have to agree. The 7 plus GTech would agree if there had Big10 and SEC homes. Wake, Louisville and Syracuse can be bought off most likely and move somewhere. Duke and BC not likely to do anything unless they also have a home. Neither would fit in Big12.

ACC should push on ND and take Stanford, Cal and grab a couple of more out West so they can stay the #3 conference.

Agree to an extent, but also disagree.

What do commentators mean by the term "ironclad" ?

In my view, "ironclad" means little more than damages are likely to be assessed if a party in breach of a contractual agreement is sued and loses in court. In plain English: This is a dispute about money.

A substantial issue is how to assess any damages incurred--if any at all--since there is no liquidated damages clause regarding the GOR (grant of rights), but there is a clear formula for the exit fee.

Damages beyond the $120 million exit fee could be zero. Or the plaintiff could claim "unjust enrichment", but that might be a very weak argument after paying a $120 million exit fee.

No that is not it at all. In the GOR each school gave to the group its media rights until 2036. We will pick on FSU. FSU no longer owns its media rights. The ACC owns it. You can't just say you want it back --- you sold it away. That is what they did. They sold away their media rights to the collective.

Anyone is free to leave the ACC with the 120 million exit fee but the ACC owns that team's media rights until 2036. What does that mean? Any money a departing team earns is owned by the ACC. So it would have to get paid to the ACC and they would only get what they are entitled to under the GOR. The money from the Big10 for media from FSU in our example would be shared with ACC.

The ACC can get specific performance under this agreement. Meaning it is not about damages alone. The GOR is structured so that a judge will force FSU in our example to pay all media rights payments to the ACC.

Please reread the sections which I have bolded above as you contradict your own arguments. For example: "gave" is quite different than "sold". Also, how can an injured party get both "specific performance" and monetary damages for the same incurred injury or harm ?

As there is no liquidated damages clause regarding the GOR, how do you know that the broadcast rights holder or holders can get "specific performance " ? You defeat your own position when you talk about FSU paying damages to any party who allegedly owns the media rights after FSU pays a departure fee.

Sorry if not clear. When I say gave I mean sell. Both words work here and make no difference. Each school sold its rights in a very specific transaction that contemplated what is going on now and is clear that it applies even if they leave the ACC. No you can't most of the times get both specific performance and damages. The GOR was set up to get specific performance. Meaning if FSU leaves --- all of their money gets paid to the ACC who they distributes shares. You could get damages instead if you wanted. That is an election for the ACC.

Read the GOR. It is clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing happens with the ACC grant of rights. The Big Ten has trapped the SEC into the southeast while it has East and the Atlantic, North and the Great Lakes region and West SW and the Pacific. The SEC will be adding teams from the ACC in 2036.

The SEC has not shown any interest in expanding beyond the Southeast and Texas/Oklahoma.

Regarding 2036, it seems doubtful that the ACC will last that long under the current payment structure. Too many teams want to get out of the ACC contract. The ACC either needs to restructure payments or to expand and get a renegotiated contract.

Renegotiating opens the door to schools leaving or getting unequal payments. FSU blusters every year, but they have no way out. If there was a way to break the GoR, it would already be broken. The teams wanting to get out are going to take a long look at what happened to Cal and Stanford and wonder why they would be treated any differently.

1) The GOR is iron-clad.

https://www.tiktok.com/@ricoknows/video/7263626417080978734?_t=8eacyTmPgnG&_r=1

2)almost ACC schools are better off and have zero incentive to dissolve it
3) ESPN has a great deal and would require full payment .
4) the Big Ten would want to have nothing to do with any institution that stops at nothing to weasel out of a signed contract
5) all of the ACC schools have alumni base size/political/media weakness issues.

You do not know if points #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 are true. You are just guessing. My opinion is that I do not agree with any of your 5 points. Did these 5 points come from the tictok video ?

Not PP. But no doubt it is iron clad and will require the agreement of each member to change. There is no way out. If you read it you can see that it was entered into with what is playing out now in mind. So I agree with #1. #2 may be an overstatement but there are enough schools with no interest in breaking GOR that it is same difference. #3 is just true absent a renegotiation. #4 is false. Big10 now a full whore. Will do anything. #5 is not true for a couple of schools but true for the rest.

To break the GOR all would have to agree. The 7 plus GTech would agree if there had Big10 and SEC homes. Wake, Louisville and Syracuse can be bought off most likely and move somewhere. Duke and BC not likely to do anything unless they also have a home. Neither would fit in Big12.

ACC should push on ND and take Stanford, Cal and grab a couple of more out West so they can stay the #3 conference.

Agree to an extent, but also disagree.

What do commentators mean by the term "ironclad" ?

In my view, "ironclad" means little more than damages are likely to be assessed if a party in breach of a contractual agreement is sued and loses in court. In plain English: This is a dispute about money.

A substantial issue is how to assess any damages incurred--if any at all--since there is no liquidated damages clause regarding the GOR (grant of rights), but there is a clear formula for the exit fee.

Damages beyond the $120 million exit fee could be zero. Or the plaintiff could claim "unjust enrichment", but that might be a very weak argument after paying a $120 million exit fee.

(This is OP continuing):

A central issue might be whether or not the ACC/ESPN/Disney could obtain an injunction against any team that chooses to leave the ACC prior to 2036. If the answer is no, then it is simply a money issue which is a question of assessing damages, if any, in terms of money.

Could an argument be made that the $120 million exit fee covers payment for a release from the GOR as well as from ACC membership ? Of course such an argument can be made.

Many legal issues are present which have not been addressed in anything that I have read.

ESPN and Disney can't do anything about this at all. They may be able to sue the ACC but not a school for leaving. Could the ACC force a member to stay in -- no. But the ACC still owns their media rights until 2036. That means that the entity that gets the money from the Big10 or the SEC is the ACC. The exit fee is another issue. No there is no argument that the GOR covers the exit fee.

Again, anyone can leave. But they cannot profit from leaving until after 2036. They will still get their ACC share. It would work like this -- Big10 does not pay FSU they pay ACC. ACC then pays the lower amount to FSU.

Could they settle it for money -- sure. But the number on the GOR based on what the schools will be getting from the SEC or the Big10 would likely be a couple or a few hundred million on top of the 120 million. It may be more. That is why FSU has investment bankers looking into how to raise this money so they can try to make an offer. But such an offer is likely to be rejected by some of the schools and it would take all of the schools to agree.

The only correct statement that I read in your post is: "Could they settle it for money--sure."

This statement almost certainly negates the possibility of one party being able to get a court judgment for "specific performance" as the basis for specific performance or other judgments in equity is that monetary damages cannot rectify the harm.

That is just not true. In any case the no longer own their media rights. The ACC owns them. They can't get them back.

[Anonymous]

This thread will not and cannot resolve any legal issues. Because we are debating issues, it seems clear that both or all parties to the contract have arguments to make under the appropriate law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing happens with the ACC grant of rights. The Big Ten has trapped the SEC into the southeast while it has East and the Atlantic, North and the Great Lakes region and West SW and the Pacific. The SEC will be adding teams from the ACC in 2036.

The SEC has not shown any interest in expanding beyond the Southeast and Texas/Oklahoma.

Regarding 2036, it seems doubtful that the ACC will last that long under the current payment structure. Too many teams want to get out of the ACC contract. The ACC either needs to restructure payments or to expand and get a renegotiated contract.

Renegotiating opens the door to schools leaving or getting unequal payments. FSU blusters every year, but they have no way out. If there was a way to break the GoR, it would already be broken. The teams wanting to get out are going to take a long look at what happened to Cal and Stanford and wonder why they would be treated any differently.

1) The GOR is iron-clad.

https://www.tiktok.com/@ricoknows/video/7263626417080978734?_t=8eacyTmPgnG&_r=1

2)almost ACC schools are better off and have zero incentive to dissolve it
3) ESPN has a great deal and would require full payment .
4) the Big Ten would want to have nothing to do with any institution that stops at nothing to weasel out of a signed contract
5) all of the ACC schools have alumni base size/political/media weakness issues.

You do not know if points #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 are true. You are just guessing. My opinion is that I do not agree with any of your 5 points. Did these 5 points come from the tictok video ?

Not PP. But no doubt it is iron clad and will require the agreement of each member to change. There is no way out. If you read it you can see that it was entered into with what is playing out now in mind. So I agree with #1. #2 may be an overstatement but there are enough schools with no interest in breaking GOR that it is same difference. #3 is just true absent a renegotiation. #4 is false. Big10 now a full whore. Will do anything. #5 is not true for a couple of schools but true for the rest.

To break the GOR all would have to agree. The 7 plus GTech would agree if there had Big10 and SEC homes. Wake, Louisville and Syracuse can be bought off most likely and move somewhere. Duke and BC not likely to do anything unless they also have a home. Neither would fit in Big12.

ACC should push on ND and take Stanford, Cal and grab a couple of more out West so they can stay the #3 conference.

Agree to an extent, but also disagree.

What do commentators mean by the term "ironclad" ?

In my view, "ironclad" means little more than damages are likely to be assessed if a party in breach of a contractual agreement is sued and loses in court. In plain English: This is a dispute about money.

A substantial issue is how to assess any damages incurred--if any at all--since there is no liquidated damages clause regarding the GOR (grant of rights), but there is a clear formula for the exit fee.

Damages beyond the $120 million exit fee could be zero. Or the plaintiff could claim "unjust enrichment", but that might be a very weak argument after paying a $120 million exit fee.

(This is OP continuing):

A central issue might be whether or not the ACC/ESPN/Disney could obtain an injunction against any team that chooses to leave the ACC prior to 2036. If the answer is no, then it is simply a money issue which is a question of assessing damages, if any, in terms of money.

Could an argument be made that the $120 million exit fee covers payment for a release from the GOR as well as from ACC membership ? Of course such an argument can be made.

Many legal issues are present which have not been addressed in anything that I have read.

ESPN and Disney can't do anything about this at all. They may be able to sue the ACC but not a school for leaving. Could the ACC force a member to stay in -- no. But the ACC still owns their media rights until 2036. That means that the entity that gets the money from the Big10 or the SEC is the ACC. The exit fee is another issue. No there is no argument that the GOR covers the exit fee.

Again, anyone can leave. But they cannot profit from leaving until after 2036. They will still get their ACC share. It would work like this -- Big10 does not pay FSU they pay ACC. ACC then pays the lower amount to FSU.

Could they settle it for money -- sure. But the number on the GOR based on what the schools will be getting from the SEC or the Big10 would likely be a couple or a few hundred million on top of the 120 million. It may be more. That is why FSU has investment bankers looking into how to raise this money so they can try to make an offer. But such an offer is likely to be rejected by some of the schools and it would take all of the schools to agree.

The only correct statement that I read in your post is: "Could they settle it for money--sure."

This statement almost certainly negates the possibility of one party being able to get a court judgment for "specific performance" as the basis for specific performance or other judgments in equity is that monetary damages cannot rectify the harm.

That is just not true. In any case the no longer own their media rights. The ACC owns them. They can't get them back.

Sure they can get back their broadcast rights--it is just a matter of money.

[Anonymous]

Th GoR is clear that the rights to air the games and they copyright to those games no longer belongs to the institutions. It's possible that FSU could leave the ACC and not have those rights to offer another conference even if they pay an exit fee. I doubt the Big10 touches that and Disney has no incentive to pay FSU as a member if the SEC $40 more for a product that they already own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread will not and cannot resolve any legal issues. Because we are debating issues, it seems clear that both or all parties to the contract have arguments to make under the appropriate law.

That's the point. They do not. This is all one sided. There is no out. No conference will make an offer to an ACC school unless this issue is resolved.

ACC expansion is the only way to solve this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing happens with the ACC grant of rights. The Big Ten has trapped the SEC into the southeast while it has East and the Atlantic, North and the Great Lakes region and West SW and the Pacific. The SEC will be adding teams from the ACC in 2036.

The SEC has not shown any interest in expanding beyond the Southeast and Texas/Oklahoma.

Regarding 2036, it seems doubtful that the ACC will last that long under the current payment structure. Too many teams want to get out of the ACC contract. The ACC either needs to restructure payments or to expand and get a renegotiated contract.

Renegotiating opens the door to schools leaving or getting unequal payments. FSU blusters every year, but they have no way out. If there was a way to break the GoR, it would already be broken. The teams wanting to get out are going to take a long look at what happened to Cal and Stanford and wonder why they would be treated any differently.

1) The GOR is iron-clad.

https://www.tiktok.com/@ricoknows/video/7263626417080978734?_t=8eacyTmPgnG&_r=1

2)almost ACC schools are better off and have zero incentive to dissolve it
3) ESPN has a great deal and would require full payment .
4) the Big Ten would want to have nothing to do with any institution that stops at nothing to weasel out of a signed contract
5) all of the ACC schools have alumni base size/political/media weakness issues.

You do not know if points #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 are true. You are just guessing. My opinion is that I do not agree with any of your 5 points. Did these 5 points come from the tictok video ?

Not PP. But no doubt it is iron clad and will require the agreement of each member to change. There is no way out. If you read it you can see that it was entered into with what is playing out now in mind. So I agree with #1. #2 may be an overstatement but there are enough schools with no interest in breaking GOR that it is same difference. #3 is just true absent a renegotiation. #4 is false. Big10 now a full whore. Will do anything. #5 is not true for a couple of schools but true for the rest.

To break the GOR all would have to agree. The 7 plus GTech would agree if there had Big10 and SEC homes. Wake, Louisville and Syracuse can be bought off most likely and move somewhere. Duke and BC not likely to do anything unless they also have a home. Neither would fit in Big12.

ACC should push on ND and take Stanford, Cal and grab a couple of more out West so they can stay the #3 conference.

Agree to an extent, but also disagree.

What do commentators mean by the term "ironclad" ?

In my view, "ironclad" means little more than damages are likely to be assessed if a party in breach of a contractual agreement is sued and loses in court. In plain English: This is a dispute about money.

A substantial issue is how to assess any damages incurred--if any at all--since there is no liquidated damages clause regarding the GOR (grant of rights), but there is a clear formula for the exit fee.

Damages beyond the $120 million exit fee could be zero. Or the plaintiff could claim "unjust enrichment", but that might be a very weak argument after paying a $120 million exit fee.

(This is OP continuing):

A central issue might be whether or not the ACC/ESPN/Disney could obtain an injunction against any team that chooses to leave the ACC prior to 2036. If the answer is no, then it is simply a money issue which is a question of assessing damages, if any, in terms of money.

Could an argument be made that the $120 million exit fee covers payment for a release from the GOR as well as from ACC membership ? Of course such an argument can be made.

Many legal issues are present which have not been addressed in anything that I have read.

ESPN and Disney can't do anything about this at all. They may be able to sue the ACC but not a school for leaving. Could the ACC force a member to stay in -- no. But the ACC still owns their media rights until 2036. That means that the entity that gets the money from the Big10 or the SEC is the ACC. The exit fee is another issue. No there is no argument that the GOR covers the exit fee.

Again, anyone can leave. But they cannot profit from leaving until after 2036. They will still get their ACC share. It would work like this -- Big10 does not pay FSU they pay ACC. ACC then pays the lower amount to FSU.

Could they settle it for money -- sure. But the number on the GOR based on what the schools will be getting from the SEC or the Big10 would likely be a couple or a few hundred million on top of the 120 million. It may be more. That is why FSU has investment bankers looking into how to raise this money so they can try to make an offer. But such an offer is likely to be rejected by some of the schools and it would take all of the schools to agree.

The only correct statement that I read in your post is: "Could they settle it for money--sure."

This statement almost certainly negates the possibility of one party being able to get a court judgment for "specific performance" as the basis for specific performance or other judgments in equity is that monetary damages cannot rectify the harm.

That is just not true. In any case the no longer own their media rights. The ACC owns them. They can't get them back.

Sure they can get back their broadcast rights--it is just a matter of money.

Why would you say that? The ACC owns the rights. You can't just say give them back and I will pay you. The ACC has to agree to sell -- otherwise they just sit tight.

[Anonymous]

The settlement here is for the Big10, SEC, and the Big12 to take all of the ACC schools. Then all will agree to get rid of the GOR.

[Anonymous]

FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

[Anonymous]

Lawyers far better than ones on DCUM mid-day have reviewed things on behalf of at least 6 schools and haven't come up with any great strategies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The settlement here is for the Big10, SEC, and the Big12 to take all of the ACC schools. Then all will agree to get rid of the GOR.

The article that I posted above written by an IP attorney states that just 75% of the members can agree to void the agreement. However, I do not know whether or not this is accurate & I do not know the particulars, but this seems reasonable & plausible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

FSU and Clemson are overvaluing themselves too. Does the SEC even want schools at more than a partial share like what UW and Oregon got?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers far better than ones on DCUM mid-day have reviewed things on behalf of at least 6 schools and haven't come up with any great strategies.

You do not know whether or not any schools have developed strategies to get out of the contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers far better than ones on DCUM mid-day have reviewed things on behalf of at least 6 schools and haven't come up with any great strategies.

You don't know that either. Oberlin College hired expensive attorneys to advise the school on the Bakery case--how did that turn out.

Trump's lawyers advised him on many election issues--how is that going ?