A side note, neither Maryland of FSU voted for tripling the penalty.
"A North Carolina appeals court has upheld the $52.3 million exit penalty levied against the University of Maryland by the ACC, according to USA Today.
Maryland incurred the fine when the school announced that it would be leaving the ACC for the Big Ten after the 2013-14 season. The ACC brought suit against Maryland shortly after the announcement and sought the largest exit fee in NCAA history.
In an effort to discourage schools from leaving to chase larger TV contracts, the fee was tripled by the ACC’s governing body shortly before Maryland left the conference.
The Terrapins may still appeal the ruling to a higher court. The school is still waiting on the outcome of a lawsuit it brought against the ACC, which will be heard in Maryland."
A state Court of Appeals panel rejected Maryland's bid to dismiss the lawsuit. It was filed in Greensboro, where the ACC is headquartered. The three-judge panel's unanimous decision means Maryland has no automatic right to a state Supreme Court appeal. But the higher state court could choose to hear an appeal.
The $52 million fee is the highest penalty ever assessed on a school for leaving an athletic conference and would be nearly equal to the school's yearly athletic budget, Maryland's attorney general's office said in May. The school's athletic department last year cut seven sports teams as it struggled with multimillion-dollar annual losses.
Maryland's representative on the ACC's Council of Presidents, which has the authority to alter the conference's governing constitution, voted against increasing the penalty from what the court calculated would have been a fee of about $17.4 million.
Despite Maryland's negative vote on increasing the exit fee, "each member, including the University of Maryland, has agreed to be bound by the vote of the Council," Judge Robert N. Hunter Jr. wrote in the appeals court's decision.
The university sued the ACC in Maryland in January, calling the amount an illegal penalty. A Maryland judge has put the school's lawsuit on hold until North Carolina courts issue a final judgment. Maryland's ACC departure is scheduled for July.
Maryland's attorneys argued in the North Carolina lawsuit that the ACC's lawsuit should be dismissed because the school is an arm of the state, and Maryland and other states enjoy sovereign immunity that protects them from lawsuits. North Carolina's Court of Appeals rejected that argument.
A state Court of Appeals panel rejected Maryland's bid to dismiss the lawsuit. It was filed in Greensboro, where the ACC is headquartered. The three-judge panel's unanimous decision means Maryland has no automatic right to a state Supreme Court appeal. But the higher state court could choose to hear an appeal.
The $52 million fee is the highest penalty ever assessed on a school for leaving an athletic conference and would be nearly equal to the school's yearly athletic budget, Maryland's attorney general's office said in May. The school's athletic department last year cut seven sports teams as it struggled with multimillion-dollar annual losses.
Maryland's representative on the ACC's Council of Presidents, which has the authority to alter the conference's governing constitution, voted against increasing the penalty from what the court calculated would have been a fee of about $17.4 million.
Despite Maryland's negative vote on increasing the exit fee, "each member, including the University of Maryland, has agreed to be bound by the vote of the Council," Judge Robert N. Hunter Jr. wrote in the appeals court's decision.
The university sued the ACC in Maryland in January, calling the amount an illegal penalty. A Maryland judge has put the school's lawsuit on hold until North Carolina courts issue a final judgment. Maryland's ACC departure is scheduled for July.
Maryland's attorneys argued in the North Carolina lawsuit that the ACC's lawsuit should be dismissed because the school is an arm of the state, and Maryland and other states enjoy sovereign immunity that protects them from lawsuits. North Carolina's Court of Appeals rejected that argument.
