Looks like I was wrong
OU and texas will play out both of their last two season in the Big 12, not joining the SEC until 2025.
Link:
Pete Thamel - Twitter
52 Replies
3y
He expects a resolution soon to let OU and Texas leave a year early.
(In response to this post by OU_Sooner)
3y
(In response to this post by OU_Sooner)
V
VTCALS72
3y
home games, everything else on the road.
(In response to this post by OU_Sooner)
M
Mercury
3y
Deal with it Oklahoma and Texas and you are lame duck so you get absolutely no choice and options when and how its played. Unless you give the big 12 over 162 million to leave. Ok and Texas ad, just stay home from big 12 meetings and stew for 2 years.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
3y
Looks like the remaining Big 12 schools and OU/texas had come to some sort of dollar amount agreement for an early exit, but Fox and/or ESPN nixed it
Link:
Twitter - Brett McMurphy
(In response to this post by OU_Sooner)
W
WarHog38
3y
All type angles here with conference & TV networks. Competition and money big priorities by all. They are going to squeeze every dollar & ounce of prestige they can out of the Longhorns & Sooners. I think those two could have went to court several years ago as Maryland did on the ACC exit. Those GOR & Exit Fees could have probably been significantly reduced. The additional money those schools got going early into the SEC those years would have about equalized monetarily at worst. The SEC probably fears being dragged into court about Antitrust infractions by the Big 12 along with that litigation. That functionally mutes the SEC and Texas & Oklahoma apparently don't have pockets that deep.
(In response to this post by OU_Sooner)
T
TerryD
3y
It is an unconditional grant of media rights for a fixed period.
There is nothing to "negotiate" or "reduce". It was a total grant.
A court cannot magically "undo" an unconditional grant.
Can a court order a conference to negotiate against its will to give up something granted to it unconditionally?
If an unsuccessful negotiation/mediation, can a court simply decide on its own what a GOR is "worth" and order a conference to not only give up those unconditionally granted rights but to do so at a significantly reduced rate?
Based on what legal theory, exactly? Why should a school or schools be granted this "Indian Giver" relief by a court ?
Absent a showing of fraud against a sophisticated party like a university (extremely doubtful) or absent a total failure of consideration (they got a TV contract), it seems very unlikely that a court would just rip those unconditionally granted rights away from a conference, especially for a significantly smaller amount of $$$.
Why should it?
If a school now feels it can do better or made a bad bargain, that is on them. That is not a reason to undo a grant of rights.
** Edited by TerryD at 2/7/2023, 9:41:40 AM
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
3y
Those GOR's have never been tested in a court. However it seems if a previously mutually agreed upon fixed amount Exit Fee can be overthrown by a court as in the case with Maryland. Those GOR's being somewhat futuristic fluid amounts based totally upon a TV contract seems would be an easier nut to crack in court. Can you cite a previous court case that provides the legal result you predicted? That is about 90% of the basis of law as I have seen legal matters over the years. However who knows these days. I would like to see a school test a GOR in court.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
3y
An exit fee is what is known as "liquidated damages". Courts routinely review liquidated damages clauses for reasonableness. This is because liquidated damages are supposed to be a reasonable approximation of what actual damages would be in the event of a breach of contract. In the Maryland case, a court never made a ruling on whether or not the ACC's exit fee was reasonable, as both parties decided to settle before going to trial on the issue.
A grant of rights is something different entirely. Parties can contractually agree to transfer ownership of certain rights. The schools agreed to transfer their broadcast right to the conference in exchange for a share of conference revenue; and the conference agreed to transfer those same rights to the TV networks in exchange for a future revenue stream. This is not something that courts will second guess without evidence of something like fraud. In regards to the Big 12 GoR, it's not just about what the schools and conference want to do, the TV networks (FOX and ESPN) are also parties to that, since those broadcast rights were sold to the networks. So lawsuit over the GoR would involve not just the Big 12, Texas, and Oklahoma, but ESPN and FOX as well. It would be messy and take years to litigate, by which time the GoR would have expired anyway. It's just not worth the headache for Texas and Oklahoma to try something like that, especially since I'm sure their lawyers have probably informed them that they would likely lose the case eventually. And I have to think ESPN has also told them not to challenge the GoR in court, as ESPN wouldn't want any of their media contracts being challenged in the future either.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 2/7/2023, 3:11:03 PM
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
S
Stech
3y
fighting it out. A lot of ego and money on the line for them.
(In response to this post by OU_Sooner)
S
Stech
3y
aren’t giving up the Texas and Oklahoma ratings/money for a year, without getting something in return. I actually think what happens in the long run to the B12 and PAC is playing into this scenario.
I always look to see who ESPN and Fox are hyping in their pregame shows. ESPN is hyping B12 basketball a lot. Why are they doing that if reportedly B12 basketball will be covered by Fox in the future. That doesn’t make sense to me.
(In response to this post by Lakeridgehokie)
T
TerryD
3y
Whether it is ESPN, Fox, the Big Ten, ND, the ACC or Virginia Tech.
Everyone looks out for their own best interests, as they all should.
If everyone in that deal looks out for themselves, perhaps a deal can be worked out.
This reinforces that the GOR is a really strong impediment to conference movement.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
I agree with that. I would add great leaders aren’t scared to challenge “the way we have always done it” philosophy. However, sustainable success adapts to the current and future landscape, and the sustainable part comes from win-win solutions. If an entity keeps screwing the other entity, eventually that will catch up to them.
So for instance Notre Dame is not in a Conference for football, but neither are they nearly as Independent as they used to be. They have a five game average a year in playing ACC football teams they signed for 20 years, they are a member of the ACC for all other sports, except I believe hockey (which the ACC doesn’t have). They have penalties for leaving the Conference before 2036. So they did adapt to the changing landscape, not as much as I wanted them to, but they did give up some things and the ACC got some things.
In the end though, find out what is most important to them, and see if you can find a win-win solution for them and us. If you can’t, no deal. So I believe do believe it starts with self interest, but to get to sustainable success, it ends with both parties winning or getting important value, or it won’t last.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
3y
That is the fatal problem for ND/ACC further involvement.
That is what is most important to ND, other than being able to qualify for the playoffs.
There are places where the interests of the ACC and ND intersect.
That led and to and could lead to certain arrangements.
The big issue, as always, is that ND is adamant about staying a football independent.
That is where the mutual road forks.
The two entities go their separate ways from that point.
Its hard to see any areas of further involvement with each other because of that.
** Edited by TerryD at 2/5/2023, 8:47:38 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
T
Truthahn
3y
That is, some arrangement where ND could earn their way into the ACC championship by having a better record than one of the top two ACC teams. ND could limit it to the duration of the 12 team playoffs, with an understanding that it is only because of the playoffs change that they are agreeing to this.
That seems half in/half out enough that ND could still consider themselves independent.
ACC gets to count the ND/ACC games as in conference, allowing us to play nine-game schedules.
The ACC gets to open up TV negotiations and significantly lessen the money difference with SEC/B10.
ND gets championship game winner access to the second round of the playoffs. ND gets more money from the ACC TV deal.
Seems like a win-win to me. Both sides would have people who like it, and those who do not, but it feels doable to me because it could generate significant new money and playoff benefits for both sides.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
3y
That just nudges ND closer to full membership in the ACC, which ND is not interested in doing.
It would be a scheme that opens ND up to criticism by others. The ACC, too.
Why would ND want any part of this with a 12 team playoff? A bye?
Frankly, ND doesn't see a first round bye prohibition to be that big of a deal.
(Jack Swarbrick is a big supporter of the no bye, 6 at large slots playoffs, which he thinks secures ND's independence. He is Chairman of the Playoff Expansion Committee)
A scheme like this is putting a round peg into a square hole. Hard pass.
** Edited by TerryD at 2/7/2023, 12:00:41 PM
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
3y
with a simple cash settlement. It gives people ideas. So maybe they are fine with it.
Could be that Fox is stickin' it to The SEC. The B1G starts their billion dollar payroll next season and the SEC will have to endure a pay gap. Then in 2024 USC/UCLA move over while TX/OK are still mixing it up with UCF and Iowa State. Then in 2025 the spotlight will be on the new playoff system. Maybe the timing is all coincidence. Or maybe Kevin Warren orchestrated this whole three-act play using TV promotional skills.
(In response to this post by Lakeridgehokie)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
(In response to this post by FLKEYSHOKIE)
Just in case anyone thinks it will be easy to get out of the ACC before '36
And that's assuming we have suitors.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 2/3/2023, 4:04:25 PM
(In response to this post by OU_Sooner)
D
daveinop
3y
It currently reads...
"2.10.9 Distribution of Revenues. The revenues derived under Section 2.10.2 (Revenues From Media Rights) and Section 2.10.6 (RevenuesFrom Non-Package Games) resulting from the ACC-ESPN Multimedia Agreement and the ACC-ESPNNetwork Agreement shall be divided equally among the Members in accordance with Section 2.5.2, unless otherwise provided in these Bylaws (see Section 2.12)."
It could say "...revenues FROM INTRACONFERENCE AND POST-SEASON ACTIVITES derived under Section 2.10.2 (Revenues From Media Rights) and Section 2.10.6 (RevenuesFrom Non-Package Games)..shall be divided equally..."
and then add a sentence "REVENUES FROM REGULAR SEASON INTERCONFERENCE ACTIVITIES DERIVED UNDER SECTIONS 2.10.2 AND 2.10.6 SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE CONFERENCE MEMBER PARTICIPATING IN SUCH EVENT.
This doesn't require any change in media contracts or the GOR. This basically says, we split media income from everything we do together as a conference evenly with fellow conference members. However in recognition that the individual member investment (and corresponding public interest) in athletics is not equal, we allow members to retain media revenue from their extra-conference activities.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
3y
and tabulate the revenues derived from those activities as TV rights are already a part of conference agreements versus being negotiated on an individual game rights basis?
(In response to this post by daveinop)
D
daveinop
3y
that someone knows how much the ACC is paid for games that they wind up putting on air. At a minimum, those games can be broken down on a % basis of the total payout from whatever broadcast partner.
However, there is no requirement I know of for OOC games to be home games for which the ACC has broadcast rights...only a minimum number of games the ACC guarantees to a broadcast partner.
Ideally, a broadcast partner would know the value of a particular game and can reasonably estimate (if not know exactly) the difference in income between Clemson hosting Bama as opposed to BC hosting Stephen Austin.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
VTCALS72
3y
Whereas I do think a place at the big table is reserved for Cu. Mia, FSU and probably UNC, there is no time crunch
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
M
Mercury
3y
That's the only escape
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
R
ren_hoek
3y
But I've never read any concrete confirmation that it is accurate. Even if it were true, it would take a huge move by one conference (SEC or B1G take all 8) or a coordinated raid by two conferences to make it happen. Either of those. Open the door to big lawsuits about collusion and such.
That being said , I'd rate the magic 8 theory as internet fantasy until we see otherwise.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
D
daveinop
3y
takes 3/4 to change the constitution/bylaws which is where the reference to the GOR lies.
[ edit: "1.6.2 Required Vote..."The Absolute Three-Fourths Matters are as follows: (i) the admission of new Members to the Conference pursuant to Section 1.4.3, (ii) the expulsion, suspension or probation of a Member pursuant to Section 1.4.4, (iii) any amendment of this Constitution, (iv) any amendment of the Bylaws (except amendments to Article 2.5), and (v) waiver of notice or other required process for a Board meeting pursuant to Section 1.5.1.5.2."
and
"2.10.1 Grant of Rights. The Members have granted to the Conference the right to exploit certain media and related rights of the Members (such rights, the “Media Rights”; and the agreement pursuant to which the Members granted such rights, the “Grant of Rights”).]
As I posted below, if the football members want to make more $$$, they can do it in the ACC right now...give teams ALL of the income from their OOC games in all sports. It is an accounting exercise and would incentivize playing more high profile games. The big football and basketball schools would do quite well. But this has the same impediment the GOR does, the need for 3/4 vote to change the constitution/bylaws.
Barring a 3/4 vote the GOR is what it is until it expires...8 isn't enough to do anything
** Edited by daveinop at 2/5/2023, 5:28:56 PM
** Edited by daveinop at 2/6/2023, 9:32:54 AM
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
3y
It's debatable whether it would take a simple majority vote (8 schools) to dissolve the conference, thus nullifying the GoR. Or whether it would take 3/4 vote (12 schools) to amend the ACC constitution and by-laws to allow such a thing to happen. Either way, it's never going to happen. Even getting 8 schools to agree to do it is impossible, as it would require coordination among at least 8 schools and multiple conferences and TV networks to pull off, which would almost certainly be an illegal conspiracy.
If you recall, back when it was revealed that Texas and Oklahoma were leaving for the SEC, there was lots of buzz that ESPN was trying to orchestrate the breakup of the Big 12 by getting more schools to leave. The Big 12 commissioner quickly called ESPN out for this and ESPN got scared and pulled back, because if they got caught trying to break up the conference in this manner it was almost certainly illegal what they were doing.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 2/7/2023, 3:30:26 PM
(In response to this post by daveinop)
R
ren_hoek
3y
(In response to this post by daveinop)
3y
Make a gigantic strategy move. Up root…
Uva
Nd
Duke
Unc
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami
Those 8 get the Eastern Seaboard.
There’s 8 if ND can be counted! Leaves ACC slmost intact . Imho damages SEC . Not football wise but money . In time maybe football.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
3y
about it on the east coast. As crazy as it sounds, I’m not sure any of those others on your list are even under serious consideration by the SEC.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
3y
(In response to this post by reestuart)
3y
ND has always rebuffed joining a conference in general and the B1G in specific. And I don't think UNC would ever want to go alone to the B1G.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
The fact that the B1G only took TWO Pac-12 teams leads me to think that
the B1G won't be taking a bunch of Eastern schools en masse. They could have easily taken Washington and a bunch of other schools from the West Coast. And they just simply rejected them, and got away with it. It was quite a coup. Ditto with the SEC swiping UT and OU with impunity. To me, this changed my thinking about the future of conference realignment and college sports more than anything, including NIL and CFP expansion or liberalized transfer rules.
I think the SEC, B1G, Fox and ESPN are all content to make the ACC, and the leftover BigXII and Pac-12 a quasi-second tier of college football (and possibly soon to be basketball).
And right now, Tech is on the outside looking in. Us getting relevant in football, and fast, should be our number one priority. A perpetually 6-6 VT school will be easy to overlook in the future. We are a nice program and nice school IMO. But not nice enough for the true powers in college sports to pay us much attention.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
3y
ACC Basketball has too much history, tradition and rivlaries to ever be second tier. Look at the facts: since 1979 and the advent of the BE, the ACC has won more basketball championships than any other conference and very other year, there is an ACC team in the NCAA Final. No conference re-alignment is going to change that. And so what if UCLA brings its 11-NC's to the table. Ten of those were under John Wooden who last coached in 1975; Their last title was in 1995. ACC teams have won 13 since then, incl. UMD but not Syracuse 1) and Louisville (2).
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
T
TerryD
3y
It has often been stated that "football drives the bus" since it is responsible for about 70-80 % of the TV money.
One example of that is the ACC, where ND gets about one third the total ACC TV payout for its non-football sports.
Football matters way, way more to TV than basketball does.
The amount of the TV payout is governed mostly by football viewership.
TV payout governs conference realignment.
(In response to this post by Arch72Hokie)
R
ren_hoek
3y
I have my own private opinion that basketball value will eventually close that gap.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
Very well. Now how do you explain Kansas being left behind?
KU would be great for the SEC. A rival for Mizzou, not to mention a Top 5 basketball all-time and one the at has won in the current era. With KU and UK the SEC could boast as good a tandem as anyone one (comparable only to UNC-Duke) They could also fit well in the B1G being AAU.
And actually football-driven realignment DOES change things in basketball. If the season ended today, the SEC would likely get 2 #1 seeds and neither team is UK or UF. Also, those Big East BB only (non D1-A football) programs that dominated the landscape in the 1980s and 90s are all non-factors now (save Villanova).
(In response to this post by Arch72Hokie)
S
Stech
3y
if we can see coaches at Miami, FSU and Virginia Tech get us going again, the conference football can be great again. Honestly, I am little more concerned about the icon coaches that are leaving basketball. I think Scheyer and Davis can get it done, but they simply don't have the experience that Coach K and Coach Williams had, but they both show they can recruit, now can they mold those stars into star teams? It's a different skill set and it's usually not done over night. If they do, I think the basketball money will be there, as I think we are going to a 90 team NCAA with the final 16 getting paid like the football playoff.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
Hokester
3y
Duke still has the Coach K aura around it fron which Scheyer is benefitting. The fact that he apparently was not Duke's first choice but was "handed" the job by Coach K to me means that K wanted someone with whom he had more influence. So let's see how Duke does in a couple years.
Pure conjecture on my part but someone with the ego the size of K's will make it hard to absent himself.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
some unknown. I think it’s usually tougher in football than basketball too, since it only takes 2-3 great players, to make a program great in basketball.
(In response to this post by Hokester)
S
Stech
3y
(In response to this post by OU_Sooner)
3y
How is this possible? TX/OK made it clear that they would not be playing against those G5 nobodies who were admitted to club. Guess the conference bullies have been put in their place. Honestly, though, I'd keep one eye open for this to resurface before the 2024 season.
So many competing interests got in the way. But one unspoken concern that occurred to me is the danger of actually negotiating a realistic buy-out of a GoR. If that happens, then ACC schools have a template to follow; a real-life calculation of GoR damages. For ESPN, that would be a "snag".
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
The Conferences aren't the top of the food chain, the TV Networks paying out the money are calling the shots. I will never forget former Fox Sports CEO Bob Thompson saying while interviewed that Fox and ESPN used to get along, but know it is not that way. Now it is much more competitive between the two companies.
So ESPN profited from Texas and Oklahoma leaving early, but Fox didn't. Fox if they don't go early will have won this round, They get USC and UCLA in 24 for the first 12 team playoff year and they cover both Texas and Oklahoma in the Big 12. So far, because things could change as you mentioned, Fox won this battle,
PS I can't wait to see how the B12 schedule works out, will this delay their 4 team expansion? If not, how will they work out the schedule with all of those teams? That's going to be interesting to watch.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
(In response to this post by OU_Sooner)