Realignment talk not going away

[TKthunder2 4991]

14 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

David vs Goliath makes for the best stories of the NCAA Tourney. It shouldn't change at all, IMO. It's the one thing NCAA butt-wipes do right.

There are 360 schools in DI.  You couldn't have your David vs Goliath matches if that number was cut down to 180?

Some of the nostalgia hyperbole on here is ridiculous.

[GTNY 284]

15 hours ago, bullet said:

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-bring-in-the-most-tv-viewers-efc03c689e50

Don't remember if this article has been linked.  Author took 5 year's average TV ratings excluding the CCGs and bowl games.  Ranked 1 to 73.  SMU was #73.  Below are the top 25 in the list.

1. Ohio State (5.19M)
2. Alabama (5.09M)
3. Michigan (4.18M)
4. Notre Dame (3.61M)
5. LSU (3.22M)
6. Auburn (3.12M)
7. Georgia (2.91M)
8. Oklahoma (2.90M)
9. Clemson (2.67M)
10. Penn State (2.55M)
11. Florida (2.46M)
12. Wisconsin (2.27M)
13. Texas (2.269M)
14. Florida State (2.23M)
15. Michigan State (2.20M)
16. Southern Cal (1.98M)
17. Tennessee (1.85M)
18. Texas A&M (1.75M)
19. Oklahoma State (1.64M)
20. Mississippi (1.61M)
21. Iowa (1.57M)
22. Nebraska (1.51M)
23. Miami (1.503M)
24. TCU (1.495M)
25. Stanford (1.43M)

 

When the viewership of the Big 12 is only UT and OU, everyone gets closer to their average. No one else brings eyeballs which is our viewership is lower than expected, and why others are higher. 

[DFW Horn 6123]

56 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

There are 360 schools in DI.  You couldn't have your David vs Goliath matches if that number was cut down to 180?

Some of the nostalgia hyperbole on here is ridiculous.

Which D1 basketball leagues do you propose disqualifying - or relegating - from the NCAA Tournament and why? If the NCAA can do this objectively with real data I have no problem with thinning the herd. To your point, there probably aren't 360 teams capable of winning it all. But, I still enjoy watching a #15 seed beat #2 and other surprises.

[Extra Anejo 99]

Surprised to see Baylor at 35 and Tech at 37.

[DFW Horn 6123]

11 minutes ago, Extra Anejo said:

Surprised to see Baylor at 35 and Tech at 37.

Just look at fucking Rutgers at #72.

Did every cable household in the New York DMA purchase the B1G Network? Or did carriers force it on them? What a lousy addition to that league.

No pony up tempo at #73, either

Edited August 13, 2021 by DFW Horn

[DFW Horn 6123]

16 hours ago, bullet said:

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-bring-in-the-most-tv-viewers-efc03c689e50

Don't remember if this article has been linked.  Author took 5 year's average TV ratings excluding the CCGs and bowl games.  Ranked 1 to 73.  SMU was #73.  Below are the top 25 in the list.

1. Ohio State (5.19M)
2. Alabama (5.09M)
3. Michigan (4.18M)
4. Notre Dame (3.61M)
5. LSU (3.22M)
6. Auburn (3.12M)
7. Georgia (2.91M)
8. Oklahoma (2.90M)
9. Clemson (2.67M)
10. Penn State (2.55M)
11. Florida (2.46M)
12. Wisconsin (2.27M)
13. Texas (2.269M)
14. Florida State (2.23M)
15. Michigan State (2.20M)
16. Southern Cal (1.98M)
17. Tennessee (1.85M)
18. Texas A&M (1.75M)
19. Oklahoma State (1.64M)
20. Mississippi (1.61M)
21. Iowa (1.57M)
22. Nebraska (1.51M)
23. Miami (1.503M)
24. TCU (1.495M)
25. Stanford (1.43M)

 

In summary, the Irate 8 is furked

 

['stache 21807]

15 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

I'm surprised UT isn't in the Top 10 and that TCU is in the Top 25.

7 SEC teams - it must mean more

The article mentions that TCU's number is skewed because of one game where they played Ohio State at Jerryworld which drew 8 million viewers. They would still be top 30 or 35 probably, but not top 25.

[Tex-19 2872]

Honestly I think this proves the value of OSU and TCU. Those are solid numbers and would add totally new markets to those other conferences. Throw in Tech to solidify TX.

['stache 21807]

14 hours ago, camel at sea said:

Oklahoma State's numbers are pretty strong, too.  

 

36 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Just look at fucking Rutgers at #72.

Did every cable household in the New York DMA purchase the B1G Network? Or did carriers force it on them? What a lousy addition to that league.

No pony up tempo at #73, either

This is what drives me the craziest of this whole thing. Rutgers and Boston College are still at the big boy table bringing nothing, and our top 20 TV rated program is left behind. The intensity of competition between conferences is ridiculous. The pie could be so much bigger if there was some cooperation to make college football as a whole better aligned.

[Had Enough 2081]

What this shows is that the PAC should have died.

[bullet 1596]

16 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

Alot of that is the channel and timeslot they are in. And of course opponent Aggy gets a boost cause they play 2 teams people want to see every year.

And the author points out those limitations.  Its by no means a perfect measure of how attractive to TV those teams are.  But it is a measure and not just pure speculation.

[bullet 1596]

2 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

Which D1 basketball leagues do you propose disqualifying - or relegating - from the NCAA Tournament and why? If the NCAA can do this objectively with real data I have no problem with thinning the herd. To your point, there probably aren't 360 teams capable of winning it all. But, I still enjoy watching a #15 seed beat #2 and other surprises.

2 vs. 15 is almost always very boring.  There were 250 teams in the 80s.  If you dropped 10 conferences, nobody would notice (probably not even fans of those schools as they hardly have any).  Hardly anybody would notice if you dropped 15.  UNCC was an "underdog" when they made the final 4 in '77.  So were Western Kentucky and Jacksonville earlier in the decade.

[DFW Horn 6123]

 

[camel at sea 589]

3 hours ago, bullet said:

2 vs. 15 is almost always very boring.  There were 250 teams in the 80s.  If you dropped 10 conferences, nobody would notice (probably not even fans of those schools as they hardly have any).  Hardly anybody would notice if you dropped 15.  UNCC was an "underdog" when they made the final 4 in '77.  So were Western Kentucky and Jacksonville earlier in the decade.

#15 Oral Roberts knocked off #2 Ohio State just this year.  It doesn't happen often but it happens often enough that it makes the opening weekend of the tourney a lot of fun.  If you  make it a big boys only party, you're changing the fabric of what the tourney is and how it has marketed itself for 40 years.  

In recent memory, schools like George Mason, VCU, Butler, Wichita State, and Gonzaga have made deep tourney runs.  Gonzaga has done it so often now that people forget they're playing in the otherwise forgettable West Coast Conference.  Florida Gulf Coast, Oral Roberts, and a bunch of others of that ilk have escaped the first weekend.  It's a massive assumption to believe that a non-inclusive tournament is going to generate the same national interest (or close) as the current one.  It's a completely different product without the small schools.  It makes way more sense to keep the tourney intact but to change the way the money generated from it gets distributed.  

[camel at sea 589]

5 hours ago, 'stache said:

 

This is what drives me the craziest of this whole thing. Rutgers and Boston College are still at the big boy table bringing nothing, and our top 20 TV rated program is left behind. The intensity of competition between conferences is ridiculous. The pie could be so much bigger if there was some cooperation to make college football as a whole better aligned.

Oklahoma State is going to have a seat at the table when this all shakes out.  Top 20 TV numbers when you consider how much of that is overcoming the fact games are on FS1 is too good to leave out of the mix.  It'll either be as one of the tentpole programs of an expanded Big 12 (G5 adds.)  Or the Big 12 picks up the PAC leftovers after the B1G raids the West Coast.  Looking at that article, it appears that if the Remaining 8 schools stick together, they should add BYU and Houston.  

I do kind of wonder whether this current conference vs conference deal is the transition phase in breaking away from the NCAA.  Then maybe at that point everyone can start working more collectively.  

Edited August 13, 2021 by camel at sea

['stache 21807]

9 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Oklahoma State is going to have a seat at the table when this all shakes out.  Top 20 TV numbers when you consider how much of that is overcoming the fact games are on FS1 is too good to leave out of the mix.  It'll either be as one of the tentpole programs of an expanded Big 12 (G5 adds.)  Or the Big 12 picks up the PAC leftovers after the B1G raids the West Coast.  Looking at that article, it appears that if the Remaining 8 schools stick together, they should add BYU and Houston.  

I do kind of wonder whether this current conference vs conference deal is the transition phase in breaking away from the NCAA.  Then maybe at that point everyone can start working more collectively.  

If we're keeping the conference together adding BYU and Houston, we will not be at the big table. We'll be a G6 league making less than a fraction of what the P4 people like fucking Rutgers and Indiana make.

[SwAss 105]

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

If we're keeping the conference together adding BYU and Houston, we will not be at the big table. We'll be a G6 league making less than a fraction of what the P4 people like fucking Rutgers and Indiana make.

If you plan on keeping the conference together while also maintaining P5 status of the conference then BYU most certainly helps.  

['stache 21807]

14 minutes ago, SwAss said:

If you plan on keeping the conference together while also maintaining P5 status of the conference then BYU most certainly helps.  

The leftover 8 plus BYU and Houston is not a P5 league. It is G6. 

[camel at sea 589]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

If we're keeping the conference together adding BYU and Houston, we will not be at the big table. We'll be a G6 league making less than a fraction of what the P4 people like fucking Rutgers and Indiana make.

If the Big 12 gets a fair deal (and it's a seller's market for conferences with respect to demand for live inventory), then per-team distribution shouldn't lag too much behind the ACC.  I'd guess the distribution will be similar to what the PAC will end up making, too.  The TV numbers point in that direction.  Lag way behind Indiana, Vandy, and Rutgers?  Absolutely.  But the money should be well above G5 money.   We're moving toward a two-tiered Power 5.  But the bottom half of that is still "at the table."

The Remaining 8 will also get an enormous buyout from Texas and Oklahoma, they'll undoubtedly get some kind of buy-in from the new additions, and the Big 12 does very well with NCAA tourney financial distributions (though if the NCAA dies that becomes a big unknown.)  

[Godzillatron 292]

Lol Okie State having numbers on par with Aggy while playing in the fucking B12


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

The leftover 8 plus BYU and Houston is not a P5 league. It is G6. 

Its like Big East 3.0 (sans Miami, VT and BC), which was actually normally better than the Big 10 and ACC at the time.  When the MWC with BYU, TCU and Utah was trying to get BCS status, it was because their metrics were beating the Big 10 in most categories, NOT the Big East.

Their money would clearly be 5th, but still well ahead of AAC, likely midway between them and Pac 12/ACC.

 

[billfromlaketravis 11466]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

The leftover 8 plus BYU and Houston is not a P5 league. It is G6. 

This. Tech, OK State, and Kansas should get the f*** out, if they can. 

The only people that should want to keep the conference together are TCU, Baylor, and Bowlsby. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by billfromlaketravis

[camel at sea 589]

23 minutes ago, bullet said:

Its like Big East 3.0 (sans Miami, VT and BC), which was actually normally better than the Big 10 and ACC at the time.  When the MWC with BYU, TCU and Utah was trying to get BCS status, it was because their metrics were beating the Big 10 in most categories, NOT the Big East.

Their money would clearly be 5th, but still well ahead of AAC, likely midway between them and Pac 12/ACC.

 

I think it helps the Big 12 that we're in a seller's market for TV rights.  Someone (CBS, NBC, FOX, a Big Tech company, etc.) will bid on their inventory to bolster a streaming app that needs live inventory.  The remaining 8 have TV numbers that warrant that.  The TV deal is only a portion of the financial revenue anyway.  The CFP money is going to be a bigger component, by percentage, going forward and the league does well with NCAA tourney money already.  

[Hiphopopotamos 20869]

If true - the Big12 is officially officially dead. 
 

 

[Js1 85319]

Bowlsby continues to be a joke

[Deej 76766]

Baylor's TV rights aren't being bought up by the Magnolia channel?

[TKthunder2 4991]

2 hours ago, camel at sea said:

The Remaining 8 will also get an enormous buyout from Texas and Oklahoma

 

Unless you’re counting 1 years payout as enormous…

[Deej 76766]

8 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

 

Unless you’re counting 1 years payout as enormous…

More than they'd ever get on their own. 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

Here's the article from The Athletic:

 

Spoiler

The Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC are engaging in high-level discussions about an alliance, sources tell The Athletic.

Talks have centered around not just a scheduling alliance in football but in broader cooperation, according to sources in the three conferences. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren and ACC commissioner Jim Phillips have been having conversations for several weeks.

“I’ve been in frequent and regular contact with all of the other A5 commissioners the last few weeks about the complex issues that are facing the industry,” Kliavkoff said, adding that there’s “nothing to report on this specific matter at this time.”

How will an alliance work?

Max Olson, staff writer: While the specifics on how a scheduling pact might work remain unclear, sources in the three conferences suggest the larger goal is alignment so that the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC can work and vote together on major issues such as College Football Playoff expansion and upcoming NCAA governance changes.

“This is their shot right back at the SEC,” one athletic director said.

All three leagues and their relatively new commissioners are feeling some pressure to respond to the SEC’s aggression after the conference added Texas and Oklahomaas new members starting in 2025. None of the three have expressed serious interest in raiding what’s left of the Big 12, so working together is a logical next step and appears to be the likely outcome.

There are differing beliefs among sources in the three conferences as to how imminently this alliance could be finalized and formally announced. Kliavkoff and Warren were together this week in California for Rose Bowl-related meetings.

What about the Big 12?

Olson: While these plans are still in the works, it does appear the Big 12 will not be included in the alliance. Last week, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby met with Kliavkoff to discuss potential options for a strategic alliance. The Big 12 is currently exploring options to preserve its future after Texas and Oklahoma exit.

If this alliance comes together, it would clearly be a setback for the Big 12. Sources in the conference said Bowlsby was optimistic about the potential of working with the Pac-12, and the possibility of this three-league alliance was not discussed on a call between Bowlsby and Big 12 athletic directors on Friday.

While this alliance would presumably mean Power 5 leagues will not look to poach Big 12 members and helps keeps the eight members together, this is not a good development for Bowlsby. The Big 12 could focus its efforts on expansion going forward, but trying to align with a Power 5 league was considered a preferable possibility.

Why would the three conferences do this?

Matt Fortuna, staff writer: On Tuesday the NCAA announced the formation of a constitution committee, with the hopes of expediting a proposed governance model. It is there, in voting power, where an alliance among the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 would really show those three conferences’ power — 41 votes to the 16 votes of the expanded SEC. 

New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, who was announced as one of 23 members of the constitution committee, has told ADs that strength comes in numbers, not in one conference stacking the deck. This is where the real difference could come for these three conferences.

The question of timing

Nicole Auerbach, senior writer: Even if such a move is not exactly imminent, there is still pressure to do something in the wake of the SEC's power play. 

A formal alliance between these three conferences could be announced with specific scheduling details to be ironed out later. But it would still be valuable to get this out there at some point soon because the three leagues could then work together to vote as a bloc on CFP expansion (timeline and format), upcoming NCAA governance decisions and other pressing issues.

 

[billfromlaketravis 11466]

17 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Here's the article from The Athletic:

 

  Hide contents

The Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC are engaging in high-level discussions about an alliance, sources tell The Athletic.

Talks have centered around not just a scheduling alliance in football but in broader cooperation, according to sources in the three conferences. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren and ACC commissioner Jim Phillips have been having conversations for several weeks.

“I’ve been in frequent and regular contact with all of the other A5 commissioners the last few weeks about the complex issues that are facing the industry,” Kliavkoff said, adding that there’s “nothing to report on this specific matter at this time.”

How will an alliance work?

Max Olson, staff writer: While the specifics on how a scheduling pact might work remain unclear, sources in the three conferences suggest the larger goal is alignment so that the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC can work and vote together on major issues such as College Football Playoff expansion and upcoming NCAA governance changes.

“This is their shot right back at the SEC,” one athletic director said.

All three leagues and their relatively new commissioners are feeling some pressure to respond to the SEC’s aggression after the conference added Texas and Oklahomaas new members starting in 2025. None of the three have expressed serious interest in raiding what’s left of the Big 12, so working together is a logical next step and appears to be the likely outcome.

There are differing beliefs among sources in the three conferences as to how imminently this alliance could be finalized and formally announced. Kliavkoff and Warren were together this week in California for Rose Bowl-related meetings.

What about the Big 12?

Olson: While these plans are still in the works, it does appear the Big 12 will not be included in the alliance. Last week, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby met with Kliavkoff to discuss potential options for a strategic alliance. The Big 12 is currently exploring options to preserve its future after Texas and Oklahoma exit.

If this alliance comes together, it would clearly be a setback for the Big 12. Sources in the conference said Bowlsby was optimistic about the potential of working with the Pac-12, and the possibility of this three-league alliance was not discussed on a call between Bowlsby and Big 12 athletic directors on Friday.

While this alliance would presumably mean Power 5 leagues will not look to poach Big 12 members and helps keeps the eight members together, this is not a good development for Bowlsby. The Big 12 could focus its efforts on expansion going forward, but trying to align with a Power 5 league was considered a preferable possibility.

Why would the three conferences do this?

Matt Fortuna, staff writer: On Tuesday the NCAA announced the formation of a constitution committee, with the hopes of expediting a proposed governance model. It is there, in voting power, where an alliance among the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 would really show those three conferences’ power — 41 votes to the 16 votes of the expanded SEC. 

New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, who was announced as one of 23 members of the constitution committee, has told ADs that strength comes in numbers, not in one conference stacking the deck. This is where the real difference could come for these three conferences.

The question of timing

Nicole Auerbach, senior writer: Even if such a move is not exactly imminent, there is still pressure to do something in the wake of the SEC's power play. 

A formal alliance between these three conferences could be announced with specific scheduling details to be ironed out later. But it would still be valuable to get this out there at some point soon because the three leagues could then work together to vote as a bloc on CFP expansion (timeline and format), upcoming NCAA governance decisions and other pressing issues.

 

It's over Bowlsby. 

[LTtxfan 49184]

Not sure the ACC will long-term stay along for the ride with the Big10 and Pac12.

Gotta believe the ACC will somehow side more often with the SEC since ESPN has TV deals/channels for both of those two conferences...

Might be time for FOX to really prop up their TV deals with the Big10 and Pac12 to stay on par with CFB on ESPN/ABC.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

 

Unless you’re counting 1 years payout as enormous…

I mean by even the smallest estimates I've seen, they're looking at $100M+ in buyout money.  

[mdmost 43001]

Yeah, that's curtains for the Big 12. Bowlsby tried and failed to secure a scheduling deal with the Pac 12. 

[Not a Sock 2313]

Quote

 

Why would the three conferences do this?

Matt Fortuna, staff writer: On Tuesday the NCAA announced the formation of a constitution committee, with the hopes of expediting a proposed governance model. It is there, in voting power, where an alliance among the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 would really show those three conferences’ power — 41 votes to the 16 votes of the expanded SEC. 

New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, who was announced as one of 23 members of the constitution committee, has told ADs that strength comes in numbers, not in one conference stacking the deck. This is where the real difference could come for these three conferences.

[TKthunder2 4991]

10 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

Which D1 basketball leagues do you propose disqualifying - or relegating - from the NCAA Tournament and why? If the NCAA can do this objectively with real data I have no problem with thinning the herd. To your point, there probably aren't 360 teams capable of winning it all. But, I still enjoy watching a #15 seed beat #2 and other surprises.

I wouldn’t do it as a league, because all leagues have dead weight.  They were designed for regional play and this would be a less regionalized system.

Still there are some very easy conferences you could eliminate.

The majority of the US couldn’t name a single school in the MAAC (or tell me what those letters stand for without looking it up).

Take Gonzaga from the WCC, VCU from the A10, James Madison from the CAA and have them join together or with a lesser FBS conference like how Wichita State joined the AAC.  Gonzaga would fit into the MWC nicely and VCU would fit in with CUSA, etc, etc.

Would some fans stop watching, sure, but how many stopped watching when the SWC broke up, or when the WAC or Big East football died.  You’re talking about a small percentage of Americans but the majority would keep watching as long as Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Kentucky are playing.

Also just because the current tournament is more interesting to the average viewer over a power only tournament, that doesn’t mean it it’s the best situation for the power schools.  They could take their ball and do their own thing and the VAST majority of viewers would immediately switch from the NCAA DI tournament, to the power tournament, because Cinderella doesn’t bring in viewers, it’s Ohio St and UCLA losing which brings eyeball and gets attention.  Cinderella’s name is inconsequential.

If the Power conference only tournament can generate even HALF of the 1.2 billion that March Madness generates they would break even, and odds are they’d do better than that.

[TKthunder2 4991]

56 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I mean by even the smallest estimates I've seen, they're looking at $100M+ in buyout money.  

Texas and Oklahoma won’t be paying anywhere close to $100 million. My guess is they settle for less than half that. Texas has sovereign immunity and the GOR is not enforceable. That’s why they let A&M go for only about $20 million. Look up Mike Leach and Texas Tech’s court ruling if you need more background.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/8/5/16101556/mike-leach-texas-tech-sovereign-immunity

Quote

But of late, Leach has shared a lot about sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that protects governments from being sued. That’s prevented Leach from litigating in court a years-long dispute with his former employer, Texas Tech.

There is a reason a GOR has never made to it a court ruling. The logic behind holding rights of public institutions hostage for benefit of public institutions of other states or private institutions won’t play well to a judge/jury which is why every single one of them has settled. The GOR would only be legally enforceable if it was approved by the legislature, and this one was not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/07/28/big-12-sends-espn-cease-desist-letter-college-conference-expansion/5408410001/

Quote

This will likely ultimately comes down to “how much the Big 12 is willing to settle or whether it’s going to draw a line in the sand," Winter said. "There are some issues with suing UT or OU because of sovereign immunity. It’s hard to sue a state entity.”

Add in that Texas and Oklahoma control to product, and access to it with the stadiums they own and they can simply refuse to allow Fox to broadcast their games. Their might be some litigation between Fox and ESPN but I doubt that’s goes too far. The Big12 (and the ACC) have never and will never get the full payout. 25% is better than 0%.

[thunderlounge 7821]

While negotiations have/surely will happen, the bottom line is still that the money is there for a full buyout, and if the leftover shits don’t want to play ball then all it takes is dropping nuts on the table with big sack of cash. 
 

I don’t think that will happen, but if push came to shove, fuck em. Wouldn’t be a good look for them, not that some haven’t already made quite the ass of themselves already.

Of course we all know it’s in the best interest of all involved to get down to it, keep it civil and under wraps, and come to a number everyone can live with.

Even though the leftovers know the full amount can drop any time, once the season gets rolling and this isn’t as fresh of a thing, then I don’t think they would hold out and force the full amount. 

[camel at sea 589]

42 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Texas and Oklahoma won’t be paying anywhere close to $100 million. My guess is they settle for less than half that. Texas has sovereign immunity and the GOR is not enforceable. That’s why they let A&M go for only about $20 million. Look up Mike Leach and Texas Tech’s court ruling if you need more background.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/8/5/16101556/mike-leach-texas-tech-sovereign-immunity

There is a reason a GOR has never made to it a court ruling. The logic behind holding rights of public institutions hostage for benefit of public institutions of other states or private institutions won’t play well to a judge/jury which is why every single one of them has settled. The GOR would only be legally enforceable if it was approved by the legislature, and this one was not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/07/28/big-12-sends-espn-cease-desist-letter-college-conference-expansion/5408410001/

Add in that Texas and Oklahoma control to product, and access to it with the stadiums they own and they can simply refuse to allow Fox to broadcast their games. Their might be some litigation between Fox and ESPN but I doubt that’s goes too far. The Big12 (and the ACC) have never and will never get the full payout. 25% is better than 0%.

The Leach situation is not a perfect parallel.  That's why everyone is walking lightly on this and why they have always treated the "handcuffs" seriously.  

The risk of letting things play out in court is high enough for both sides that both sides will eventually settle.  I also do not think that Disney really wants the GOR tested in court b/c it's useful for them in other arenas (i.e. the ACC.)  The level of risk and the unknowns in court is what gives the GOR teeth.  No one knows how the sovereign immunity argument will play out with respect to getting out of a conference's GOR.  It's either an epic win or an epic loss.  I think sovereign immunity is a good argument but a judge doesn't necessarily have to see it that way.  All of the public talk from Texas and OU has implied (publicly) that they will stay for the duration of the GOR to avoid legal issues. 

I don't think that happens.  I doubt anyone does.  But the Big 12 are facing financial Armageddon so they need to get enough back from the outgoing members to agree to settle.  If the B12 and UT/OU agreed to a $160M buyout, then the LHN covers it.  I think that's probably about how it works out.  That's the path of least resistance, it keeps the Big 12 relatively whole through the end of the current deal, and it doesn't do any real damage to UT or OU.       

[TKthunder2 4991]

43 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

The Leach situation is not a perfect parallel.  That's why everyone is walking lightly on this and why they have always treated the "handcuffs" seriously.  

The risk of letting things play out in court is high enough for both sides that both sides will eventually settle.  I also do not think that Disney really wants the GOR tested in court b/c it's useful for them in other arenas (i.e. the ACC.)  The level of risk and the unknowns in court is what gives the GOR teeth.  No one knows how the sovereign immunity argument will play out with respect to getting out of a conference's GOR.  It's either an epic win or an epic loss.  I think sovereign immunity is a good argument but a judge doesn't necessarily have to see it that way.  All of the public talk from Texas and OU has implied (publicly) that they will stay for the duration of the GOR to avoid legal issues. 

I don't think that happens.  I doubt anyone does.  But the Big 12 are facing financial Armageddon so they need to get enough back from the outgoing members to agree to settle.  If the B12 and UT/OU agreed to a $160M buyout, then the LHN covers it.  I think that's probably about how it works out.  That's the path of least resistance, it keeps the Big 12 relatively whole through the end of the current deal, and it doesn't do any real damage to UT or OU.       

Yeah agree to disagree, I’m not a lawyer but smarter people than me have specified why sovereign immunity is Texas is a BIG DEAL.  You think Tech can get out of Leach’s deal for a few little millions and the state is going to sit by and let $100+ million go to the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, West Virginia and some private schools when it wasn’t approved by the lege, and thus not enforceable and there is already precedent of a expected exit fee with aggy and Mizzou’s moves.  We’re more mad at Texas than we were at aggy doesn’t make for a great legal argument.  

I predict, we announce we’re leaving after this season soon (before the end of the year) and we’ll settle for somewhere around 50 million (40 million we were owed from this year, and our ncaa tournament/bowl payouts that are paid to the conference and passed through to the school, plus any long term sponsorships or other payouts they can come up with to make that number look as big as possible). If I’m wrong and we pay $100 million I’ll buy you a 30 pack of Keystones.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21905]

It's UT's 100 year decision.  $1 million a year for 100 years.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

7 hours ago, camel at sea said:

If the Big 12 gets a fair deal (and it's a seller's market for conferences with respect to demand for live inventory), then per-team distribution shouldn't lag too much behind the ACC.  

[Droopy 2626]

35 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

7 hours ago, camel at sea said:

If the Big 12 gets a fair deal (and it's a seller's market for conferences with respect to demand for live inventory), then per-team distribution shouldn't lag too much behind the ACC.  I'd guess the distribution will be similar to what the PAC will end up making, too.  The TV numbers point in that direction.  Lag way behind Indiana, Vandy, and Rutgers?  Absolutely.  But the money should be well above G5 money.   We're moving toward a two-tiered Power 5.  But the bottom half of that is still "at the table."

The Remaining 8 will also get an enormous buyout from Texas and Oklahoma, they'll undoubtedly get some kind of buy-in from the new additions, and the Big 12 does very well with NCAA tourney financial distributions (though if the NCAA dies that becomes a big unknown.)  

Dude’s high. 

[maninblack 7974]

13 hours ago, Tex-19 said:

Honestly I think this proves the value of OSU and TCU. Those are solid numbers and would add totally new markets to those other conferences. Throw in Tech to solidify TX.

[Gidnik 3268]

sovereign immunity is the nuclear option. nobody wants to test that in any court. 

[Dnaguy 11948]

10 hours ago, Deej said:

Baylor's TV rights aren't being bought up by the Magnolia channel?

 

They're in some deep shiplap.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

13 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

This. Tech, OK State, and Kansas should get the f*** out, if they can. 

They will the second someone invites them. That's been the problem so far.

[Lidig8r 1872]

12 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Here's the article from The Athletic:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC are engaging in high-level discussions about an alliance, sources tell The Athletic.

Talks have centered around not just a scheduling alliance in football but in broader cooperation, according to sources in the three conferences. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren and ACC commissioner Jim Phillips have been having conversations for several weeks.

“I’ve been in frequent and regular contact with all of the other A5 commissioners the last few weeks about the complex issues that are facing the industry,” Kliavkoff said, adding that there’s “nothing to report on this specific matter at this time.”

How will an alliance work?

Max Olson, staff writer: While the specifics on how a scheduling pact might work remain unclear, sources in the three conferences suggest the larger goal is alignment so that the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC can work and vote together on major issues such as College Football Playoff expansion and upcoming NCAA governance changes.

“This is their shot right back at the SEC,” one athletic director said.

All three leagues and their relatively new commissioners are feeling some pressure to respond to the SEC’s aggression after the conference added Texas and Oklahomaas new members starting in 2025. None of the three have expressed serious interest in raiding what’s left of the Big 12, so working together is a logical next step and appears to be the likely outcome.

There are differing beliefs among sources in the three conferences as to how imminently this alliance could be finalized and formally announced. Kliavkoff and Warren were together this week in California for Rose Bowl-related meetings.

What about the Big 12?

Olson: While these plans are still in the works, it does appear the Big 12 will not be included in the alliance. Last week, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby met with Kliavkoff to discuss potential options for a strategic alliance. The Big 12 is currently exploring options to preserve its future after Texas and Oklahoma exit.

If this alliance comes together, it would clearly be a setback for the Big 12. Sources in the conference said Bowlsby was optimistic about the potential of working with the Pac-12, and the possibility of this three-league alliance was not discussed on a call between Bowlsby and Big 12 athletic directors on Friday.

While this alliance would presumably mean Power 5 leagues will not look to poach Big 12 members and helps keeps the eight members together, this is not a good development for Bowlsby. The Big 12 could focus its efforts on expansion going forward, but trying to align with a Power 5 league was considered a preferable possibility.

Why would the three conferences do this?

Matt Fortuna, staff writer: On Tuesday the NCAA announced the formation of a constitution committee, with the hopes of expediting a proposed governance model. It is there, in voting power, where an alliance among the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 would really show those three conferences’ power — 41 votes to the 16 votes of the expanded SEC. 

New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, who was announced as one of 23 members of the constitution committee, has told ADs that strength comes in numbers, not in one conference stacking the deck. This is where the real difference could come for these three conferences.

The question of timing

Nicole Auerbach, senior writer: Even if such a move is not exactly imminent, there is still pressure to do something in the wake of the SEC's power play. 

A formal alliance between these three conferences could be announced with specific scheduling details to be ironed out later. But it would still be valuable to get this out there at some point soon because the three leagues could then work together to vote as a bloc on CFP expansion (timeline and format), upcoming NCAA governance decisions and other pressing issues.

 

Assuming arguendo, that Alliance moves forward.

If I Ran the Zoo, or the SEC whichever, my response would simply be, "Ok, Cool, Hook 'em."

Then, I would approach Clempson and Florida State and tell them, "hey, we are leaving the NCAA, forming our own Association, will have our own separate rules, games, playoffs, oversight. Want to come play with the big boys?

Then, I would approach Ohio State, Meatchicken and maybe include State Penn and tell them, "hey, we are leaving the NCAA, forming our own Association, will have our own separate rules, games, playoffs, oversight. Want to come play with the big boys?

Then, I would approach USC, Oregone, Stanford and maybe Washington and tell them, "hey, we are leaving the NCAA, forming our own Association, will have our own separate rules, games, playoffs, oversight. Want to come play with the big boys?

I would then tell all universities that along with the athletic alliance, we are developing an academic alliance where once a university has reached certain academic and research standards, they join the academic alliance where libraries and research can be shared, where there is a somewhat open exchange pertaining to grad students and professors could openly collaborate on important studies. And part of that academic alliance would be funded by the increased revenue brought in by the television contracts and related revenue.

Some will say nyet. Most would recognize that it is in their long term best interests, financially, athletically and academically and  say "Da baby."

[6th Street 6392]

They should put Baylor games on OAN

[DFW Horn 6123]

Looks like Bob finally had a good idea. Scheduling alliance, you say?

 

[Tex-19 2872]

2 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

Looks like Bob finally had a good idea. Scheduling alliance, you say?

 

Still not sure what a scheduling alliance accomplishes. But this says they don't want the Big 12 teams which ain't good for us