Realignment talk not going away

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, mdmost said:

Notre Dame values their independence more than an extra 20 million. Autonomy means more to them than money, which they have plenty of thanks to their donor base. Any network would fall all over themselves to pay Notre Dame market value. They get eyeballs and that's all that matters. You have to stop thinking Notre Dame is like other programs. Everything you attest to the motivations of another program do not apply to Notre Dame.

And I'll believe the move to 10 conference games when I see it. Everyone loves their cupcakes. 

Swarbick knows there is a P2 and they will eventually have to join one of them.  There's still some chance they decide to make that move in the next 6 months.  If NBC doesn't offer enough, they will obviously go.

[thunderlounge 7927]

12 minutes ago, bullet said:

If NBC doesn't offer enough, they will obviously go.

Maybe they already have, and only 5 people on the planet know, and their lips are sewn shut. 

[camel at sea 589]

6 minutes ago, bullet said:

Swarbick knows there is a P2 and they will eventually have to join one of them.  There's still some chance they decide to make that move in the next 6 months.  If NBC doesn't offer enough, they will obviously go.

If a lot of the value of independence, for them, is the flexibility that gives them to be "national," then the Big Ten being a coast to coast conference might change the calculus for the Irish.  We'll see.  The money, built-in rivalry games, and the OTA exposure is probably the best ND could hope for, too.  

[nunna yo bizness 1687]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

So is Notre Dame still relevant?

Who?

[thunderlounge 7927]

35 minutes ago, nunna yo bizness said:

Who?

That church in Paris. The one that had the catastrophic fire in early ‘19.

[Hagbard Celine 10913]

10 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

I thought both schools plus the fair preferred having that game early.  Have the schools or ESPN said what time it will kickoff after you join the SEC?

no one prefers having the game at 11am other than a few nutjobs in both fanbases who like getting up at 4am so they can be first in line for wax cup beer at 7am

and fox/espn

+++

the latter question has never been discussed that i've seen, and it wouldn't be discussed until the summer before we get there.  at least publically.

[TKthunder2 4997]

https://awfulannouncing.com/fox/six-questions-espn-big-ten-split.html

Quote

CBS has two more seasons (2022 and 2023) left on their sweetheart deal with the SEC (the prized 3:30 pm ET game of the week) before it goes to ABC/ESPN in 2024. This new Big Ten deal would start in 2023, which means CBS is essentially double-booked in that 3:30 slot. So, what happens here?

The easiest option would be for ESPN to buy out CBS’s last year of the SEC deal. ESPN will have to fill the void of the Big Ten leaving and would love to get rolling a year ahead of schedule, given their extensive all-in relationship with the SEC. CBS is double-booked, and lame-duck years are always not ideal.

CBS’s deal is such a bargain, though it’s no sure thing they’d want to part with it, especially if ESPN takes a tough line negotiating. It’s been rumored for quite a while that ESPN would want to start earlier than planned with the SEC, but thus far there hasn’t been really any smoke other than they’re eager to get going. We’ll see.

So ESPN could end up with the SEC’s tier one game next year if CBS cuts them a deal. Could see ESPN going all in and working with the Big 12 to renegotiate early and help them pull PAC10 schools in exchange for early release of Texas/OU.

ESPN to Big 12: Let Texas/OU go, add 4 more western members to give us late night inventory and we’ll give you a solid contract with a guaranteed regional broadcast at 11am on ABC in the Western half of the country and member states/metros and ESPN2 in the Eastern half with the ACC having the opposite setup, a permanent Late showcase on ESPN and a chance at a national broadcast on ABC prime time when you have a great matchup that can beat out the #2 SEC and #1 ACC game (or a chance at ESPN in the afternoon slot when you can’t).

Noon: B12/ACC on ABC/ESPN2, SEC on ESPN

Afternoon: SEC on ABC, Big12/ACC in ESPN/2

Prime: Best remaining games on ABC/ESPN (most likely/often SEC #2 but could be something like FSU/Clemson or ACC/ND away game or solid ranked v ranked B12 teams)

Late: Big12 Western member on ESPN and  ESPN2

SEC: 1-2 on ABC (Afternoon/Prime), 1-2 on ESPN(Noon/Prime), 1-2 on ESPN2/U (Noon/Prime), and 3 on SECN (Noon/Afternoon/Prime)

Big12+4: 0-1 on ABC national (Prime), 1 on regional ABC/ESPN2 mirror (Noon), 1-2 on ESPN (Afternoon/Prime/Late), 3 on ESPN2/U (Late and whenever) 2-3 on ESPN+ (Whenever)

ACC: 0-1 on ABC national (Prime), 1 on regional ABC/ESPN2 mirror (Noon), 0-2 on ESPN (Afternoon/Prime), 3 on ESPN2/U (Late and whenever) 3 on ACCN (Noon/Afternoon/Prime)

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

11 hours ago, mdmost said:

Don't hold your breath on Notre Dame jumping to the Big 10.

 

Swarbrick said he thinks both the Big Ten and SEC eventually will grow and get around 20 teams but doesn't think other additions are "imminent."

^^^^^^

I think Swarbrick is giving everyone a hint with the above statement. You don't hold a presser the day after a huge realignment leak to say "I think they will eventually grow to around 20 teams" unless you're preparing the masses for change. Why would a CEO hold a presser to announce/speculate on another CEO's future moves unless he's been a part of the talks and preparing his base? Leak info to a reporter? Sure. Make such statements in front of the public? It doesn't make sense, unless you're at war with someone and trying to win the perception game (PAC/Big12/ACC). 

ND is planting the seed with the alumni before making a move IMO. They need to massage the BMDs and fan base behind closed doors and in front of the public before making this move. If they make it too quickly, it could cost them donations. They may also give the greenlight and let Stanford join first. ND has to make it look like they have no other choice.

It could be in a month, later this season or a few years from now (2025?)

[notre dame joe 195]

9 hours ago, bullet said:

People who listened to the interview have said ND was the least committed to independence that they have ever heard.  Swarbick was complaining about travel to Tallahassee.  So while there certainly wasn't any imminent to Big 10 statements, he didn't rule it out the way ND usually does.  He also talked about consolidation. I think he understands ND eventually has to join Big 10.  Doesn't mean he intends to be the one to make that decision.

I don't know how else you can hear that.

14 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Their AD and President are so fucking out of the loop with modern terms.....


When BIG and SEC are making 100 million plus each team and they're stuck at 70-80 range then they'll change. 


Just some 70 year olds stuck in the old way.

In my dreams

 

We would be committed to independence,

football excellence,

Playing only Saturday,

rejecting meaningless bowls,

on grass, 

with no adzillatron, only the band and crowd,

flanked by the real Irish Guard

in a normal looking stadium overlooked by our Lady and TD Jesus,

Playing the best opponents we can schedule and lots of independents,

without kiss-cams, Miami's smoke, flowers, the alma-mater buzzkill 

wearing helmets that actually look gold.

 

Yeah too bad we were too busy monitoring the landscape to save it. 

[statsman 5477]

I enjoy supposition about ESPN greasing the skids for an early exit from the B12. I just don’t buy any I have seen yet. ESPN is paying for B12 content that includes Texas and OU. That is a deal they are happy with. I don’t see them surrendering something of value without getting value in return. 
Similarly, I don’t see any network making active moves that freeze Oregon out. Nike is just too big of an advertiser. The networks may answer questions about values of reconfigurations, but I don’t see them initiating any.

I think a B12 collapse is the best way to a quicker exit, and that looks unlikely. Perhaps adding PAC teams to the B12 could help…maybe Texas and OU could argue in court that they never agreed to any of this. All of the other avenues to an exit, caused by realignment, seem like wishful thinking.

 

[billfromlaketravis 11522]

9 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://awfulannouncing.com/fox/six-questions-espn-big-ten-split.html

So ESPN could end up with the SEC’s tier one game next year if CBS cuts them a deal. Could see ESPN going all in and working with the Big 12 to renegotiate early and help them pull PAC10 schools in exchange for early release of Texas/OU.

ESPN to Big 12: Let Texas/OU go, add 4 more western members to give us late night inventory and we’ll give you a solid contract with a guaranteed regional broadcast at 11am on ABC in the Western half of the country and member states/metros and ESPN2 in the Eastern half with the ACC having the opposite setup, a permanent Late showcase on ESPN and a chance at a national broadcast on ABC prime time when you have a great matchup that can beat out the #2 SEC and #1 ACC game (or a chance at ESPN in the afternoon slot when you can’t).

Noon: B12/ACC on ABC/ESPN2, SEC on ESPN

Afternoon: SEC on ABC, Big12/ACC in ESPN/2

Prime: Best remaining games on ABC/ESPN (most likely/often SEC #2 but could be something like FSU/Clemson or ACC/ND away game or solid ranked v ranked B12 teams)

Late: Big12 Western member on ESPN and  ESPN2

SEC: 1-2 on ABC (Afternoon/Prime), 1-2 on ESPN(Noon/Prime), 1-2 on ESPN2/U (Noon/Prime), and 3 on SECN (Noon/Afternoon/Prime)

Big12+4: 0-1 on ABC national (Prime), 1 on regional ABC/ESPN2 mirror (Noon), 1-2 on ESPN (Afternoon/Prime/Late), 3 on ESPN2/U (Late and whenever) 2-3 on ESPN+ (Whenever)

ACC: 0-1 on ABC national (Prime), 1 on regional ABC/ESPN2 mirror (Noon), 0-2 on ESPN (Afternoon/Prime), 3 on ESPN2/U (Late and whenever) 3 on ACCN (Noon/Afternoon/Prime)

So the first conference to make a deal with ESPN probably survives/poaches the other conference? 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

46 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

So the first conference to make a deal with ESPN probably survives/poaches the other conference? 

I think this is the actual answer and it comes down to Oregon and Washington.    

 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

17 hours ago, Sir Ulrich said:

20-30 Million is a lot of money to turn down even for ND. They lost 2 of their Big 3 coaches this year and while money may not have been the biggest factor in each it will only get worse if they are 30 million behind. If Freeman starts winning then what is stopping Penn State or Michigan State or Nebraska from using that surplus of 30 million to pry him away.

These programs that weren't able to make money with donor subsidization will suddenly all be profitable and those same donor funds will/should be reallocated to NIL and facilities upgrades. 30 million may not matter if that was the difference over a decade but per year is a whole different animal. 

But its $30m in one revenue stream, media rights.   It's the largest chunk, but not the only chunk.   Texas made $200m in revenue in 2020 and $82m of that was rights/licensing and it pretty much paid for all the salaries and scholarships for the entire AD.   Still a lot left over.

First, $75m is much, much closer to the Big Ten's deal at $1.2b.   When they say $100m, that's in the middle of the contact.   A bump from $1.2b to $1.5b would start that contract around $85m.    ND's deal would escalate too, they all do on a 4% inflation factor yearly.  So $75m today gets them to $85m in the middle of the contract.   You're really talking about a 15% difference overall.

Second, while it is for all of the media rights for every Big Ten team in every sport, it is only the rights for ND football.   ND get's paid $12m currently by the ACC for its Olympic sports and basketball.  $75m + $12m = $87m, which will be $98m in the middle of the contract.   Now it's only a 2% difference.

I also don't see where NBC would pay the Big Ten $24m per game to shoulder their ND "A" game, but pay ND $10m per game.  If ND was paid what the Big Ten's deal is rumored to be paid, they'd be making $190M from NBC.    The math is funky at this point.

Lastly, they get their own share from the playoffs that they don't need to share.  It's a sizable chunk of change too.   And it's likely key to this to be honest, not money.   If ND has access to the post season and is "in the ballpark" financially, why move?     Only reasons I can see are:

• Losing independent access to the playoffs
• Losing longtime rival scheduling due to increased conference games (The Big Ten moving to 10 conference games would put 80 games to market)
• Being offered a special deal, and a lot more to stay; E.g Big Ten buys out ACC content, Stanford joins and ND always plays a game yearly in Cali, keeps their Big Ten ones, gets Penn State in Philly/Rutgers in Giants Stadium/Maryland at FedEx, all of their games, home or away, are on NBC at 3:30, and their remaining non-con schedule becomes neutral site games against Army/Navy, etc.

I just cannot see them joining the Big Ten AND being no different than Iowa or Purdue.    

[TKthunder2 4997]

54 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I just cannot see them joining the Big Ten AND being no different than Iowa or Purdue.    

I could see ND getting guaranteed slotting on NBC for their home games for slightly less revenue for the duration of this next contract (assuming their NBC deal remains).  ND’s away games (think ND@Rutgers) will increase the value for the Big Ten’s contract which would allow them to add Stanford/others and increase their west coast/late night presence.

ND gets to keep its NBC relationship (for this contract), makes more money than staying independent (but not full Big Ten shares if their NBC deal is worth less), has access to premium bowls and the CFP, has locked in games with USC/Stanford that frees up availability on their OOC schedule, and more local travel for other sports.

Big Ten gets more money to spread out to add more West Coast footprint for late night features and gives these one off deals setting up the standard relationship for all in their next contract.

FOX/CBS gets ND away games (currently under ACC/ESPN) NBC gets better ND home game content, and FOX gets more quality late night content.

[derpyhorndog 2572]

4 hours ago, statsman said:

I think a B12 collapse is the best way to a quicker exit, and that looks unlikely. Perhaps adding PAC teams to the B12 could help…maybe Texas and OU could argue in court that they never agreed to any of this. All of the other avenues to an exit, caused by realignment, seem like wishful thinking.

 

Just reviewed the B12 bylaws and public announcements around the vote approving Cincinnati, UH, BYU and UCF as new members.

Interestingly, UT and OU don't have any veto right over admission of any new B12 members. That is, even together, they don't have the votes to block admitting members. Which is unfortunate because, if they did, they might have been able to leverage it during the G5 raid (or any future P12 raid) to get a better exit deal.

Unless you're interested in the legal minutiae, feel free to stop reading at this point. 

In this B12 statement, it was announced that admission of the G5 teams was "unanimously approved by the eight continuing members" under Section 1.5.2.b.3 of the B12 bylaws. That Section requires approval of a "Supermajority of Disinterested Directors," meaning 75% of the Board of Directors (on which each member has one rep). 

Assuming all 10 member schools were considered "disinterested" with respect to the G5 admission vote, that means 8 votes required (i.e., no UT/OU vote needed). And, going forward, approving the approving admission of any additional members (e.g., P12 schools) would require 11/14 — again, no UT/OU vote needed.

So, the only scenario where I see the possibility of UT/OU leveraging their votes to get a better exit would one where the B12 wants to add additional member(s) and at least two of the Irate Eight schools have been poached by another conference (such that they would be willing to vote with UT/OU in vetoing the new members). Obviously an extremely unlikely scenario.

Finally, even if that scenario existed, it could be further complicated if the remaining B12 members took the position that UT/OU and their defector friends were "interested" in the admissions vote (basically, they have a unique interest that would cloud their objectivity in voting) such that they would be blocked from voting. I actually expect that this might have already happened to UT/OU in the G5 vote given the careful wording of the B12 statement mentioned above.

[bullet 1597]

18 hours ago, camel at sea said:

If a lot of the value of independence, for them, is the flexibility that gives them to be "national," then the Big Ten being a coast to coast conference might change the calculus for the Irish.  We'll see.  The money, built-in rivalry games, and the OTA exposure is probably the best ND could hope for, too.  

The reality is that their "national" schedule is an NBC creation.  For most of their history, yes, they did play USC, but most of their schedule was Chicago to Boston.

In the 70s when conferences upped their number of conference games, they added independents Air Force, Georgia Tech and Miami as regulars.  But they still normally had 6 or 7 games in their "conference' from Chicago to Boston.

[cactusflinthead 27601]

On 8/2/2022 at 7:34 PM, 'stache said:

You negged multiple posts of mine for proposing realignment scenarios that left out BYU. You can literally go fuck your own face you hypocritical sack of monkey shit.

I'll keep repping him simply because he annoys Rex. 

[bullet 1597]

5 hours ago, statsman said:

I enjoy supposition about ESPN greasing the skids for an early exit from the B12. I just don’t buy any I have seen yet. ESPN is paying for B12 content that includes Texas and OU. That is a deal they are happy with. I don’t see them surrendering something of value without getting value in return. 
Similarly, I don’t see any network making active moves that freeze Oregon out. Nike is just too big of an advertiser. The networks may answer questions about values of reconfigurations, but I don’t see them initiating any.

I think a B12 collapse is the best way to a quicker exit, and that looks unlikely. Perhaps adding PAC teams to the B12 could help…maybe Texas and OU could argue in court that they never agreed to any of this. All of the other avenues to an exit, caused by realignment, seem like wishful thinking.

 

I think we move in 2024.  That's when ESPN gets the CBS SEC game of the week.

Although with this Big 10 deal, CBS is committed to two 2:30 games for the 2023 season.  Maybe the change happens a year early.  But I doubt it.  CBS will want  lot as they are making a ton on the SEC.

[bullet 1597]

3 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

But its $30m in one revenue stream, media rights.   It's the largest chunk, but not the only chunk.   Texas made $200m in revenue in 2020 and $82m of that was rights/licensing and it pretty much paid for all the salaries and scholarships for the entire AD.   Still a lot left over.

First, $75m is much, much closer to the Big Ten's deal at $1.2b.   When they say $100m, that's in the middle of the contact.   A bump from $1.2b to $1.5b would start that contract around $85m.    ND's deal would escalate too, they all do on a 4% inflation factor yearly.  So $75m today gets them to $85m in the middle of the contract.   You're really talking about a 15% difference overall.

Second, while it is for all of the media rights for every Big Ten team in every sport, it is only the rights for ND football.   ND get's paid $12m currently by the ACC for its Olympic sports and basketball.  $75m + $12m = $87m, which will be $98m in the middle of the contract.   Now it's only a 2% difference.

I also don't see where NBC would pay the Big Ten $24m per game to shoulder their ND "A" game, but pay ND $10m per game.  If ND was paid what the Big Ten's deal is rumored to be paid, they'd be making $190M from NBC.    The math is funky at this point.

Lastly, they get their own share from the playoffs that they don't need to share.  It's a sizable chunk of change too.   And it's likely key to this to be honest, not money.   If ND has access to the post season and is "in the ballpark" financially, why move?     Only reasons I can see are:

• Losing independent access to the playoffs
• Losing longtime rival scheduling due to increased conference games (The Big Ten moving to 10 conference games would put 80 games to market)
• Being offered a special deal, and a lot more to stay; E.g Big Ten buys out ACC content, Stanford joins and ND always plays a game yearly in Cali, keeps their Big Ten ones, gets Penn State in Philly/Rutgers in Giants Stadium/Maryland at FedEx, all of their games, home or away, are on NBC at 3:30, and their remaining non-con schedule becomes neutral site games against Army/Navy, etc.

I just cannot see them joining the Big Ten AND being no different than Iowa or Purdue.    

I think they probably don't join until the ACC raids of the 2030s.  But I think its inevitable for the same reasons Texas and OU had to join the SEC.  There is a power 2 and ND just won't be able to keep up in recruiting and otherwise unless they are in it.  They won't have a say in the major decisions about how NIL, pay for play and the like get structured.  And for all practical purposes Warren and Sankey will sit down and decide the CFP, just as Delaney and Slive did the original 4 team one.

[statsman 5477]

The Big XII new members join in July 2023. If there was ever a time for sovereign immunity, wouldn’t it be for a state campus to say, “We never agreed to host that school or visit that school. Accept them into the conference, if you want, but don’t put them on our schedule”. 

['stache 21858]

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

I'll keep repping him simply because he annoys Rex. 

I honestly don't give a shit, I was just shocked to see him bitch about someone negging him when he had been negging all over the place before. Fucking coward and hypocrit. For the record I didn't neg anyone and I almost never neg. I think I participated in some baylor fatwa negging and get a little riled up here and there but it's rare.

[Huckleberry 33083]

43 minutes ago, statsman said:

The Big XII new members join in July 2023. If there was ever a time for sovereign immunity, wouldn’t it be for a state campus to say, “We never agreed to host that school or visit that school. Accept them into the conference, if you want, but don’t put them on our schedule”. 

If we want to play that card then okay, but this logic doesn't hold. We voted to admit those teams to the Big 12 on a timeline before we would leave (at least according to public statements). Their admission was unanimous. 

[statsman 5477]

Buck, my post was based on the assumption that UT and OU sat out the vote (or were held out of it after notifying the conference of an intention to vote “no”). If that assumption is wrong, then forget my suggestion 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I honestly don't give a shit, I was just shocked to see him bitch about someone negging him when he had been negging all over the place before. Fucking coward and hypocrit. For the record I didn't neg anyone and I almost never neg. I think I participated in some baylor fatwa negging and get a little riled up here and there but it's rare.

Rex followed him to get all of his posts. So I did the same. He kept the negs he earned, but that kinda necro negging pisses me off. All I did was cover up Rex bullshit negs. 

[utee94 15860]

8 minutes ago, statsman said:

Buck, my post was based on the assumption that UT and OU sat out the vote (or were held out of it after notifying the conference of an intention to vote “no”). If that assumption is wrong, then forget my suggestion 

Right, I didn't think UT and OU were allowed to vote after serving notice.  But I don't recall for sure.

[BurntOrange&White 39996]

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Right, I didn't think UT and OU were allowed to vote after serving notice.  But I don't recall for sure.

My shitty memory says we sat out of the vote.

[Texas Wahoo 3412]

31 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

If we want to play that card then okay, but this logic doesn't hold. We voted to admit those teams to the Big 12 on a timeline before we would leave (at least according to public statements). Their admission was unanimous. 

The Big 12's statement says that it "was approved unanimously by the eight continuing members."

[Huckleberry 33083]

That makes sense, I probably got it confused with the approve public statements Texas made after the additions. 

[statsman 5477]

If so, maybe it can be part of a negotiation for exit- “Here’s a cash offer. If you don’t accept it, understand this- there is no fucking way we’re playing the Houston Cougars, the Cincinnati Cougars, the UCF Cougars or the BYU Cougars. The damned Bears are bad enough.”

Edited August 11, 2022 by statsman

[pops 7006]

2 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

Rex followed him to get all of his posts. So I did the same. He kept the negs he earned, but that kinda necro negging pisses me off. All I did was cover up Rex bullshit negs. 

Don't tell me. Window cougar got fatwa'd again?   I don't know why anyone even engages with that cunt. He'll be back. And he will have multiple accounts and have conversations with himself and pos rep himself,  then go on a crazy neg spree, then get fatwa'd again... rinse and repeat. 

[notre dame joe 195]

3 hours ago, bullet said:

The reality is that their "national" schedule is an NBC creation.  For most of their history, yes, they did play USC, but most of their schedule was Chicago to Boston.

In the 70s when conferences upped their number of conference games, they added independents Air Force, Georgia Tech and Miami as regulars.  But they still normally had 6 or 7 games in their "conference' from Chicago to Boston.

Because there were fewer schools to the West connected by rail?  It took about 3 days to ride to Southern Cal and they only stopped for one practice in Arizona. 

 

And the existing Western schools had some problems in the area of media coverage, gate share, and jackanapes.

[derpyhorndog 2572]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

If we want to play that card then okay, but this logic doesn't hold. We voted to admit those teams to the Big 12 on a timeline before we would leave (at least according to public statements). Their admission was unanimous. 

Per the B12, it was unanimously approved by the eight remaining members. If UT and OU both voted yes, why not just say unanimously approved?

Their careful phrasing is a very strong indication that UT/OU either voted no or were blocked from the vote, IMO. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by derpyhorndog

[bullet 1597]

3 minutes ago, derpyhorndog said:

Per the B12, it was unanimously approved by the eight remaining members. If UT and OU both voted yes, why not just say unanimously approved?

Their careful phrasing is a very strong indication that UT/OU either voted no or were blocked from the vote, IMO. 

I have a vague recollection of UT and OU deciding not to attend that meeting.  So it never came down to whether they had a vote or not.

['stache 21858]

2 minutes ago, derpyhorndog said:

Per the B12, it was unanimously approved by the eight remaining members. If UT and OU both voted yes, why not just say unanimously approved?

Their careful phrasing is a very strong indication that UT/OU either voted no or were blocked from the vote, IMO. 

Pretty sure every conferences' by laws say that once teams announce they are leaving they do not get to vote on conference matters. Makes sense to me, there's no incentive for departing teams to act in the best interest of the remaining teams, and there is in fact incentive to make things harder on them in some situations.

[derpyhorndog 2572]

16 minutes ago, bullet said:

I have a vague recollection of UT and OU deciding not to attend that meeting.  So it never came down to whether they had a vote or not.

If that's the case, the point I was making remains. That, whatever the circumstance may have been, UT/OU did not vote in favor of admitting the G5 adds, so that would not be a basis of conflict for UT/OU now taking the position that they did not agree to host or visit those schools once they're on the 2023+ schedules. 

[Trojan Man 429]

"We didn't vote for it so we're exempt from it" is a pretty flawed argument.  USC and UCLA consistently voted against equal revenue shares (the only Pac schools to do so) but they still had to participate in equal revenue sharing because the rest of the conference unanimously voted for it.  As for playing those 4 teams specifically, I recall recent home and homes between Oklahoma/Houston and Texas/BYU so it's not like they brought in FCS or CUSA nobodies that your teams would never dream of scheduling for anything besides a cupcake game.

[FartingDreamer 138]

35 minutes ago, derpyhorndog said:

If that's the case, the point I was making remains. That, whatever the circumstance may have been, UT/OU did not vote in favor of admitting the G5 adds, so that would not be a basis of conflict for UT/OU now taking the position that they did not agree to host or visit those schools once they're on the 2023+ schedules. 

But they agreed to the provision that states that departing members forfeit their vote, hence they couldn't have objected to the additions.  

[derpyhorndog 2572]

12 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

"We didn't vote for it so we're exempt from it" is a pretty flawed argument.  USC and UCLA consistently voted against equal revenue shares (the only Pac schools to do so) but they still had to participate in equal revenue sharing because the rest of the conference unanimously voted for it.  As for playing those 4 teams specifically, I recall recent home and homes between Oklahoma/Houston and Texas/BYU so it's not like they brought in FCS or CUSA nobodies that your teams would never dream of scheduling for anything besides a cupcake game.

Think you're missing the point @statsman was trying to make but, regardless, think it's a moot point because on further review of the bylaws it looks like UT/OU doing what was suggested in his hypo would increase the amount of any exit buyout. Specifically, I would have to think them declining to play any scheduled game would result in "the Conference’s telecast partners [being] unable to produce and telecast games of [UT or OU] during the then-remaining term of the Grant of Rights Agreement or the Conference is unable to realize the revenues relating to those games from its telecast partners."

[Hurtlocker 2213]

6 hours ago, derpyhorndog said:

Just reviewed the B12 bylaws and public announcements around the vote approving Cincinnati, UH, BYU and UCF as new members.

Interestingly, UT and OU don't have any veto right over admission of any new B12 members. That is, even together, they don't have the votes to block admitting members. Which is unfortunate because, if they did, they might have been able to leverage it during the G5 raid (or any future P12 raid) to get a better exit deal.

Unless you're interested in the legal minutiae, feel free to stop reading at this point. 

In this B12 statement, it was announced that admission of the G5 teams was "unanimously approved by the eight continuing members" under Section 1.5.2.b.3 of the B12 bylaws. That Section requires approval of a "Supermajority of Disinterested Directors," meaning 75% of the Board of Directors (on which each member has one rep). 

Assuming all 10 member schools were considered "disinterested" with respect to the G5 admission vote, that means 8 votes required (i.e., no UT/OU vote needed). And, going forward, approving the approving admission of any additional members (e.g., P12 schools) would require 11/14 — again, no UT/OU vote needed.

So, the only scenario where I see the possibility of UT/OU leveraging their votes to get a better exit would one where the B12 wants to add additional member(s) and at least two of the Irate Eight schools have been poached by another conference (such that they would be willing to vote with UT/OU in vetoing the new members). Obviously an extremely unlikely scenario.

Finally, even if that scenario existed, it could be further complicated if the remaining B12 members took the position that UT/OU and their defector friends were "interested" in the admissions vote (basically, they have a unique interest that would cloud their objectivity in voting) such that they would be blocked from voting. I actually expect that this might have already happened to UT/OU in the G5 vote given the careful wording of the B12 statement mentioned above.

Yeah, the moment the announcement of the move was made all voting rights were negated.    It was added after realignment on the basis that you can't say you're leaving and have a vote on how it is run.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Hurtlocker

[Lidig8r 1874]

So, a question for those who have been following expansion closely...

In 2016, the California legislature passed a law  banning state funded travel to states with anti-LBGTQ policies.  The law has some exceptions, none of which appear to be applicable to athletic endeavors.

That list initially was only four (4) states. It is now 22 states. Including three (3) states with Big 10 teams, Ioway, Ohio, Indiana.

UCLA is a public university thus subject to that law. So, presumably, travel and expenses for games against the U of Ioway, Indiana U, Purdon't U and THE Ohio State will not be covered. The one off football game is one thing. Private funds have been raised and utilized for that purpose.

But, now you're looking at about 17 different sports teams at UCLA whose travel will be impacted. Does private funding absorb these costs?

Any thoughts or should I go back to yelling at the damned kids to get off my sun scorched lawn?

[Chopper 17245]

7 hours ago, derpyhorndog said:

Interestingly, UT and OU don't have any veto right over admission of any new B12 members. That is, even together, they don't have the votes to block admitting members. Which is unfortunate because, if they did, they might have been able to leverage it during the G5 raid (or any future P12 raid) to get a better exit deal.

 

It's not Texas or Ou that needs or has leverage. It's ESPN. They're not going to let Fox go unchallenged as the best, new conference in 2024. ESPN not taking part in the new B10 contract and B10 tying up not only Fox but CBS and NBC as well gives Bristol all the leverage or incentive over the b12's future media.

[Deej 76903]

1 hour ago, Chopper said:

It's not Texas or Ou that needs or has leverage. It's ESPN. They're not going to let Fox go unchallenged as the best, new conference in 2024. ESPN not taking part in the new B10 contract and B10 tying up not only Fox but CBS and NBC as well gives Bristol all the leverage or incentive over the b12's future media.

ESPN: "If we brought back 'Body Shaping' with Kiana, it might beat the ratings for Big12 football."

Edited August 12, 2022 by Deej

[DFW Horn 6191]

3 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

As for playing those 4 teams specifically, I recall recent home and homes between Oklahoma/Houston and Texas/BYU so it's not like they brought in FCS or CUSA nobodies that your teams would never dream of scheduling for anything besides a cupcake game.

Hell, all 4 could beat last year's shit-show Longhorns. Maybe they still can. FML

[Hurtlocker 2213]

2 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

So, a question for those who have been following expansion closely...

In 2016, the California legislature passed a law  banning state funded travel to states with anti-LBGTQ policies.  The law has some exceptions, none of which appear to be applicable to athletic endeavors.

That list initially was only four (4) states. It is now 22 states. Including three (3) states with Big 10 teams, Ioway, Ohio, Indiana.

UCLA is a public university thus subject to that law. So, presumably, travel and expenses for games against the U of Ioway, Indiana U, Purdon't U and THE Ohio State will not be covered. The one off football game is one thing. Private funds have been raised and utilized for that purpose.

But, now you're looking at about 17 different sports teams at UCLA whose travel will be impacted. Does private funding absorb these costs?

Any thoughts or should I go back to yelling at the damned kids to get off my sun scorched lawn?

I think it relates to employees of state agencies, which student athletes are not, yet.   Arizona was a part of this as well and didn't seem to affect UCLA or Cal.

[notre dame joe 195]

5 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

So, a question for those who have been following expansion closely...

In 2016, the California legislature passed a law  banning state funded travel to states with anti-LBGTQ policies.  The law has some exceptions, none of which appear to be applicable to athletic endeavors.

That list initially was only four (4) states. It is now 22 states. Including three (3) states with Big 10 teams, Ioway, Ohio, Indiana.

UCLA is a public university thus subject to that law. So, presumably, travel and expenses for games against the U of Ioway, Indiana U, Purdon't U and THE Ohio State will not be covered. The one off football game is one thing. Private funds have been raised and utilized for that purpose.

But, now you're looking at about 17 different sports teams at UCLA whose travel will be impacted. Does private funding absorb these costs?

Any thoughts or should I go back to yelling at the damned kids to get off my sun scorched lawn?

Since 2016 we have seen so many exceptions that it is hardly seems to be a rule. 

[statsman 5477]

15 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

But they agreed to the provision that states that departing members forfeit their vote, hence they couldn't have objected to the additions.  

So, you think The University of Texas and OU have no agency anymore, with respect to conference actions? Can the Big XII decide that UT and OU only play road games? Can it decide that all their home basketball games will be on weeknights? 
I think the schools have more leverage here than you think. There is something called sovereign immunity.

UT wants to play ball and get along. 
UT doesn’t want to be taken for a ride (example- UH would love to hoot and holler over Texas being forced to give them a game. That will piss Texas off to no end). 
UT has a shit ton of lawyers. 

BigXII better be careful. 

[Texzilla58 4744]

Since 2016 we have seen so many exceptions that it is hardly seems to be a rule. 

Regardless of legislation and exemptions, the folks running the coastal schools, with the exception of maybe Stanford, regard Texas and Florida as the great Satan, and would not be in a conference with Baylor or schools in Texas. XII needs to just grab the four corners and move on.

[BurntOrange&White 39996]

Talk of espn potentially buying the remaining rights of the sec from cbs

[Hurtlocker 2213]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

So, you think The University of Texas and OU have no agency anymore, with respect to conference actions? Can the Big XII decide that UT and OU only play road games? Can it decide that all their home basketball games will be on weeknights? 
I think the schools have more leverage here than you think. There is something called sovereign immunity.

UT wants to play ball and get along. 
UT doesn’t want to be taken for a ride (example- UH would love to hoot and holler over Texas being forced to give them a game. That will piss Texas off to no end). 
UT has a shit ton of lawyers. 

BigXII better be careful. 

No, they'd still schedule like normal, outside the mix includes 4 other schools.   Sovereign immunity doesn't really apply, that's more about being sued.   

I don't anticipate a lot of changes outside that.   Why would they "punish" Texas by playing at Houston?   Like Oklahoma State and Iowa State don't want those last few games?   It will be random, so no one is pissed off.   And they're not going to go crazy on the all road games crap because of student athletes.

The only real changes are; 

• Can't vote on conference matters because of leaving
• Rights are owed until 2025 
• Two year revenue buyout, which likely means last two years of revenue withheld. (2023, 2024 at this point)

Reminder, anything can be negotiated and I'd expect the Big 12 to sweeten its deal with ESPN ahead of the Pac 12, by offering to give ESPN the rights to Texas and OU in 2023 or 2024, depending on if ESPN buys out CBS or not.   They don't need the content early, they already have the rights to Texas and OU via the Big 12.

[closetohumping 17461]

32 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Talk of espn potentially buying the remaining rights of the sec from cbs

Which could help accelerate our exit