Realignment talk not going away

[GotThatFire 166]

I'm ready for Texas to realign. Fuck it. Big 12 is tired

[Zavala 1,384]

4 hours ago, kopp0e said:

Yes please.

No more Baylor.

[kopp0e 1,135]

5 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

one needs to look at other issues as well

here are how P5 academic side subsidies look in FY 2017-18

Rutgers $29,980,791

ASU $20,611,739

UVA $16,571,993

Maryland $14,695,924

AU $12,463,914

Utah $12,374,118

CU $12,338,945

Oregon State $9,763,192   

so 5 of the top 7 academic side subsidies are in the PAC 12

after that you have to go through 11 other P5 programs (mostly ACC a couple of Big 10 an SEC and WSU) before you get to the first Big 12 school WVU with $4 million

so the PAC 12 is running high academic side subsidies in a large % of their programs 

annual deficits

in that same FY

ASU ran a $13 million dollar deficit AFTER those academic side subsidies

AU $7.5

Oregon State $8

WSU $8.5

Cal $19

CU and UCLA broke even

for the Big 12 no program had a deficit and ISU broke even and OkState was under $1 million in profits

with debt loads

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-04/college-football-s-top-teams-are-built-on-crippling-debt

30% of the top 10 are PAC 12 and they are not the "top earners" (WTF Bellmont by the way) and as another graph shows only Tech in the Big 12 is the one with high debt and they have acknowledged that, paid cash for current projects and they have already paid down some of that with improved mens BB revenues

one can see how those debt services hit the PAC 12 here

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/24/college-hotline-pac-12-schools-project-massive-fy17-debt-service-payments-were-talking-nine-figures-folks/

Oregon: $19.1 million
Cal: $18.7 million
Washington: $16.2 million
Colorado: $14.8 million
Washington State: $9.2 million
Oregon State: $8.7 million
Arizona: $8 million
Utah: $4.6 million
Arizona State: $4.2 million
UCLA: $3 million

https://www.lubbockonline.com/article/20150613/SPORTS/306139867

one can see similar for the Big 12 here...true from two years earlier, but most Big 12 teams have not taken on a lot more debt in that time period

Texas, $18,000,000

Texas Tech, $12,280,585

Oklahoma, $9,000,000

Baylor, $8,281,863

Iowa State, $6,836,812

Kansas State, $6,289,460

Oklahoma State, $4,435,508

West Virginia, $4,400,000

Kansas, $3,482,167

TCU, $3,473,524

so of the 10 public PAC 12 schools and all 10 Big 12 teams basically 7 (70%) of the Big 12 has a smaller (or about the same) debt service annually as 7 PAC 12 teams

so the PAC 12 is lowest in TV revenues, far and away the leader in academic side subsidies, still has a large number of programs running an annual deficit, they have some of the highest debt total and annual debt service,and they have some of the lowest total revenue teams (even with academic subsidies counted) in all of P5

that is not a conference that should believe they can pull members from other conferences and that is not a conference filled with members that should count on "history" keeping their top programs around to watch it all break down further

 

Good post, Texas & Oklahoma/ USC & UCLA, (then Washington-Oregon & Colorado-Kansas), are solid brands...

But, the lesser brands of XII operate the more solvent athletic department, having stronger ties to ESPN (LHN & ESPN+) helps far more than an independent PACN that has woefully underperforming revenue & product placement...

Thus, the reason USC is saying this year: " everything is on the table" (including joining a new conference), meanwhile last year UCLA power booster went public stating: "not to renew with next PAC GoR's deal", no wonder PAC could not get a PACN equity deal... It seems the power brokers wouldn't have signed off on the sale, thus XII may actually have a chance to add power 5 brands far better than any option back in 2015 (UCF & BYU)...

[LTbear 4,171]

10 hours ago, utee94 said:

The B12 isn't USC's only option.  If they'd consider traveling to far-flung options in Texas and the plains states, then they'd likely consider traveling to far-flung options in the midwest as well.  And they're an AAU university.

USC to B1G talk not going away.

That thought has crossed my mind. With the long relationship/ mutual respect the B1G and PAC have, perhaps 4-6 PAC teams see if they can become the western arm of a B1G PAC conference. The four Cali schools, UO, and UW perhaps.

 

But I doubt anything happens and bet USC is just trying to lay the groundwork for pressuring the PAC into maybe giving them a bigger piece of the TV pie. 

[Thiefery 5,017]

9 minutes ago, LTbear said:

That thought has crossed my mind. With the long relationship/ mutual respect the B1G and PAC have, perhaps 4-6 PAC teams see if they can become the western arm of a B1G PAC conference. The four Cali schools, UO, and UW perhaps.

 

But I doubt anything happens and bet USC is just trying to lay the groundwork for pressuring the PAC into maybe giving them a bigger piece of the TV pie. 

This will always work long term.. from experience of course.

[tonedeaf 56]

I'm just ready to separate from baylor. 

[nnm 36,529]

^^^the only valid models, the only ones that should be considered, are those which jettison Baylor. 

[hiphopfroggy 121]

13 hours ago, utee94 said:

The B12 isn't USC's only option.  If they'd consider traveling to far-flung options in Texas and the plains states, then they'd likely consider traveling to far-flung options in the midwest as well.  And they're an AAU university.

USC to B1G talk not going away.

If the new league were divided by former Pac schools in one div and former Big12 schools in the other, then USC isn't having to travel to far-flung locations anymore than they do now.

 

WVU, to the ACC, Baylor dropped.

 

On Pac side Oregon st and Washington st dropped, one of Arizona st/Utah/Colorado gets the last spot.

[hiphopfroggy 121]

2 hours ago, LTbear said:

That thought has crossed my mind. With the long relationship/ mutual respect the B1G and PAC have, perhaps 4-6 PAC teams see if they can become the western arm of a B1G PAC conference. The four Cali schools, UO, and UW perhaps.

 

But I doubt anything happens and bet USC is just trying to lay the groundwork for pressuring the PAC into maybe giving them a bigger piece of the TV pie. 

It doesn't seem like there is anymore $ to be squeezed from the Pac. I mean where is this extra $ going to come from?  Is the plan to just milk Washington st and Oregon st? I know they tried to sell part of their network for a cash injection but it seems that didn't happen, or are they still holding out hope there?

[LTbear 4,171]

27 minutes ago, hiphopfroggy said:

It doesn't seem like there is anymore $ to be squeezed from the Pac. I mean where is this extra $ going to come from?  Is the plan to just milk Washington st and Oregon st? I know they tried to sell part of their network for a cash injection but it seems that didn't happen, or are they still holding out hope there?

I meant going to unequal revenue distributions, giving USC a bigger slice, not necessarily creating new revenue out of the blue. 

[ButtFumble 5,183]

the PAC 12 had uneven revenues in the past just like the Big 12 people always seem to forget that facr

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/pac-12/pac-10-continues-to-wrestle-with-football-realignment-revenue-sharing-questions/

The back story there is that the Pac-10 has a dramatically uneven split in parceling out its TV revenue, while the Big Ten, ACC and Big East share it equally, and the SEC comes close.

https://www.foxsports.com/other/story/tv-deals-will-determine-success-of-pac-10-expansion-061710

Scott said the conference has explored the possibility of a network with different teams and different numbers of teams. It hired the Creative Arts Agency to help determine how much money it can make under different plans. The Pac-10 pays out the least of any of the six BCS conferences, with the latest figures showing Stanford getting less than $7 million and Southern California receiving about $11.5 million.

also USC and UCLA demanded to get paid a particular amount or get a bonus from the others even with the new TV deal

https://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=5711336

USC and UCLA got some protection as both schools will get a $2 million bonus if the conference media revenues fall below $170 million. The conference currently generates about $60 million a year in television revenues, but that is expected to rise significantly when a new television deal is negotiated.

 

the above is similar to aggy demanding $20 million from the Big 12 and threatening to sue if they did not get it (while saying they were firmly in the Big 12 for the long term)....other members of the Big 12 had offered Texas, OU, and aggy unequal shares of the exit fees from NU and CU and Texas and OU declined to take them while aggy threaten to sue to get them.....but remember "aggy was always about equality" 🤣

 

[S11 16]

I meant going to unequal revenue distributions, giving USC a bigger slice, not necessarily creating new revenue out of the blue. 

Basically USC doing to the PAC what Boise did to the MWC revenue plan.

[Iceman 2,724]

2 hours ago, tonedeaf said:

I'm just ready to separate from baylor. 

That gets said a lot...

[LTbear 4,171]

5 minutes ago, S11 said:

Basically USC doing to the PAC what Boise did to the MWC revenue plan.

Yes

[Thiefery 5,017]

If a hypothetical merger does come to fruition.. Will LA be the new power of this conference?  Meaning ou leaves?

[TrashMaster G 17,583]

18 minutes ago, Iceman said:

That gets said a lot...

It does.  And for good reason.

[hiphopfroggy 121]

1 hour ago, LTbear said:

I meant going to unequal revenue distributions, giving USC a bigger slice, not necessarily creating new revenue out of the blue. 

So if the pie stays the same, for USC to get more someone has to get less right?

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

1 hour ago, S11 said:

Basically USC doing to the PAC what Boise did to the MWC revenue plan.

I blame Texas!!!

[kopp0e 1,135]

2 hours ago, Thiefery said:

If a hypothetical merger does come to fruition.. Will LA be the new power of this conference?  Meaning ou leaves?

Why would Oklahoma leave if the conference has Texas/ Kansas/ Colorado/ Arizona/ USC & UCLA..?

[LTbear 4,171]

1 hour ago, hiphopfroggy said:

So if the pie stays the same, for USC to get more someone has to get less right?

Your mathematical skills are truly incredible

[hiphopfroggy 121]

3 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Your mathematical skills are truly incredible

Please explain it to me 

[LTbear 4,171]

25 minutes ago, hiphopfroggy said:

Please explain it to me 

To be clear I'm only spit-balling. My completely out-of-my-ass opinion is USC doesn't want to leave the PAC unless they really have no other option, and them talking about all options being on the table are just to 1) apply more heat to Scott & Co. to figure shit out and 2) setup future convos where, if revenue increases seem to be only marginal, they make the case their value to the conference warrants them getting a bigger share than WSU, OSU, etc. 

[kopp0e 1,135]

I think USC may be looking for something more drastic, than just a "bigger slice" of a (current) $31 million dollar pie:

 

Another key note may be in who UCLA looks to hire to fill the athletic director vacancy (any saber-rattling afterwards)...

 

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by kopp0e

[closetohumping 17,456]

19 hours ago, S11 said:

Basically USC doing to the PAC what Boise did to the MWC revenue plan.

I think if Scott had allowed deloss to keep the network we’d be in the pac

[nineliveslost 2,794]

10 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I think if Scott had allowed deloss to keep the network we’d be in the pac

i dont have the link , but Scott is on record saying he had a plan for LHN within the PAC TV deal. said it wasn't a sticking point

[Lidig8r 1,874]

13 hours ago, kopp0e said:

I think USC may be looking for something more drastic, than just a "bigger slice" of a (current) $31 million dollar pie:

 

Look at all those USC fans disguising themselves as empty seats.

 

 

[hiphopfroggy 121]

18 hours ago, LTbear said:

To be clear I'm only spit-balling. My completely out-of-my-ass opinion is USC doesn't want to leave the PAC unless they really have no other option, and them talking about all options being on the table are just to 1) apply more heat to Scott & Co. to figure shit out and 2) setup future convos where, if revenue increases seem to be only marginal, they make the case their value to the conference warrants them getting a bigger share than WSU, OSU, etc. 

Thats one salty spitball 

 

 

 

 

 

[notre dame joe 192]

SC needs a reminder as to why the capital of Cali is nowhere near LA.

[XOVERX 5]

This discussion of USC to the B12 reminds me of the B12 courting ND before ND affiliated with the ACC.

My guess is that if USC goes anywhere out of the PAC, USC will go to a stable league, which the B12 certainly is not.

If it leaves the PAC, my guess is USC will probably pull other PAC members and go B1G, IMO. To me, this is self-evident.

The B1G and the SEC are the only harbors of safety. The B12, not so much.

[Al_4_ISU 12,475]

3 hours ago, XOVERX said:

This discussion of USC to the B12 reminds me of the B12 courting ND before ND affiliated with the ACC.

My guess is that if USC goes anywhere out of the PAC, USC will go to a stable league, which the B12 certainly is not.

If it leaves the PAC, my guess is USC will probably pull other PAC members and go B1G, IMO. To me, this is self-evident.

The B1G and the SEC are the only harbors of safety. The B12, not so much.

If USC joined the Big 12, there's no way any current school would entertain leaving.

There are brands that don't need safety, because they will always have a home.  USC is one.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Al_4_ISU

[Big Frog II 511]

Of course if USC dmands a bigger piece of the TV pie, it could send Arizona, ASU, and/or Colorado looking towards the Big 12.

[Houtexjhawk 7]

Wouldn’t a more likely scenario be that since both the GOR for both conferences end at about the same time in a couple of years,  UT, OU and USC and any other power broker in the Pac-12 get together with ESPN or Fox or Amazon, or whoever, and determine whether or not there is value in a Western Conference.   The assumption that the Big 12 remains stable if a USC or some other power programs wants to join is not necessary a correct one.  

[tonedeaf 56]

6 hours ago, Houtexjhawk said:

Wouldn’t a more likely scenario be that since both the GOR for both conferences end at about the same time in a couple of years,  UT, OU and USC and any other power broker in the Pac-12 get together with ESPN or Fox or Amazon, or whoever, and determine whether or not there is value in a Western Conference.   The assumption that the Big 12 remains stable if a USC or some other power programs wants to join is not necessary a correct one.  

As long as baylor is out. 

[ButtFumble 5,183]

7 hours ago, Houtexjhawk said:

Wouldn’t a more likely scenario be that since both the GOR for both conferences end at about the same time in a couple of years,  UT, OU and USC and any other power broker in the Pac-12 get together with ESPN or Fox or Amazon, or whoever, and determine whether or not there is value in a Western Conference.   The assumption that the Big 12 remains stable if a USC or some other power programs wants to join is not necessary a correct one.  

people always want to forget this or pretend that it is a non-factor, but the GOR does not have an exit fee and that is by design

but what does have an exit fee is the Big 12 Contract For Conference Membership that goes for 99 years and was put in place in Sept. of 2012

the exit fee for leaving the Big 12 is an amount equal to the last two years of conference distributions which would be about $90 million per year ($45 million per year) per team leaving the conference

there is no "two year notice" anywhere in that contract and one needs to keep in mind that 8 of the 10 members of the Big 12 have been a party to upholding and collecting damages under a similar contract two times from four different teams

I am not sure what the exit fee was under the contract prior to the one signed in 2012, but NU and CU paid about $10 million each and aggy and MU paid about $12 to $15 if I recall

those amounts are slightly above what the conference payout would have been in for one year at that time

also TCU and WVU have both been a party to paying under a similar agreement so there is no program in the Big 12 that could make a reasonable argument that an exit fee should not apply to them especially the eight teams that were in the conference for the entire time

since that time Maryland which was under an exit fee of $25 million (they had already informed the conference they were leaving prior to the exit fee being raised to $50 million) paid out over $30 million to leave the ACC.....so again teams are paying these exit fees and paying large amounts

there is a chance that negotiations could take place and get it lowered to 1 year of distributions (which would be about $47 million in the final year of the current contract), but the conference will be holding 100% of that final years distribution and thus to have a chance to get any of it back a team leaving the conference would have to be the one to sue if the conference decided to not go after two years distributions

$47 to $90 million is a lot of money and makes it much harder to break even over the long term moving to another conference

there is also a provision in the Big 12 contract that requires a notification to the conference and a WRITTEN LETTER OF DECLINE for any member that is contacted by ANYONE about leaving the conference and that notification and written decline of interest has to happen in (I believe 12 hours) from any contact

that provision does not allow for any "back door talks" or "third parties contacting others about possible interest" or any shit like that

what that provision does is it opens up parties to tampering and enticement which can result in greatly increased damages if it is determined the contract was broken

so again the conference contract for membership is for 99 years, the exit fees are without regard the existence of a GOR or a media contract and it is PRIOR two years worth of distributions and the conference will be holding on to one years worth no matter what......and the 12 hour notification clause amps up the possible damages for any programs that are out there trying to work a deal without informing the conference......it also opens up media partners to enticement and other damages if those parties are a part of any negotiations to leave the Big 12 since those media partners all have contracts with other conferences and they know full well of the Big 12 Contract For Conference Membership and what is contains

[kopp0e 1,135]

On 2/29/2020 at 2:53 AM, XOVERX said:

This discussion of USC to the B12 reminds me of the B12 courting ND before ND affiliated with the ACC.

My guess is that if USC goes anywhere out of the PAC, USC will go to a stable league, which the B12 certainly is not.

If it leaves the PAC, my guess is USC will probably pull other PAC members and go B1G, IMO. To me, this is self-evident.

The B1G and the SEC are the only harbors of safety. The B12, not so much.

Disney has far more revenue(s) streams to offer Oklahoma/ Texas (& potentially USC/ UCLA) lucrative media network contracts before 2025:
 

Quote

Interactive chart of historical net worth (market cap) for Fox (FOX) over the last 10 years. How much a company is worth is typically represented by its market capitalization, or the current stock price multiplied by the number of shares outstanding. Fox net worth as of February 28, 2020 is $18.81B.

 

Interactive chart of historical net worth (market cap) for Disney (DIS) over the last 10 years. How much a company is worth is typically represented by its market capitalization, or the current stock price multiplied by the number of shares outstanding. Disney net worth as of February 28, 2020 is $213.11B.

 

Edited March 1, 2020 by kopp0e

[tonedeaf 56]

20 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

people always want to forget this or pretend that it is a non-factor, but the GOR does not have an exit fee and that is by design

but what does have an exit fee is the Big 12 Contract For Conference Membership that goes for 99 years and was put in place in Sept. of 2012

the exit fee for leaving the Big 12 is an amount equal to the last two years of conference distributions which would be about $90 million per year ($45 million per year) per team leaving the conference

there is no "two year notice" anywhere in that contract and one needs to keep in mind that 8 of the 10 members of the Big 12 have been a party to upholding and collecting damages under a similar contract two times from four different teams

I am not sure what the exit fee was under the contract prior to the one signed in 2012, but NU and CU paid about $10 million each and aggy and MU paid about $12 to $15 if I recall

those amounts are slightly above what the conference payout would have been in for one year at that time

also TCU and WVU have both been a party to paying under a similar agreement so there is no program in the Big 12 that could make a reasonable argument that an exit fee should not apply to them especially the eight teams that were in the conference for the entire time

since that time Maryland which was under an exit fee of $25 million (they had already informed the conference they were leaving prior to the exit fee being raised to $50 million) paid out over $30 million to leave the ACC.....so again teams are paying these exit fees and paying large amounts

there is a chance that negotiations could take place and get it lowered to 1 year of distributions (which would be about $47 million in the final year of the current contract), but the conference will be holding 100% of that final years distribution and thus to have a chance to get any of it back a team leaving the conference would have to be the one to sue if the conference decided to not go after two years distributions

$47 to $90 million is a lot of money and makes it much harder to break even over the long term moving to another conference

there is also a provision in the Big 12 contract that requires a notification to the conference and a WRITTEN LETTER OF DECLINE for any member that is contacted by ANYONE about leaving the conference and that notification and written decline of interest has to happen in (I believe 12 hours) from any contact

that provision does not allow for any "back door talks" or "third parties contacting others about possible interest" or any shit like that

what that provision does is it opens up parties to tampering and enticement which can result in greatly increased damages if it is determined the contract was broken

so again the conference contract for membership is for 99 years, the exit fees are without regard the existence of a GOR or a media contract and it is PRIOR two years worth of distributions and the conference will be holding on to one years worth no matter what......and the 12 hour notification clause amps up the possible damages for any programs that are out there trying to work a deal without informing the conference......it also opens up media partners to enticement and other damages if those parties are a part of any negotiations to leave the Big 12 since those media partners all have contracts with other conferences and they know full well of the Big 12 Contract For Conference Membership and what is contains

Depressing, but OK.  So what would happen if the conference dissolves?  I am assuming that would be the only way anyone could leave and not have an exit fee.  What would it take for the conference to dissolve?  

[Thiefery 5,017]

15 minutes ago, tonedeaf said:

Depressing, but OK.  So what would happen if the conference dissolves?  I am assuming that would be the only way anyone could leave and not have an exit fee.  What would it take for the conference to dissolve?  

8/10 schools agreeing to dissolve?

 

[ButtFumble 5,183]

45 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

8/10 schools agreeing to dissolve?

 

this is correct it would take 8 out of 10

the major issues with that goes back to the 12 hour notification rule

even if you were to get in a situation where 2 to 4 schools thought they could 100% leave how do you convince 4 others that dissolving the conference is in their best interest or that they would find a home as good or better than the Big 12 (you don't)

the reality is the PAC 12 makes less money than the Big 12 and that is exclusive of any 3rd tier rights.....and now even if you look at just UT having meaningful 3rd tier rights you are looking at a PAC 12 with 2 additional teams over and above the Big 12 making less money plus the 3rd tier money for UT (and anyone else in the Big 12)

it makes zero sense that you would raise the pay to 12 teams (plus anyone else with UT) to make it worth it to UT when you can simply pay fewer teams in the Big 12....and you cannot make a reasoned argument that the PAC 12 with UT would be worth more than the Big 12 with UT because the Big 12 is being paid more now not including 3rd tier rights

then you get the argument about "well you would be ditching two and saving all that cash"

but again with the 12 hour rule how do you convince 8 teams (and media partners) to start those discussions "behind closed doors" when you are probably going to have at least 6 of those 8 teams concerned about not having a home and getting fucked over and then possibly being left in a Big 12 with two teams they tired to ditch that are suing the shit out of them for collusion and enticement (and of course according to the contract if you violate the 12 hour notice rule you also lose voting rights on conference business until things are cleared up)

plus it just makes no sense to try and move 8 teams from the Big 12 at a rate that would equal what the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC make or a rate that makes Ut whole with the LHN money included so that you can ditch two teams to "save all that money".......when the reality is the PAC 12 makes less money, is worth less money, and has more programs that are struggling financially and will continue to struggle financially in a market that is "late night" for media converge and with people that are not as excited by college sports especially football

it just seems to make no financial or contractual sense that you will get 8 teams in the Big 12 to make a major violation of a contract that could lead to 3X damages when at last 5 or 6 of them will have real concerns with getting fucked and left out

[XOVERX 5]

1 hour ago, Thiefery said:

8/10 schools agreeing to dissolve?

 

I think the relevant contract says 75% of the membership must vote to dissolve, so, in a 10-school league (versus the original 12), I think one can safely assume that 8 votes is the requirement today for dissolution.

It's been several years since I read the GOR and league contracts, but the information posted above by ButtFumble comports with my recollection, FWIW.

I vividly remember strong tampering provisions in the GOR, especially as same apply to member schools.

Still, as June 2025 approaches, the tampering provisions will become increasingly irrelevant.

Why? Waiver.

If the GOR does not become renegotiated in the 2023 to early 2025 timeframe, then there will be significant discussion about "what's the holdup?".

If the B12 renegotiates early, then Texas and Oklahoma almost certainly will have elected to stay in the B12 and try to make it reasonably financially competitive with the B1G and the SEC.

If B12 GOR negotiations drag into 2024, then into 2025, I feel reasonably certain that waiver will arise.

The tampering provisions will eventually become moot because it will be the bottom 8 schools - not necessarily Texas or Oklahoma - that will waive the tampering clause.

If there's no GOR renegotiation, it will be the TCUs, the ISUs, and this group of school admins that will be sweating it, publicly speculating about it, and thereby waiving the tampering clause, not Texas or Oklahoma.

We will know what's going on, no doubt, one way or another,  in the next few years.

We will also have the advantage of analyzing the B1G contract in 2023 and the PAC contract in 2024, which may contain interesting provisions about escalators, in the case of the B1G, and escape clauses, in the case of the PAC. So, there will external contextual information, too.

Edited March 1, 2020 by XOVERX
Long post.

[XOVERX 5]

It is interesting that a near universally recognized blueblood football school - Southern Cal - has so publicly disseminated its concerns - and in a way that tends to destabilize the PAC.

It might even eclipse Boren's "wallflower" comment from the days of yore, lol.

Edited March 1, 2020 by XOVERX

[gmr548 16,591]

WEST
Washington, Oregon, Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, ASU
EAST
Texas, TT, OU, OSU, Colorado, Kansas, Utah
 
14 teams and you lock up all the major TV markets west of the Mississippi and cover 3 time zones.  SC gives you the 1 private school that every conference needs.

There is a negative tree fiddy percent Stanford would be left out of any such arrangement.

[Somnio 751]

I'm still in a state of shocked disbelief everytime I ponder on the fact that the short lived, yet once mighty Big 12 lost the likes of Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, and TAMU, and replaced them with fucking TCU and West Virginia.

It's inexcusable that the powers that be let the Big 12 fall apart.  It was a great conference while it lasted.

It's really unbelievable that after the great exodus Texas and Oklahoma decided it was still in their best interest to stay in this pathetic excuse for a so-called power conference.

We should have said adios back in the 2012 timeframe when everyone else bolted.

Pac, SEC, B10, independent, whatever.  That was the time to make the move.

[ButtFumble 5,183]

3 hours ago, XOVERX said:

I think the relevant contract says 75% of the membership must vote to dissolve, so, in a 10-school league (versus the original 12), I think one can safely assume that 8 votes is the requirement today for dissolution.

It's been several years since I read the GOR and league contracts, but the information posted above by ButtFumble comports with my recollection, FWIW.

I vividly remember strong tampering provisions in the GOR, especially as same apply to member schools.

Still, as June 2025 approaches, the tampering provisions will become increasingly irrelevant.

Why? Waiver.

If the GOR does not become renegotiated in the 2023 to early 2025 timeframe, then there will be significant discussion about "what's the holdup?".

If the B12 renegotiates early, then Texas and Oklahoma almost certainly will have elected to stay in the B12 and try to make it reasonably financially competitive with the B1G and the SEC.

If B12 GOR negotiations drag into 2024, then into 2025, I feel reasonably certain that waiver will arise.

The tampering provisions will eventually become moot because it will be the bottom 8 schools - not necessarily Texas or Oklahoma - that will waive the tampering clause.

If there's no GOR renegotiation, it will be the TCUs, the ISUs, and this group of school admins that will be sweating it, publicly speculating about it, and thereby waiving the tampering clause, not Texas or Oklahoma.

We will know what's going on, no doubt, one way or another,  in the next few years.

We will also have the advantage of analyzing the B1G contract in 2023 and the PAC contract in 2024, which may contain interesting provisions about escalators, in the case of the B1G, and escape clauses, in the case of the PAC. So, there will external contextual information, too.

 

the GOR is not the same as the Contract For Conference Membership

they are two separate contracts

the GOR does end in the 24-25 FY, but the contract for conference membership is for 99 years from Sept. 2012

the GOR has no exit fees (be design) and no provision for leaving the conference with media rights (by design)

The Contract For Conference Membership does have an exit fee, and it does have the tampering clause, but it makes clear that even a program paying the exit fee does not get their media rights back until the end of the GOR

so there is not a case as you layout where the GOR comes close to ending and thus the tampering clause becomes less of a factor......because it is not in the GOR and it is in place for 99 years from Sept. 2012 as are the exit fees

[Somnio 751]

1 hour ago, ButtFumble said:

 

the GOR is not the same as the Contract For Conference Membership

they are two separate contracts

the GOR does end in the 24-25 FY, but the contract for conference membership is for 99 years from Sept. 2012

the GOR has no exit fees (be design) and no provision for leaving the conference with media rights (by design)

The Contract For Conference Membership does have an exit fee, and it does have the tampering clause, but it makes clear that even a program paying the exit fee does not get their media rights back until the end of the GOR

so there is not a case as you layout where the GOR comes close to ending and thus the tampering clause becomes less of a factor......because it is not in the GOR and it is in place for 99 years from Sept. 2012 as are the exit fees

And who in 2012 thought it was a good idea to sign this "Contract For Conference Membership" which binds us to this shit conference until the year 2111?

[ButtFumble 5,183]

2 hours ago, Somnio said:

And who in 2012 thought it was a good idea to sign this "Contract For Conference Membership" which binds us to this shit conference until the year 2111?

 

[ButtFumble 5,183]

for those that are curious here is the contract

it was signed in July of 2012 not Sept. as I previously stated so it was signed a couple of months before the current TV deals were signed

this is directly from the Big 12 website

https://static.big12sports.com/custompages/pdfs/handbook/bylaws.pdf

here are the relevant parts

1.2.3 Agreement to Membership. Each Member agrees with the Conference and with each of the other Members to remain a member of the Conference for ninety-nine (99) years beginning July 1, 2012.

SECTION 3WITHDRAWAL AND SANCTIONS

3.1

Withdrawal. Notwithstanding the commitment of each Member set forth in Section 1.2.3 above, a Member may only withdraw from the Conference, cease to be a member in the Conference, or otherwise fail to fully participate in the activities of the Conference in contravention of its commitment to remain a Member in the Conference for such ninety-nine (99) year period (“Withdraws” or “Withdrawal”) by fully complying with the provisions of these Bylaws and by paying the Buyout Amount (as defined below). Each Member acknowledges and agrees that the Withdrawal of a Member and the payment of the Buyout Amount and implementation of the provisions of these Bylaws does not abrogate the obligations of such Withdrawing Member (as defined below) pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Grant of Rights Agreement dated effective as of July 1, 2012, or any replacement or extension thereof or other agreement pursuant to which such Member grants the right to telecast some or all of its sporting events to the Conference (a “Grant of Rights Agreement”). The Grant of Rights Agreement which will remain in full force and effect as to such Withdrawing Member and the Withdrawing Member shall continue to be fully bound under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal for the remainder of the term of any Grant of Rights Agreement as if it remained a Member of the Conference, but the Withdrawing Member shall not be entitled to payment of any amounts or any other benefits arising under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal.

3.2

Withdrawing Member. A Member (a “Withdrawing Member”) may Withdraw, or shall be deemed to have Withdrawn, as a Member of the Conference: (i) if it gives notice of the intent to Withdraw to the Conference; or (ii) if a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors by affirmative vote determines that such Member: (A) makes statements or takes actions that are determined by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors to evidence the intent of such Member to withdraw from the Conference either currently or in the future; (B) breaches or evidences its intent to breach or not honor and fully comply with its obligations to the Conference under these Bylaws or the Grant of Rights Agreement for the entirety of the respective terms thereof; (C) if a third party offers to, or attempts to induce a Member to, leave the Conference and/or breach or not to fully perform its future obligations under the Grant of Rights Agreement and the Member does not both (1) inform the Conference of such action as promptly as possible (but in any event not later than twelve (12) hours after such action) and (2) immediately and unconditionally reject that offer in a form and manner reasonably acceptable to the Commissioner; or (D) if a Member otherwise takes or fails to take actions that are determined by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors to be contrary to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole.

3.3

Notice Date and Interim Period. The “Notice Date” of the Withdrawal shall be the date of the occurrence of the event that causes the Withdrawal under Section 3.2 above. The “Effective Date” of the Withdrawal shall be the June 30 that next follows the end of the period that is 18 full calendar months following the Notice Date, unless an earlier date is established by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors in its sole discretion. The period from the Notice Date to the Effective Date is referred to herein as the “Interim Period.”

3.4

Buyout Amount. Any Withdrawing Member shall pay to the Conference a commitment buyout fee (the “Buyout Amount”) in an amount equal to the sum of the amount of distributions that otherwise would be paid to the Member during the final two years of its membership in the Conference. The Withdrawing Member shall be deemed to have agreed to forfeit all distributions of any type that otherwise would have been made to the Withdrawing Member during the Interim Period (the “Distribution Withholding”) and the Conference shall not pay the Distribution Withholding to the Withdrawing Member. A Withdrawing Member agrees to pay to the Conference the amount by which the Buyout Amount exceeds the Distribution Withholding, with such payment to be made not later than the Effective Date. In addition, • if (A) by legal action or otherwise, a Withdrawing Member, or any other person or entity, attempts to challenge or oppose or interfere with, or challenges or opposes or interferes with, (i) the payment of the Buyout Amount by the Withdrawing Member or the withholding of the Distribution Withholding by the Conference, (ii) the enforcement by the Conference of its rights under the Grant of Rights Agreement or the performance by the Withdrawing Member of its obligations under the Grant of Rights Agreement, or (iii) the right of the Conference’s telecast partners to televise games of the Withdrawing Member under the terms of the Grant of Rights Agreement during its then-remaining term; or (B) for any other reason the Conference’s telecast partners are unable to produce and telecast games of the Withdrawing Member 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, • then the Members agree that such actions, in breach of the Withdrawing Member’s agreements in these Bylaws, cause additional damage to the Conference and therefore that the Buyout Amount shall be increased by, and shall also include, and the Withdrawing Member shall be obligated to pay to the Conference immediately upon the occurrence of any of the foregoing events, the amount of all actual loss, damage, costs, or expenses whatsoever (including but not limited to lost revenues, damage to reputation and public image, and damage to relationships with related parties) incurred by the Conference or any of its remaining Members directly or indirectly related to that challenge or opposition, whether economic or otherwise.Each of the Members agrees that Withdrawal of a Member contrary to its commitment to the Conference and the other Members pursuant to Section 3.1 above would cause damage and financial hardship to the Conference and the other Members without regard to the continued enforcement of the Grant of Rights Agreement, that the financial consequences to the Conference and its remaining Members cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time, and that the payment of the Buyout Amount is a reasonable method of compensating the Conference and the other Members for such damage and financial hardship and shall not be construed as a penalty.3.5 Effect of Withdrawal. The term of office of any Director representing a Withdrawing Member shall automatically expire and such Director shall no longer be a Director of the Conference effective as of the Notice Date and such Withdrawing Member shall not be entitled to have a Director representative on the Board of Directors during the Interim Period or thereafter. During the Interim Period and thereafter: (i) the number of Directors shall automatically be reduced by the number of Withdrawing Members and the calculation of the Disinterested Directors Entitled to Vote, the Majority of Disinterested Directors, and the Supermajority of Disinterested Directors shall exclude for all purposes the position on the Board of Directors previously represented by the Withdrawing Member(s); and (ii) neither the Director representing any Withdrawing Member nor such Member’s representatives on any Advisory Committee (as defined in the Rules) shall be entitled to attend any meeting of, vote on any matter before, notice of any meeting of, or copies of materials distributed to, the Board of Directors or any Advisory Committee.3.6Sanction of a Member. The Conference may sanction (“Sanction” and “Sanctioned” and variations thereof) a Member by the affirmative vote of a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors at any meeting of the Directors at which the Director representative(s) of the Member(s) that are the subject of such vote has been given reasonable prior notice and the reasonable opportunity to be present and to be heard. A Supermajority of Disinterested Directors may take such action if, after the Member’s opportunity to be heard, a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors determines that such Member has: (i) violated any provision of these Bylaws or the Rules and other regulations established from time to time by the Board of Directors that govern the Conference or the Grant of Rights Agreement; (ii) engaged in any action or a course of conduct materially adverse to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole; (iii) taken or omitted to take any other action that could be the basis for Withdrawal as described above if a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors does not elect to deem the action to constitute a deemed Withdrawal at that time; or (iv) otherwise taken any action or omitted to take an action that a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors determines merits Sanctions. In accordance with the preceding sentence, a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors shall, in its sole discretion, be empowered to determine whether any Sanctions are appropriate, the type, extent, and conditions to any Sanctions imposed, and impose such Sanctions on a Member depending, in each case, on factors that a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors deems to be relevant, including but not limited to the severity of the harm to the Conference taken as a whole resulting from the action or inaction set forth in the preceding sentence. Without limiting the foregoing and merely as an illustration of the types of Sanctions that could be considered by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors are prohibitions on appearance in postseason events or televised events, restrictions on revenue distributions, and limitations on recruiting or scholarships.

[CastHorn 815]

7 hours ago, gmr548 said:

There is a negative tree fiddy percent Stanford would be left out of any such arrangement.

Got to think the SEC would reach out to TCU if they get left out. They’d have just as much a  presence in Texas as this new PAC West Conference.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

11 hours ago, Somnio said:

It's inexcusable that the powers that be let the Big 12 fall apart.  It was a great conference while it lasted.

It really was. It felt like an absolute heavyweight from inception all the way through the mid 00s. When Nebraska dropped off, it felt like it took a step back, but it still had Texas and OU as two of the 6-8 strongest programs in the country. 

But I'll always miss circa 1996-1998 Big 12. That was crazy fun. And OU's teams were terrible. 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

5 hours ago, CastHorn said:

Got to think the SEC would reach out to TCU if they get left out.

I actually think Houston is more likely, if the SEC decides to start slumming it.

[Thiefery 5,017]

2 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I actually think Houston is more likely, if the SEC decides to start slumming it.

wouldn't aggy protest this?