Realignment talk not going away

['stache 21778]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

No, the grant of rights is a completely separate contract from the network deal. The GOR allows the conference to negotiate the network deal on behalf of the schools but it's not the same contract. 

An employee has a 13 year employment contract. The contact allows the employer to negotiate health insurance on the employee's behalf. You're basically arguing that when the employee breaches the employment contract and quits early that the employer still gets to negotiate his health insurance. And that any insurance company that covers the employee is in breach of his contract with his employer. 

That's exactly how nonsensical you're being about the GOR.

There are two contracts. First, UT (and the other members) sell their media rights to the Big XII Conference. The conference then enters into a contract with the networks. Your hypothetical makes no sense in this context for reasons that I don't feel like typing out. The bottom line is, there will be an agreement within the next 1-2 years for you to buy out of the grant of rights. The legal stuff is meant to get you there.

[mdmost 42874]

So 2023 is the time frame expected for the new Big 12 members. Let's go ahead and expedite that to next season and call it square. 

[utee94 15746]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Jesus Christ, that's not how it works, and it has nothing to do with being an "angry fan." These are business contracts, and there's nothing punitive about enforcing contract rights. Texas cannot sell its media rights to the SEC until 2025. They don't own them, and the SEC can't buy them. The SEC's media partners can't utilize rights that someone else owns. This isn't a business where people just breach media contracts willy-nilly. The breach would be committed by the network that broadcasts a game without the media rights, and the plaintiff would be the Big XII Conference which owns those rights. The reality is that there will be negotiations for you to buy out of the Big XII grant of rights, then you can sell them to the SEC, who will then sell them to the SEC's media partners. That's how this whole thing is set up and it makes sense from a business perspective. 

You keep assuming that specific performance would  be a viable remedy.  It's not.  The B12 isn't going to be able to force Texas NOT to play in the SEC and NOT to have its games broadcast by the SEC andNOT to get paid by the SEC.  To do do, the B12 would have to sue Texas for breach, and then attempt to have the court enforce specific performance.  It's not going to happen. 

IF the B12 realizes actual damages from Texas leaving, THEN those actual damages can be sued for.  But that won't happen.  It'll be negotiated ahead of time. 

['stache 21778]

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

You're right, up until this statement.

Texas absolutely could say eff you to the B12, play in the SEC, have its games broadcast through the SEC contracts, and get paid by the SEC.  At that point, the B12 would have to sue Texas for breach.  Texas shouldn't be able to sell its rights to the SEC, but the only way to prevent it, would be to sue, and request the courts ensure specific performance. They're just not going to do that.  It's not going to happen.

As we keep agreeing though, it's never going to get to that point.  It'll be settled long before then.  And if the B12 media partners agree to keep the payments the same-- as they have every other time this has happened-- then there will be no actual damages, and Texas and OU will owe nothing to the B12 with respect to the GOR agreement.

Again, the suit would be the Big XII which owns the rights vs. the network that broadcasts a game without owning those rights. It's designed to not have to sue the school, probably because of sovereign immunity, discussed above.

[utee94 15746]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

So 2023 is the time frame expected for the new Big 12 members. Let's go ahead and expedite that to next season and call it square. 

We will.  No worries.

[Huckleberry 32710]

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

You're right, up until this statement.

Texas absolutely could say eff you to the B12, play in the SEC, have its games broadcast through the SEC contracts, and get paid by the SEC.  At that point, the B12 would have to sue Texas for breach.  Texas shouldn't be able to sell its rights to the SEC, but the only way to prevent it, would be to sue, and request the courts ensure specific performance. They're just not going to do that.  It's not going to happen.

As we keep agreeing though, it's never going to get to that point.  It'll be settled long before then.  And if the B12 media partners agree to keep the payments the same-- as they have every other time this has happened-- then there will be no actual damages, and Texas and OU will owe nothing to the B12 with respect to the GOR agreement.

Well also the part where he keeps saying the SEC and ESPN would be in breach of Texas's contract with the Big 12.

[utee94 15746]

Just now, 'stache said:

Again, the suit would be the Big XII which owns the rights vs. the network that broadcasts a game without owning those rights. It's designed to not have to sue the school, probably because of sovereign immunity, discussed above.

The network WOULD own the rights.  Because Texas sold the SEC the rights.

Yes, at that point Texas would have sold the same rights to two different entities and would be in breach of contract with the B12.  So sue us,. 

[Longboard Horn 40172]

Cincy and UCF in the Big 12 should be fun, but UH... fuck em! What a joke. 

[BB65 476]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

There are two contracts. First, UT (and the other members) sell their media rights to the Big XII Conference. The conference then enters into a contract with the networks. Your hypothetical makes no sense in this context for reasons that I don't feel like typing out. The bottom line is, there will be an agreement within the next 1-2 years for you to buy out of the grant of rights. The legal stuff is meant to get you there.

Move to the SEC and broadcast all Texas' games on LHN until the contract is up. Share the revenue of these games with the SEC.

[utee94 15746]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Well also the part where he keeps saying the SEC and ESPN would be in breach of Texas's contract with the Big 12.

Correct, good point.  Texas is in breach.  Texas would be sued.  Good luck with that.

Edited September 10, 2021 by utee94

['stache 21778]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Well also the part where he keeps saying the SEC and ESPN would be in breach of Texas's contract with the Big 12.

That's not what I'm saying. You can sell something you don't own, and someone can buy that if they want, but its a nothing transaction. There isn't a breach of anything until a network broadcasts something without having the right to do so. The SEC isn't going to buy something from you that you don't own. It's that simple. You buy them back and then sell them. That's how buyouts work. 

[Huckleberry 32710]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Again, the suit would be the Big XII which owns the rights vs. the network that broadcasts a game without owning those rights. It's designed to not have to sue the school, probably because of sovereign immunity, discussed above.

So your legal theory is that a party can be in breach of a contract they're not a part of. You'll be hearing from my attorney. 

['stache 21778]

2 minutes ago, utee94 said:

The network WOULD own the rights.  Because Texas sold the SEC the rights.

Yes, at that point Texas would have sold the same rights to two different entities and would be in breach of contract with the B12.  So sue us,. 

Media rights are almost always exclusive. The SEC can't buy something you don't own. Two entities cannot own the same media rights unless this is the one media contract in history that isn't exclusive.

[Longboard Horn 40172]

8 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Yeah, we've all been waiting for this...

 

 

['stache 21778]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So your legal theory is that a party can be in breach of a contract they're not a part of. You'll be hearing from my attorney. 

I guess I'm done here. You sold your rights to the Big XII. The Big XII sold those rights to certain networks. Nobody is suing anybody unless and until a network broadcasts a game without owning the media rights. The contracts are not set up for Texas to be a defendant.

 

p.s. there are legal scenarios where a third-party can sue under a contract which they are not technically a party to, but that doesn't exist here.

Edited September 10, 2021 by 'stache

[utee94 15746]

Just now, 'stache said:

Media rights are almost always exclusive. The SEC can't buy something you don't own. Two entities cannot own the same media rights unless this is the one media contract in history that isn't exclusive.

Of course they can, dual parties claim ownership of the same property ALL the time.  You know how it's settled?  Lawsuits.

But I'm not sure why you're being so obstinate about this, we all agree that it's not going to end up in court.  It'll be settled out of court.  And possibly, depending on Fox, it'll be settled for zero dollars.  That's just the GOR contract of course, not the exit penalty portion.

[mdmost 42874]

Someone explain how the TV deal will work with the new members? Same amount to the conference until 2025 just split with 12-14 members now?

Edited September 10, 2021 by mdmost

['stache 21778]

Just now, utee94 said:

Of course they can, dual parties claim ownership of the same property ALL the time.  You know how it's settled?  Lawsuits.

But I'm not sure why you're being so obstinate about this, we all agree that it's not going to end up in court.  It'll be settled out of court.  And possibly, depending on Fox, it'll be settled for zero dollars.  That's just the GOR contract of course, not the exit penalty portion.

And I don't understand why some of you are so adamant about finding loopholes around buying out of a contract. The SEC knows you don't own the media rights. They aren't going to press the issue to help you give the middle finger to your old conference. It'll be treated like any other business arrangement. That we can agree on.

[Huckleberry 32710]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

I guess I'm done here. You sold your rights to the Big XII. The Big XII sold those rights to certain networks. Nobody is suing anybody unless and until a network broadcasts a game without owning the media rights. The contracts are not set up for Texas to be a defendant.

Yes, you're done here because you have no idea what you're talking about. The party in breach would be Texas as you've been told a dozen times. In your example the contact breach would be Texas selling the rights they'd already signed over to the Big 12. The network broadcasting the games would not be in violation of any contract.

[Huckleberry 32710]

Just now, 'stache said:

And I don't understand why some of you are so adamant about finding loopholes around buying out of a contract. The SEC knows you don't own the media rights. They aren't going to press the issue to help you give the middle finger to your old conference. It'll be treated like any other business arrangement. That we can agree on.

Fundamental tenets of contract law are not loopholes. 

['stache 21778]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Yes, you're done here because you have no idea what you're talking about. The party in breach would be Texas as you've been told a dozen times. In your example the contact breach would be Texas selling the rights they'd already signed over to the Big 12. The network broadcasting the games would not be in violation of any contract.

That's not a breach, its just bad business. You can't sell something you don't own, and the SEC isn't going to buy something you don't own. I'm correct on this regardless of how much you seem to hate it.

['stache 21778]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Fundamental tenets of contract law are not loopholes. 

I agree. If you want out of the contract, you buy your way out of it, that's how it works.

Edited September 10, 2021 by 'stache

[utee94 15746]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

And I don't understand why some of you are so adamant about finding loopholes around buying out of a contract. The SEC knows you don't own the media rights. They aren't going to press the issue to help you give the middle finger to your old conference. It'll be treated like any other business arrangement. That we can agree on.

I'm just telling you the legal ramifications of it.  You're stuck on specific performance.  That's not how it would ever work out.  Yes it would be settled, but the ONLY reason it would be settled, is because that's easier than enforcing specific performance, which is what you seem to REALLY want to happen.  

Let's say I have a car that I want to sell.  I put it on Craigslist for $10,000.  One guy immediately calls me, he loves the car, he'll pick it up tomorrow, and he venmos me $10,000.  Then another guy calls me, wants to come by today and see it.  He really loves it, and pays me $10,000 cash to drive it away right that minute.

Yes, I'm a low down dirty dog, for selling that car twice.  But does the first guy have any legal remedy at all with respect to the second guy that also bought the car and then took possession?  No.  All the first guy can do, is sue me, because I'm the one that sold it twice so I'm the one in breach of contract.

Now Texas is mean and evil, I get it, but Texas won't do that.  Instead, it'll all be settled.  Potentially for zero dollars.

Edited September 10, 2021 by utee94

[Hurtlocker 2208]

Actually, it is exactly how it works and it is why a grant of rights is so iron clad.   All the Big 12 schools gave their rights to a specific property, in this case home broadcasts of T1/2 match ups.   The entity they granted those rights to, in this case the Big 12 conference or the SEC in the future, owns those rights in their entirety and has them packaged together to media bundles that flow back to the universities.   Until that GoR expires, none of the schools can negotiate something different, because they don't technically own their rights any longer.   And, as mentioned, what makes it so powerful, is that the rights automatically return to the school at a said time, they are not losing rights indefinitely.   Due to that the argument becomes more, "So...you just don't like the agreement you signed" instead of "this agreement you signed isn't legal"   Sovereign immunity doesn't really apply. 

It may seem like these grants are new, but they've been used for eons in entertainment.   When a band signs a record deal, they are granting the rights to their current and future songs to a label or publishing house for some period of time for the benefit that group gives them in promoting their work.   They can't sign with one label, and then put an album out on a second, without the permission of their main label.  You may see credits in movies for soundtracks where an artist will "appear courtesy of X label" when the soundtrack is on another.   They work a deal.

This happens with books, TV shows, movies, podcasts, etc etc.   Anywhere someone pools and/or distributes something someone else created, a grant of rights exists to handle the monetization of those assets.  The NFL has them and all of CFB uses them.   The only difference lately is extending the GoRs from a single year (which was done so some school couldn't sell individual games when a conference had an agreement with a media partner) to extended years (like recording or production agreements) to provide less risk to media partners to generate greater revenues.

So in this case, there are two things hindering the movement to the SEC.   The first is the buyout, which is two years revenues from the time withdraw is stated (which hasn't been stated yet, by the way) and the second is the Big 12 owning the rights to all Texas/Oklahoma home games through 2025 (minus 1 game a year, defined by the one the current media partners find least desirable).   It is not pay the buyout and the rights are returned.   It is both.   

If they moved to the SEC next year, they'd still have the two year buyout (one year would be collected in non-paid revenue and one would be writing a check) and then ESPN would need to negotiate with the Big 12, NOT Texas and Oklahoma, for the rights to those games and their value, through the end of the GoR.   ESPN can't negotiate with Oklahoma and Texas as they, literally, have nothing to sell that hasn't already been sold.

The most likely end result here is that ESPN will make an offer to the Big 12 to buy the rights at some point, likely when the move from CBS occurs around 2023.   This wouldn't be too difficult to be honest.   What the Big 12 wants is security and a seat at the table.   ESPN can provide both and set them up for a decade to hand over the rights.

[4th&Five 41462]

 

['stache 21778]

2 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I'm just telling you the legal ramifications of it.  You're stuck on specific performance.  That's not how it would ever work out.  Yes it would be settled, but the ONLY reason it would be settled, is because that's easier than enforcing specific performance, which is what you seem to REALLY want to happen.  

Let's say I have a car that I want to sell.  I put it on Craigslist for $10,000.  One guy immediately calls me, he loves the car, he'll pick it up tomorrow, and he venmos me $10,000.  Then another guy calls me, wants to come by today and see it.  He really loves it, and pays me $10,000 cash to drive it away right that minute.

Yes, I'm a low down dirty dog, for selling that car twice.  But does the first guy have any legal remedy at all with respect to the second guy that also bought the car and then took possession?  No.  All the first guy can do, is sue me, because I'm the one in breach of contract.

 

Except the second guy (the SEC) knows that you already sold it. Why would he agree to buy it if he knows you already sold it?

And I don't know why you keep saying specific performance. That's not what would happen here. I'm saying you never even get there because the SEC won't buy your rights until you get them back from the Big XII.

Edited September 10, 2021 by 'stache

[utee94 15746]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Except the second guy (the SEC) knows that you already sold it. Why would he agree to buy it if he knows you already sold it?

Because he wants it and knows there's no legal recourse against him.  The SEC is just as mean as Texas.

['stache 21778]

1 minute ago, utee94 said:

Because he wants it and knows there's no legal recourse against him.  The SEC is just as mean as Texas.

The third guy in your scenario isn't a bona fide purchaser if he knows that someone else already bought it, so yes, there is recourse against that third person in most scenarios.

[utee94 15746]

Just now, 'stache said:

The third guy in your scenario isn't a bona fide purchaser if he knows that someone else already bought it, so yes, there is recourse against that third person in most scenarios.

Really?  Explain it.

[Longboard Horn 40172]

Can this troll be more obvious?

 

['stache 21778]

1 minute ago, utee94 said:

Really?  Explain it.

You want me to explain the bona fide purchaser rule to you on a message board? No thanks. Believe me or don't.

[utee94 15746]

Just now, 'stache said:

You want me to explain the bona fide purchaser rule to you on a message board? No thanks. Believe me or don't.

I told the second guy I'm already having my attorneys talk to the first guy to make it right.  He's all good, free and clear.

['stache 21778]

2 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I told the second guy I'm already having my attorneys talk to the first guy to make it right.  He's all good, free and clear.

And he's gonna want to see evidence that you worked it out with the first guy before handing you $10K.

Edited September 10, 2021 by 'stache

[mdmost 42874]

I want to take this fictional car into a garage, turn the engine on, roll the windows down, and put the garage door up. 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

5 minutes ago, Longboard Horn said:

Can this troll be more obvious?

 

Ha, has UMass played basketball since Calipari had Camby there?

[Longboard Horn 40172]

The only "good" thing to come out of this expansion will be basketball. 

[utee94 15746]

Just now, 'stache said:

And for $10K, he's gonna want to see some evidence that the first guy isn't going to claim ownership.

Lulz.  Yeah okay.

 

Anyway, you'll get your negotiations, even if it's for zero dollars. And personally, I'll miss playing Oklahoma State, it's been a fun series.

[bullet 1596]

10 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Rumor is that the Sun Belt is trying to get Southern Miss and North Texas back, if the American raids CUSA for Rice and UAB then the Sun Belt may end up being the better football conference and CUSA would just have better markets but that matters less in the age of streaming.  The below is from 247 Arkansas State site https://247sports.com/college/arkansas-state/Article/CUSA-v-Sun-Belt-TV-deals-116260412/

”The Sun Belt payment is rumored to be in the range of $475,000 to $500,000 per year and production standards to produce the 51 games will be at ESPN standards. CUSA's payment is rumored to be in the $400,000 to $500,000 range and will not include the cost of producing 60 games for CUSA TV with mixed production values. Financially looks like a wash.”

So if I the money is the same and the Sun Belt has Coastal Carolina winning a CWS and two teams ending the 2020 season ranked not including App State and you’re SoMiss or UNT which conference would you choose?

Texas St, Louisiana, UL-Monroe, Arkansas St, Troy, Southern Alabama, Georgia St, Georgia Southern, Coastal Carolina, Appalachian St

vs

UTEP, UTSA, LA Tech, Middle Tennessee, Western Kentucky, Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, FAU, FIU

CUSA is more spread out from El Paso to Kentucky/WV/Virginia, down to the Miami metro while the Sunbelt has a fairly small footprint (at least small for today’s FBS conferences) which is better on the budget for their athletic departments.

Southern Miss would have LA Tech and MTSU as their closest schools in CUSA versus Southern Alabama, Troy, Louisiana, and UL-Monroe in the SBC.  I see the appeal for them, but not so much UNT who pretty much has to fly to the majority of their games either way but they might see this as a better move for fb.  The Sun Belt trying for these two makes sense as top targets since CUSA will be so Eastern based soon.  UTEP is a travel headache and the SBC already has TX St up the road from UTSA, and LA Tech has refused to join ULL/ULM in the Sun Belt for years opting for the old WAC and its outrageous travel cost over taking a hit to their pride.

There have been rumors of a CUSA/SunBelt voluntary realignment (ending with a mostly Eastern time zone conference in one and a mostly Central time zone conference in the other) but that seems to come from CUSA having buyer’s remorse on their unwieldy footprint not from the Sun Belt who is clearly trending up.

CUSA is just higher on the pecking order.  Nobody is leaving CUSA for the Sun Belt short of a trade of teams.  The complaints in CUSA are mostly coming from CUSA's mistakes-Old Dominion and Charlotte.  They should have never invited startup programs.  They should have taken Arkansas St. and Louisiana and effectively killed off the Sun Belt.  Instead, the Sun Belt keeps bringing up FCS programs to compete for recruits, weakening both conferences.  They've brought up Coastal Carolina, Appalachian St., Georgia Southern and Georgia State since the last round.  And Texas St. and South Alabama only moved up in 2012.  The Sun Belt would have been left with UL Monroe, Troy, South Alabama, and 3 members pulled from the WAC:  Texas St., Idaho and NMSU.

[Pimphand 5621]

5 minutes ago, Longboard Horn said:

Can this troll be more obvious?

 

LMFAO that is hilarious.  You mean the same UMass that is what 19-81 in their last 100 football games?

[BurntOrange&White 39709]

46 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Instead, the courts will look for a remedy that involves paying actual damages, because those can actually be calculated.  Actual damages, are whatever the difference is between what the B12 actually gets paid including Texas and OU, and whatever they would get paid without Texas and OU, for the duration of the remainder of the GOR.  If the B12's media partners do not decrease the payouts at all-- as has happened every other time schools have left conferences-- then there are no actual damages, and therefore no buyout to be paid with respect to the GOR contract.

I don’t think you can really calculate that and factually prove it in court. Because it’s all a guess until. 

[Longboard Horn 40172]

LMAO Okay, this was pretty funny.

P.S. fuck the Red Bull drinkin redneck. 

I can't wait to see Dana get spanked all over again by TCU, Tech, Okie State, Iowa State, K State and occasionally Baylor. That's if he lasts much longer. Those Houston games will be glorious(for everyone except Dana)!

Edited September 10, 2021 by Longboard Horn

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Catch me up on this theory. If Texas and OU say see ya we're starting SEC play in 2022 and then do so, what TV distribution money is the Big 12 withholding? One season (2021)? Okey dokey, sounds great, see ya later.

Then the issue becomes the GOR.  Who has the rights to UT's games?  Can the Big 12 hold the rights and not pay-probably doesn't hold up in court.  But can the ESPN/Fox Big 12 crews even get into Memorial Stadium?  Maybe Texas only lets SEC ESPN crews in.  Can the Big 12 sue to get Texas share from the SEC contract?

 

Nobody wants the uncertainty of all that.  It will be settled.  Only question is how much and how soon.      Big 12 finalizing invitations indicates sooner.

[utee94 15746]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

I don’t think you can really calculate that and factually prove it in court. Because it’s all a guess until. 

Well for sure, they won't speculate.  They'll have to understand whether or not there are actual damages.  They'll have to know what the television partners are going to do.  And that becomes part of the negotiation.

ESPN will certainly be up front about it, it's in their best interests to be transparent and move the negotiations along.  We'll have to see what Fox will do.

 

[TexasFan21 1275]

Look at this fucking idiot. 

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by TexasFan21

[BurntOrange&White 39709]

I don’t want to doxx anyone here but from reading these last couple of pages I’m 100% sure that ‘satche is @blacklab lawyer during the shaggy debacle and that my friends explains everything. 

Edited September 10, 2021 by BurntOrange&White

[bullet 1596]

55 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The Big XII conference. It's is a legal entity that can sue and be sued. If you and OU are being televised outside of the Big XII's media package, the network that broadcasts it is infringing on all sorts of IP laws. Again, why are some of you so obsessed with screwing people over? Just negotiate a buyout, like what happens every day in business.

A lot of R8 fans (not you) are obsessed with screwing Texas and OU over, keeping them and not paying.  The R8 haven't done anything to earn the $80 million in exit fees.  Its a punitive amount that probably wouldn't fly in court, regardless of contract language.  They do deserve to get the full amount of the TV contract through 2025.

If the Big 12 adopted the attitude of some of the fans, then Texas and OU should just leave in July and say sue me.  But the Big 12 will be more reasonable.  And the schools know that trying to screw Texas and OU over would come back to bite them at some point in time.  Plus presidents and ADs will need future jobs.  Its not a lifetime at one institution.  You don't go out of your way to make enemies.

[Longboard Horn 40172]

Kirk Bohls needs to retire and shut the fuck up. 

[Longboard Horn 40172]

At least OSU's aware that they're mainly now a basketball conference. 

 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

4 minutes ago, bullet said:

Then the issue becomes the GOR.  Who has the rights to UT's games?  Can the Big 12 hold the rights and not pay-probably doesn't hold up in court.  But can the ESPN/Fox Big 12 crews even get into Memorial Stadium?  Maybe Texas only lets SEC ESPN crews in.  Can the Big 12 sue to get Texas share from the SEC contract?

 

Nobody wants the uncertainty of all that.  It will be settled.  Only question is how much and how soon.      Big 12 finalizing invitations indicates sooner.

It actually has been held up in court.  Numerous artists have fought this and lost.   It doesn't matter if it is someone signed on for 5 albums or a school saying they're going to play for five years.   The grant includes the expectation of performance and if you don't perform you don't get paid.   Even if they let only SEC crews in, ESPN will have to deal with the Big 12 on the rights.      This isn't overly complicated, they either play out the agreement or someone purchases the rights from the Big 12.   They currently seem to be wanting to play it out, since they haven't technically withdrawn yet either.   They're just stating, we're not reupping the next contract.   In that case, the Big 12 withholds revenue in 2023-24 and the move occurs.   

Totally agree with you on uncertainty though.   I think the expansion is a sign a longer term deal is being crafted with ESPN for the Big 12 for handing over the rights to Texas/Oklahoma.

[bullet 1596]

40 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Someone explain how the TV deal will work with the new members? Same amount to the conference until 2025 just split with 12-14 members now?

They'll have a new deal.  Rumors are out there of a 7 year $20-$25 million deal.  According to the blue window cougar board, BYU has already agreed to the contract.  I suspect it will be similar to TCU and WVU.  They got graduated payments.  Think the percentages were 50%, 67%, 75%, 83%, 100%.  It took 5 or 6 years to get to full payout.