Realignment talk not going away

[Vertigo 20274]

2 hours ago, nd2003 said:

The lack of any statement from ND is really surprising me. Our admin usually jump out and says something.

 

Jack Swarbrick favorite retort is we're monitoring the landscape. 

In mother realignment, landscape monitors you.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Domedriver said:

ND has pissed in our Cheerios way too many times!  I have huge historic hate for the fucking Irish!  Fuck them!

Username does NOT check out.

[Domedriver 655]

5 minutes ago, slorch said:

Username does NOT check out.

As a Driver I defeat Domes and make them obey my will.

[billfromlaketravis 11367]

Dumb question, what has the Big 12 and UCF/U of H/ Cincy/ BYU signed thus far? 

I'm rooting for Tech buddies to finally realize their Pac 12 fever dreams. 

[PittsburghTiger 6153]

[DFW Horn 6118]

12 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Dumb question, what has the Big 12 and UCF/U of H/ Cincy/ BYU signed thus far? 

I'm rooting for Tech buddies to finally realize their Pac 12 fever dreams. 

Remember that time TCU "joined" the Big East? The ink never even dried.

[Laxtonto 11986]

What makes this that much more of a big deal is now we are looking a the potential absorption or ending of potentially either the cotton bowl or rose bowl…

 

The rose bowl, and the value it provides to the B10 is one of the reasons I have always thought that they would help prop up the Pac12 and kill the B12. It’s not that big of a thing, but the history and branding are so heavily woven into the B10 lore that it’s another datapoint to consider.

 

I am still curious if Fox decides to come out and offer some bridge deal to the Pac12 to kill be B12 while at the same time ESPN comes with a deal to the B12 to kill the Pac12 and let TX/OU go early…

This is really just a proxy war between ESPN and Fox and the Pac12 and their idiotic Larry Scott legacy media deal provides a great neutral battle ground.

[SOBMarcos 59]

The GOR makes expansion of the SEC into the ACC more difficult but I think if ND leaves then the GOR thing blows up. It’ll be tested and I just don’t think it holds up. 
B1G gets to 20, 1st. Just having 2 LA schools isn’t sustainable. They are waiting on ND. And when they join, Stanford + OU and Washington also join.
CLemson and FSU go SEC. SEC goes full court press on UNC and UVA but will likely lose out on them to BiG10. They take NC state VaTech second pickings.
Syracuse might, MIGHT have a shot at B1G. Which the BIG would then either pick up a former PAC12 school. Maybe Cal? Maybe Utah? maybe Colorado? Or maybe they 

ACC temas Pitt, Miami, Louisville, Ga Tech / Syracuse all go Big12. BC left in cold. Wake Forest left in cold.
Utah, Arizona schools, and whoever doesn’t join Big 10 go to Big12. 
I guess that’s unless the SEC gets super salty and takes Arizona schools + Utah and Colorado to be a ‘national conference’ too.

[DCLonghorn 244]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

The Burton podcast with Maisel clarified why it was USC and UCLA, not USC and Oregon or UW. USC and UCLA give the kill shot to the PAC.  In the past, a huge part of the PAC attraction was playing games in Southern California and recruiting LA. Now, the B10 owns all that. 
 
PAC needs to sign SDSU before some other smart conference does. 

And also blocks SEC or anyone else from LA. 

[DFW Horn 6118]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

The Burton podcast with Maisel clarified why it was USC and UCLA, not USC and Oregon or UW. USC and UCLA give the kill shot to the PAC.  In the past, a huge part of the PAC attraction was playing games in Southern California and recruiting LA. Now, the B10 owns all that. 
 
PAC needs to sign SDSU before some other smart conference does. 

Using Maisel's logic, UH should've been added to the Big 12 years ago.

The B1G won't necessarily "own" that market. FOX is gonna overpay for two fickle fanbase's eyeballs. Yeah, I'd love to sit in on the recruiting pitch from IL, WI, and MN coaches to a kid from South Central. Good times.

Oregon recruits LA well bc of Nike money and panache = facilities and swag.

[wildturkey8 24]

I'm amused about all the talk of the B1G controlling the biggest TV Markets.  I would point out the SEC already has Texas and with one more addition would most defintely have Florida (if they don't already).  They would have 2 of the 3 biggest states and they care a lot more about college football than the largest state, California.

[66BUFF 2558]

27 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

And also blocks SEC or anyone else from LA. 

When did SDSU move to LA?

[Hagbard Celine 10778]

@Laxtonto the rose bowl doesn't die but the celebration of b1g/pac special-ness is now dead leaving only indy-domer as the final roadblock to a 16-team playoff with on-campus games in rounds 1 and 2

[bullet 1596]

12 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

There was never a rivalry with Arkansas other than in the 60s, except on their end. At least in football. There was one in basketball that stretched from Abe Lemons/Tom Penders and Eddie Sutton/Nolan Richardson, but not one in football. 

I guess if it gets repeated enough we’re going to convince a younger generation that older Texas fans gave a shit about the Razorbacks in football, but it still won’t be true. 

As to the rest of the post, all of this was inevitable once the 1984 case involving OU/GA versus the NCAA in front of the Supreme Court struck down the NCAA’s ability to negotiate TV contract, through which they tamped down revenue and exposure for the biggest programs. When conferences were allowed to negotiate their own deals, and then the money hit the stratosphere because of the need for live programming to mitigate viewers skipping advertisements, what we’re seeing is the ultimate result. Add in the additional budget pressures of manufacturing a payroll of tens of millions of dollars to the student athletes through NIL, and of course we were going to see this kind of coalescence. 

It’s funny. The NCAA gets all kinds of grief, but they’ve held the tide back to preserve amateur athletics the best they could. By losing court case after court case, it’s become untenable. And every step of the way you can read the judges’ thoughts, and how dismissive they were in each case regarding the impact their decisions would have on college sports versus the doomsaying of the NCAA attorneys, when in matter of fact the NCAA had it right. 

Ah well. At least Texas is well positioned to benefit from all of it. 

Arkansas was a big game through the 70s and 80s.  They were our 2nd biggest rival most of that time.

[Hagbard Celine 10778]

pitttiger's map is extremely cool

it's no earlier than 1937 because it shows the cotton bowl (rose=1902, orange/sugar/sun=1935)

it shows a huge number of schools that don't even play football today

it's geography is comical in places (check out utah)

and since it has to date to 1937 or later it ignores the border conference almost entirely with the exception of arizona

asu, tech and utep are not even on the map

[Hagbard Celine 10778]

10 minutes ago, bullet said:

Arkansas was a big game through the 70s and 80s.  They were our 2nd biggest rival most of that time.

thieves and pig are rivals

aggy are just ankle-biting pests that have evolved in to a pandemic infestation

[bullet 1596]

2 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

I hope you’re well, too. Without Arkansas being a dominant force there was nothing to it. Arkansas faded from national relevance after those heady days. It’s like saying UT-SMU had a rivalry due to the Pony Express days, or UH-Texas have a rivalry because of the run and shoot and the 1990 game. Not quite the same thing, I’d agree, but similar enough. 

The Arkansas-Texas series can be characterized by two things. UT’s overall complete dominance, and Arkansas fans’ complete obsession. During the 70s and 80s one of the biggest problems with the game is that it was always played right after OU, which really was a rivalry game. The team would go into Fayetteville and tend to be woefully ill prepared for how jacked up the Razorback players and fans were to be playing hated UT. And yet they still routinely came out victorious. 

There was never any real build up on the Texas side prior to the Arkansas matchup. But there’s a blood lust frenzy on the Arkansas side before every gridiron tilt. That’s not a rivalry. It’s a narrative being forced because of the games in the 1960s, Mack Brown fubaring the schedule and misunderstanding the nature of the series, and this nostalgic glow for when Texas was nationally relevant on a consistent basis. But when it comes to being on campus in the 70s and 80s, nobody gave that much of a shit any time Arkansas rolled into town any more so than the other conference foes. Most years even less because while consistently a solid team, they weren’t as talented or as good as some of the other opponents Texas would face in the SWC. 

The so called rivalry is being made up. And you’re doing it here, too, when you know better. Heck, look forward to it all you want. That’s your prerogative. Arkansas and the rest of the SEC certainly represents more compelling opponents than the Big 12 members. Of that there’s no argument. But when we talk about the storied Texas Arkansas football rivalry, we’re engaged in myth making, not a reflection of reality. 

That said, the pass to Tony Jones to break their hearts holds a special place for me, too. The first time Texas won on literally the last play of the game, although the UCLA game to keep the winning streak alive came close (there was a subsequent kickoff). I wish it had boded better for David McWilliams’ career, but alas. Ken Hatfield never did live that game down in Fayetteville. 

I was on campus in the 70s.   People did care about Arkansas.  When a game decides the national championship 3 times in a decade, it sticks a while.  Plus, the rest of the SWC was pretty bad at this point.  We were winning 18 years in a row vs. Baylor, 26 vs. TCU and 28 vs. Rice.  We just ended a 35 year run losing only 3 times to aggy.

[pwood220 0]

My mom went to UT in 1969/1970. She said Arkansas was a big rivalry when she was there. Supposedly, when traveling to the game in AR, you needed to fill up your tank before crossing state lines, because on that weekend all of the gas stations refused to fill tanks with Texas plates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utee94 15747]

JFC so many stupid takes on this thread.

We have an 864-page thread, constantly on the front page of this forum, dedicated to the ags.  Of course they're a rival.

The pigs are a rival too.

ousux is the main rival, but acting like the other two aren't, is just stupid.  Stop it.

Edited July 2, 2022 by utee94

[bullet 1596]

2 minutes ago, utee94 said:

JFC so many stupid takes on this thread.

We have an 864-page thread, constantly on the front page of this forum, dedicated to the ags.  Of course they're a rival.

The pigs are a rival too.

ousux is the main rival, but acting like the other two aren't, is just stupid.  Stop it.

aggy wasn't that big in the 70s to us.  They had been bad for so long.  Houston was the #3 rival.  It wasn't until Jackie "probation" Sherrill that aggy again became a rival like they were in the 50s and earlier.

[TKthunder2 4981]

23 minutes ago, bullet said:

Arkansas was a big game through the 70s and 80s.  They were our 2nd biggest rival most of that time.

They still our our 6th most played opponents at nearly 30 years since they left the conference. aggy and Oklahoma are 1 & 2, followed by the SWC private schools who we don’t give a shit about (other than the soft spot we have for Rice).

If we had to pick 5 “rivals” aggy, OU, pig are clearly the top 3, with Tech and Rice rounding out the top 5.

[Deej 76600]

22 hours ago, Gidnik said:

Big dumb

 

[Gidnik 3251]

https://theathletic.com/3396108/2022/07/01/acc-grant-of-rights-staples/
someone help me out here 

[Francisco 2.0 32347]

5 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

https://theathletic.com/3396108/2022/07/01/acc-grant-of-rights-staples/
someone help me out here 

 

Spoiler

When he learned this week that he was one of only a few people in possession of a copy of the ACC’s original grant of rights agreement, Mark Wilhelm took another look at it. He also examined copies of the Big 12 and Pac-12’s agreements, which he obtained around the same time period as a Villanova law student authoring an article on conference grant of rights agreements that would appear in 2014 in the Harvard Law School Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law.

“If you came to me in my normal practice, and you said, ‘Mark, I want to draft an agreement that does this sort of thing. Can you put something together?’ My gut reaction is that we’re looking at a 20-, 40-, 50-page document,” said Wilhelm, who earned his law degree in 2015 and now handles corporate mergers and acquisitions cases at Philadelphia firm Troutman Pepper. “Because there are a lot of terms, a lot of situations we want to consider — a lot of exceptions we want to include. That’s not what these documents are. These documents are a couple pages.”

Those few pages — especially the ones that make up the ACC’s agreement — could hold the key to this most recent round of college sports realignment. When USC and UCLA announced their move to the Big Ten on Thursday, it pulled the pin on what could be the most chaotic, transformative period in the history of college sports. Geography truly no longer matters. There are two leagues (the Big Ten and the SEC) that everyone wants to join, and in the next income bracket down, there is a mad scramble to either find a ladder to the two big-money conferences or to create the most lucrative next best thing. On Friday, the Pac-12’s presidents authorized an exploration of expansion. More movement is coming, and it’s coming fast.

How that movement happens — and who moves where — depends in large part on whether the ACC’s agreement holds. Unlike the other two, which end when their respective leagues’ media rights deals expire in 2024* and 2025, the ACC’s grant of rights lasts until June 30, 2036.

What’s a grant of rights? In the world of college sports, it’s an agreement in which schools agree to transfer their media rights to their conference for a set period of time. For example, Baylor’s agreement to be part of the Big 12’s grant of rights means that the rights fee for any televised sporting event emanating from Baylor’s campus is owned by the Big 12 until the grant expires. Replace “Baylor” and “Big 12” with “North Carolina” and “ACC” or “Oregon State” and “Pac-12.” These agreements purport to be irrevocable, and for years the general consensus among college sports administrators is that challenging such an agreement would be too risky a proposition. But one such agreement stands between powerful Oklahoma and Texas and an earlier entry into their new home in the SEC. Meanwhile, leaders at some ACC members stare at 14 more years of an ever-widening income gap with schools that once received similar television money and wonder if they can afford to wait.

*It’s no accident that UCLA and USC will join the Big Ten in 2024. That is exactly when the Pac-12 grant of rights expires.

The ACC agreement Wilhelm had — which is linked below in this story — is the original grant of rights. He obtained it in 2014 through an open records request to the University of North Carolina while writing that journal article. The agreement he received appears to be the copy that then-UNC chancellor Holden Thorp signed and sent back to the conference. The document contained signature pages for each school’s CEO, which would allow the signed pages to be combined into one fully executed document. The agreement was drafted in 2013 just after Louisville announced it would join the league and Notre Dame joined in all sports except football. Members were nervous after the Big Ten poached charter member Maryland, and at the time, their desire to keep the league intact superseded any interest in future flexibility. They were scared of the league being pillaged, and they wanted stability. That original agreement ran through June 30, 2027. It was amended in 2016 when the ACC extended its media rights deal with Disney/ESPN. That most recent deal allowed for the creation of the ACC Network. Multiple sources who have seen both said the language in the agreements is similar.

What’s also similar is the language in the original ACC agreement compared to the language in the Big 12 agreement forged a year earlier. Several passages appear to be copied verbatim. This includes a key section titled “Miscellaneous” in each that likely would be of particular interest to anyone wishing to break the agreement.

“This agreement may not be modified or amended other than by an agreement in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of the Conference and each of the Member Institutions that are then members of the Conference,” reads the first sentence of that section in the Big 12 grant of rights and in the original ACC grant of rights.

How many schools would have to agree to amend the agreement in writing is the key question, but it’s safe to assume that it would take something fairly catastrophic to convince a majority of schools in any league to move to dissolve their grant of rights.

So if a school wanted to challenge a grant of rights, it likely would assume considerable financial risk. For Texas or Oklahoma, it could mean a year or two of forfeited television money if either challenged the Big 12’s deal and failed. For an ACC school that tried and failed, the forfeited TV revenue would run into the hundreds of millions. But the current financial stakes may have changed the math. The Big Ten’s next media rights deal, which will begin a year from Friday, could ultimately allow the league to pay out as much as $100 million per school per year. It’s safe to assume that the SEC and Big Ten will each soon be able to pay out at least $70 million per school per year. The ACC distributed an average of $36.1 million per school for the 2020-21 school year.

So how would a school challenge a grant of rights? Wilhelm offered some general guidance. His firm wouldn’t allow him to comment on any league’s specific deal, but since these agreements are similar to ones he sees in his practice, he had a few ideas.

Wilhelm said there are four ways to challenge such a deal.

The first would be for the school to simply leave the conference and leave its rights behind. This is likely a non-starter because without its rights, that school is of considerably less value to another league. The new league wouldn’t be allowed to sell that school’s rights to a network, which likely would put an end to any potential marriage.

The second option is for the school to sue to try to get the rights back. This also would be exceptionally risky. “That’s going to be incredibly expensive,” Wilhelm said, “and there is not a lot of certainty that a school is going to win.”

If a school was willing to take the risk, it might claim the grant of rights isn’t a valid contract. That may sound silly. You can read three such contracts here. But it’s more complicated than that.

ACC Grant of Rights

Big 12 Grant of Rights

Pac-12 Grant of Rights

For something to be a contract, it must have three components: an offer, an acceptance and consideration. If I walk into a store and buy a pack of gum, my receipt is a valid contract. The store has offered me gum at a specific price. I have accepted those terms. I have given the store that amount of money, and the store has given me the pack of gum.

In the grant of rights, the school has given the conference something of value — its media rights. But what has the conference given the school? It’s not the money for those media rights. That comes from one or several networks based on the terms of the conference’s deal with the network(s). The school’s attorneys could argue that an entirely separate contract covers that consideration.

Meanwhile, the attorneys for the conference and the remaining schools could argue that the consideration the school received was stability in an unstable time.

 

One option: Hope the league dissolves and the grant of rights goes with it. (Jim Dedmon / USA Today)

But first, Wilhelm pointed out, any school challenging any of the grant of rights deals would have to figure out where to sue. This goes back to the brevity of the contracts themselves. “There’s nothing inherently wrong with that,” he said. “That doesn’t mean it’s a bad contract or that it’s unenforceable or anything like that. But what you have is a situation where you’re tying up potentially billions of dollars of rights in three or four pages. That leaves a lot of questions about what everybody was agreeing to at the time.”

One key question: Which state’s law governs the deal? If I look at my employment agreement with The Athletic, it tells me that it is governed by the laws of the state of California. There is no such clause in any of these deals. This, to Wilhelm, is a feature rather than a bug. It adds another layer of complexity for any entity wishing to challenge the deal. “So before we even get to the arguing about ‘Is this a contract’ or ‘Is this enforceable,’ we have to first figure out what court we’re supposed to be in,” Wilhelm said. “And lawyers will spend months arguing about what court you’re going to be in and — even when you’re in the court — what law applies.”

See why even Oklahoma and Texas — with all their fancy lawyers — haven’t challenged the Big 12’s grant of rights? It’s a lot of (expensive) work with no guarantee of success and a steep price for failure. Of course, if the schools could get the cases tried in their states, they might have a better chance of winning. This is especially true if they have friends in the state legislature who can help adjust the state’s contract laws. But again, that is no guarantee.

A much less risky (but probably still expensive) option is to try to negotiate a deal with the conference and the remaining members for an exit fee that is less than the full amount that would be forfeited. That exit fee would allow a school to leave with its rights intact.

While ACC members would be unlikely to agree to such a deal if a few of their schools wished to leave, this seems like the logical route for Oklahoma and Texas should they wish to join the SEC when that league’s new media rights deal begins in 2024. The Sooners and Longhorns could offer a payment that would allow the remaining Big 12 members to receive either an equal amount or more than they would have received had Oklahoma and Texas stayed until 2025, then it would seem reasonable that the other schools would let them leave with their rights. (Unless they really want to be spiteful, which is their right.)

The fourth option? Hope the league dissolves and the grant of rights dissolves with it. In the ACC, that would require the majority of the members to want to leave. That seems unlikely. But what about the Big 12 and Oklahoma and Texas? The Pac-12 could respond to the loss of USC and UCLA by trying to scoop up Big 12 members. The leagues could merge and form an entirely new entity. If that happened, the Sooners and Longhorns could be free to go.

Meanwhile, the grant of rights concept could prove useful elsewhere. If Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff wants to know if any more schools are attempting to leave his conference, he can make a request that the 10 remaining schools sign a new grant of rights agreement that extends to some point in the distant future. The schools that want to stay will jump at the chance to sign. If, say, Oregon or Washington or Utah or Cal or Stanford were exploring whether they might be candidates to join the Big Ten, they’d ask to hold off on signing such a document.

Because if they did, they’d be signing a very short contract with some very long repercussions.

 

[SL Xpress 7505]

51 minutes ago, bullet said:

I was on campus in the 70s.   People did care about Arkansas.  When a game decides the national championship 3 times in a decade, it sticks a while.  Plus, the rest of the SWC was pretty bad at this point.  We were winning 18 years in a row vs. Baylor, 26 vs. TCU and 28 vs. Rice.  We just ended a 35 year run losing only 3 times to aggy.

I would say as long as Broyles was there it was a big game, and of course him and Royal had a special relationship. When he retired in 1976 and Lou Holtz took over it lost its luster. Arkansas just wasn’t that potent of a team any more. UH when they were admitted ended up winning the conference in their first year in 76, then in 78, and ‘79. They weren’t a rival either, but it was a bigger game. 

And yes, Texas was dominating its conference opponents. I agree that A&M was met with a lot of laughter and indifference, even when Ballard was there. 

So sure, if you’re saying of all the regular opponents Texas fans were mostly indifferent towards, Arkansas was the one they were the least indifferent about, you might have a point up to the late 70s. Even when Hatfield won the conference in 1988 and ‘89 they were mostly seen as plucky underdogs winning with their modified wishbone Hatfield brought with him from Air Force. 

There’s a huge drop off between OU as a rival and anyone else. And thanks to A&M’s bullshit under Sherrill and Slocum, they unfortunately rose to be seen as something other than complete laughingstocks, although let’s face it, they’re still laughingstocks. 

Whatever mystique is granted to the Arkansas series is based on one special decade, and the Razorback fans being over the top with their singular hatred towards the Longhorns. It’s never been returned the way it is for OU. Mentioning the two in the same breath, or even with A&M, is still manufacturing a feeling that simply wasn’t present back then, and certainly not after Broyles quit coaching. 

As an example, no one has ever hated Broyles, Holtz, or Hatfield the way Switzer, Stoops, Sherrill, or Slocum are hated. Or Jimbo Fisher, now. I mean, I always hated Holtz because he was such a mealy mouthed whiner, but it had nothing to do with being the coach at Arkansas. I couldn’t stand his ass at Minnesota and especially Notre Dame.

The Razorbacks have simply never elicited that much feeling in the Longhorn fan base outside of 60-69, and whatever afterglow occurred for a few years after that. But apparently now we’re going to collectively stretch our imagined past intensity towards them simply because we REALLY didn’t give a shit about everyone else. Which is definitely true. 

[Deej 76600]

I just want to make it clear that I'm for whatever realignment scenario fucks Baylor over the most. 

[DFW Horn 6118]

29 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

https://theathletic.com/3396108/2022/07/01/acc-grant-of-rights-staples/
someone help me out here 

Why wouldn't the state law apply for the conference's HQ? The TV monies are paid to the league offices and then distributed to the members, right? Or is that too logical?

Lawyers, chime in.

[ButtFumble 5161]

5 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

https://theathletic.com/3396108/2022/07/01/acc-grant-of-rights-staples/
someone help me out here 

on ways to attack the GOR

1. the first parts are pretty clear.....simply exit the conference (he ignores the separate contractual obligation to pay exit fees) and leave the media rights.....but of course without media rights what value do you really have.....pretty much a non-starter for all involved

2. sue to get media rights back.....pretty hard lawsuit to win that you signed a contract and now you feel you can do better so you should be able to just throw it away and walk away with no damages

the argument is the GOR does not provide any type of consideration for the media rights (compensation for being a member is in the separate contract for conference membership)...he states that stability might be a "consideration" I would argue that the airing of games is the consideration and the fixed schedule for a number of annual games......though neither of those are really spelled out specifically in the GOR

3. he says pay an exit fee to break the GOR......well the conference already has an exit fee in the separate contract for conference membership it is $50 million for the ACC and two years prior distributions for the Big 12...more importantly to me he leaves out the fact that if you just take the cash you are in fact setting a precedent that a GOR can in fact be bought out and thus you have rendered future GORs pretty much worthless at least for any conference that accepts cash to break it.......how much cash is worth that?

4. hope you can get the votes together to disband the conference and thus the GOR and the contract for conference membership......with a super-majority of votes needed (and in the Big 12 disinterested parties which would exclude votes from members wanting to leave) that seems highly unlikely to happen...he seems to say the ACC needs a simple majority and no idea on "disinterested parties"

 

in the middle of that he discusses the fact that it is a very short simple contract.....and that it would take a very long time and be very costly to even try and figure out where to sue and what court will handle the case and that is most likely by design

 

he leaves out some other issues that I feel are very important, but that are not part of the GOR.....one is if it can be proven that ESPN or Fox was complicit in luring (or enticing) teams to break the contract that can be very costly with 3X damages.......when Bowlsby stated he had emails that the AAC and ESPN were trying to break up the Big 12 (to the benefit of Texas and OU everyone figured) people laughed at him like he was a fool......but then suddenly OU had a "money problem" and "Texas did not want to make a loan".....and the talk of Texas having $100 million to pay to leave ASAP (and presumably OU the same) went away completely......the exit fee for the Big 12 conference would have been only about $70 to $75 million at that time (two years prior distributions with a major hit to one year because of covid).....what was the other $25 million for?......was it to say "here is money shut the fuck up we are gone or do you want to go to court"......and were the members of the Big 12 wanting that extra $50 million more then they were wanting to at least try and make a future GOR pretty much worthless because of prior precedent that "well Texas and OU paid to get out of it we can to"......we really do not know....is OU really that short on cash with oil what it is right now?.....pretty hard to believe....we do know that as of now Texas and OU have gone a year without saying much of anything and having done nothing in court and are going to play at least one more season in the Big 12....the reasons?...who really knows other than a few at Texas and OU and probably ESPN

I think as of now ESPN is content to let Fox, the Big 10, and ND carry the freight on trying to break an ACC GOR and any issues with "enticement" and seeing what court takes the case and how it goes before they wade in there....not to mention ESPN owns the ACC on the cheap why do they give a fuck about paying more to teams they already own for cheap just to have them with different conference letters on their uniforms and fields

and the idea that ESPN is just going to eat away at enough of the ACC (or ESPN and Fox) that somehow they will be able to dump the dead weight with little or no cost or with a low enough cost to make up for the added expense of paying some ACC teams SEC money....well that seems like a stretch

there are specific issues for Texas and OU in that the Big 12 Contract For conference Membership requires 12 hours to notify the conference and to issue a written denial of interest for ANY contact to leave the conference....Texas and OU clearly did not do that and continued to vote on conference business including on conference business related to extending the current media rights or somehow trying to go to market early...and that is an issue.....all the more so since it is pretty clear that ESPN and Fox would have been in on that and it is impossible to believe that ESPN was not also in on Texas and OU moving to the SEC SEC SEC.....and Bowlsby (no matter what you think of him overall) seemed to get some things settled down when he made the claims that he had emails from the AAC/ESPN dealing with ESPN telling the AAC they would make it beneficial to them financially to go after Big 12 teams that they felt would panic and thus potentially bust up the Big 12

it will not be quick, easy, or cheap to bust up the GOR and it could be quite costly and as of now it looks like Texas, OU and ESPN are content to see what fox. the Big 10 and ND can or will do with the ACC and go from there

 

 

 

[ButtFumble 5161]

2 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Why wouldn't the state law apply for the conference's HQ? The TV monies are paid to the league offices and then distributed to the members, right? Or is that too logical?

Lawyers, chime in.

in the case of the Big 12 they are incorporated in Delaware.....not sure on the ACC so Delaware law could be where it happens for the Big 12...who knows if that was to prevent the Texas factor or because Delaware is the PO box corporation capital of the world 

[DFW Horn 6118]

Just now, ButtFumble said:

in the case of the Big 12 they are incorporated in Delaware.....not sure on the ACC so Delaware law could be where it happens for the Big 12...who knows if that was to prevent the Texas factor or because Delaware is the PO box corporation capital of the world 

Thanks

Remind me again why Delaware is the preferred state for incorporating? Tax breaks?

[SL Xpress 7505]

4 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

on ways to attack the GOR

1. the first parts are pretty clear.....simply exit the conference (he ignores the separate contractual obligation to pay exit fees) and leave the media rights.....but of course without media rights what value do you really have.....pretty much a non-starter for all involved

2. sue to get media rights back.....pretty hard lawsuit to win that you signed a contract and now you feel you can do better so you should be able to just throw it away and walk away with no damages

the argument is the GOR does not provide any type of consideration for the media rights (compensation for being a member is in the separate contract for conference membership)...he states that stability might be a "consideration" I would argue that the airing of games is the consideration and the fixed schedule for a number of annual games......though neither of those are really spelled out specifically in the GOR

3. he says pay an exit fee to break the GOR......well the conference already has an exit fee in the separate contract for conference membership it is $50 million for the ACC and two years prior distributions for the Big 12...more importantly to me he leaves out the fact that if you just take the cash you are in fact setting a precedent that a GOR can in fact be bought out and thus you have rendered future GORs pretty much worthless at least for any conference that accepts cash to break it.......how much cash is worth that?

4. hope you can get the votes together to disband the conference and thus the GOR and the contract for conference membership......with a super-majority of votes needed (and in the Big 12 disinterested parties which would exclude votes from members wanting to leave) that seems highly unlikely to happen...he seems to say the ACC needs a simple majority and no idea on "disinterested parties"

 

in the middle of that he discusses the fact that it is a very short simple contract.....and that it would take a very long time and be very costly to even try and figure out where to sue and what court will handle the case and that is most likely by design

 

he leaves out some other issues that I feel are very important, but that are not part of the GOR.....one is if it can be proven that ESPN or Fox was complicit in luring (or enticing) teams to break the contract that can be very costly with 3X damages.......when Bowlsby stated he had emails that the AAC and ESPN were trying to break up the Big 12 (to the benefit of Texas and OU everyone figured) people laughed at him like he was a fool......but then suddenly OU had a "money problem" and "Texas did not want to make a loan".....and the talk of Texas having $100 million to pay to leave ASAP (and presumably OU the same) went away completely......the exit fee for the Big 12 conference would have been only about $70 to $75 million at that time (two years prior distributions with a major hit to one year because of covid).....what was the other $25 million for?......was it to say "here is money shut the fuck up we are gone or do you want to go to court"......and were the members of the Big 12 wanting that extra $50 million more then they were wanting to at least try and make a future GOR pretty much worthless because of prior precedent that "well Texas and OU paid to get out of it we can to"......we really do not know....is OU really that short on cash with oil what it is right now?.....pretty hard to believe....we do know that as of now Texas and OU have gone a year without saying much of anything and having done nothing in court and are going to play at least one more season in the Big 12....the reasons?...who really knows other than a few at Texas and OU and probably ESPN

I think as of now ESPN is content to let Fox, the Big 10, and ND carry the freight on trying to break an ACC GOR and any issues with "enticement" and seeing what court takes the case and how it goes before they wade in there....not to mention ESPN owns the ACC on the cheap why do they give a fuck about paying more to teams they already own for cheap just to have them with different conference letters on their uniforms and fields

and the idea that ESPN is just going to eat away at enough of the ACC (or ESPN and Fox) that somehow they will be able to dump the dead weight with little or no cost or with a low enough cost to make up for the added expense of paying some ACC teams SEC money....well that seems like a stretch

there are specific issues for Texas and OU in that the Big 12 Contract For conference Membership requires 12 hours to notify the conference and to issue a written denial of interest for ANY contact to leave the conference....Texas and OU clearly did not do that and continued to vote on conference business including on conference business related to extending the current media rights or somehow trying to go to market early...and that is an issue.....all the more so since it is pretty clear that ESPN and Fox would have been in on that and it is impossible to believe that ESPN was not also in on Texas and OU moving to the SEC SEC SEC.....and Bowlsby (no matter what you think of him overall) seemed to get some things settled down when he made the claims that he had emails from the AAC/ESPN dealing with ESPN telling the AAC they would make it beneficial to them financially to go after Big 12 teams that they felt would panic and thus potentially bust up the Big 12

it will not be quick, easy, or cheap to bust up the GOR and it could be quite costly and as of now it looks like Texas, OU and ESPN are content to see what fox. the Big 10 and ND can or will do with the ACC and go from there

 

 

 

That’s a really interesting post. The one thing I would add that you didn’t is what I was told a part of the delay being CBS decided they didn’t want to renegotiate their deal with the SEC just because of OU/TX potentially joining. That has pushed the date to enter the league for when ESPN takes over the rights in 2024. I’m not saying the Bowlsby incriminations had no effect, but this is what has been put out there by some of the Longhorn insiders I know. 

[utee94 15747]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

aggy wasn't that big in the 70s to us.  They had been bad for so long.  Houston was the #3 rival.  It wasn't until Jackie "probation" Sherrill that aggy again became a rival like they were in the 50s and earlier.

Bull fucking shit.  Houston was never a rival.  They didn't start playing football until 1946.  Texas has only played them 25 times in all of history.  They didn't join the SWC until 1976 and Texas only played them twice before that.

Just stop. 

[ButtFumble 5161]

2 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Thanks

Remind me again why Delaware is the preferred state for incorporating? Tax breaks?

their laws allow a lot of protections of assets and make it harder to pierce a corporate set up and get to individual assets.....they make it hard to go after individuals for decisions made for the corporation (provided no laws were broken of course), they have a special court for corporate cases so you get a case herd faster, they make it very easy to incorporate, their state tax laws make incorporation there cheaper than other states

[nunna yo bizness 1687]

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

pitttiger's map is extremely cool

it's no earlier than 1937 because it shows the cotton bowl (rose=1902, orange/sugar/sun=1935)

it shows a huge number of schools that don't even play football today

it's geography is comical in places (check out utah)

and since it has to date to 1937 or later it ignores the border conference almost entirely with the exception of arizona

asu, tech and utep are not even on the map

Looks like it would also be no newer than 1947 since it references the Big Six conference, and that was the year they added Colorado and became the Big Seven.

[ButtFumble 5161]

2 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

That’s a really interesting post. The one thing I would add that you didn’t is what I was told a part of the delay being CBS decided they didn’t want to renegotiate their deal with the SEC just because of OU/TX potentially joining. That has pushed the date to enter the league for when ESPN takes over the rights in 2024. I’m not saying the Bowlsby incriminations had no effect, but this is what has been put out there by some of the Longhorn insiders I know. 

this may well be true, but I would say that since it is 100% done that ESPN takes over in 2024 there is nothing holding Texas and OU from heading to court ASAP after that deal was inked.....it is pretty unknown how long this could drag out and I do not see the current Big 12 members wanting to just fold nor do I see them wanting to set a precedent (at least for themselves or some incarnation of the Big 12) that a GOR is just another contract that can be pissed on and bought out on a whim by taking 100% of the exit fees from Texas and OU (called for in the conference contract) and then some extra money to ignore the GOR exist...that pretty much sets you up to be the revolving door conference with usually the revolution being the best teams GTFO ASAP......could a GOR o to trial and get crushed....that is a possibility.....could a GOR go to court and drag out for 4 years and cost a ton of money and be upheld.....well I think we are about to find out with Fox. The Big 10, and ND and I think all involved in the Big 12 (including Texas and OU) and ESPN are going to be just fine with seeing how that goes

as of now it is 3 seasons (really two since this season is now a given) that Texas and OU will have to wait and if they are waiting until the start of 2024 really waiting a year longer (until 2025 when the GOR is up) seems a lot better than getting into a hell of a pissing match that will surly get ugly especially when it looks like some others are about to get in one over a nearly identical contract with 14 years left on it

[SL Xpress 7505]

9 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

this may well be true, but I would say that since it is 100% done that ESPN takes over in 2024 there is nothing holding Texas and OU from heading to court ASAP after that deal was inked.....it is pretty unknown how long this could drag out and I do not see the current Big 12 members wanting to just fold nor do I see them wanting to set a precedent (at least for themselves or some incarnation of the Big 12) that a GOR is just another contract that can be pissed on and bought out on a whim by taking 100% of the exit fees from Texas and OU (called for in the conference contract) and then some extra money to ignore the GOR exist...that pretty much sets you up to be the revolving door conference with usually the revolution being the best teams GTFO ASAP......could a GOR o to trial and get crushed....that is a possibility.....could a GOR go to court and drag out for 4 years and cost a ton of money and be upheld.....well I think we are about to find out with Fox. The Big 10, and ND and I think all involved in the Big 12 (including Texas and OU) and ESPN are going to be just fine with seeing how that goes

as of now it is 3 seasons (really two since this season is now a given) that Texas and OU will have to wait and if they are waiting until the start of 2024 really waiting a year longer (until 2025 when the GOR is up) seems a lot better than getting into a hell of a pissing match that will surly get ugly especially when it looks like some others are about to get in one over a nearly identical contract with 14 years left on it

Makes tons of sense. Just to be clear I don’t see Texas going to litigation over this. They’ve always tended to want to avoid litigation in pretty much every instance. My assumption is there’s some amount of money the Big 12 will be willing to accept. Does that amount go up the closer we get to 2024, or down? ESPN has already purchased OU’s Tier 3 rights for a substantial amount more than Fox was giving them in what in my mind is an obvious payout to help them pay whatever the Big 12 exit fee for 2024 ends up being, since those rights roll into the SEC agreement ESPN already has in place. 

It’s my guess an agreement is in place and an announcement made prior to the 2023 season, but we’ll see. In any case I enjoy your thoughts and really like your perspective. 

[ButtFumble 5161]

16 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Makes tons of sense. Just to be clear I don’t see Texas going to litigation over this. They’ve always tended to want to avoid litigation in pretty much every instance. My assumption is there’s some amount of money the Big 12 will be willing to accept. Does that amount go up the closer we get to 2024, or down? ESPN has already purchased OU’s Tier 3 rights for a substantial amount more than Fox was giving them in what in my mind is an obvious payout to help them pay whatever the Big 12 exit fee for 2024 ends up being, since those rights roll into the SEC agreement ESPN already has in place. 

It’s my guess an agreement is in place and an announcement made prior to the 2023 season, but we’ll see. In any case I enjoy your thoughts and really like your perspective. 

I think Texas was not really interested in litigation as well and I think the $100 million was there (and is there)

I think at one point (late last year or very early this year) the members of the Big 12 would have told Texas and OU $100 million each and leave 2 years early (when the way too rushed adds) come into the conference.....that would have been about $78 to $80 in exit fees and an extra $20 to $22 million to cover walking out on the GOR with no issues

I think now there is contentment to sit back and wait the extra money is only about $5 million per team for the leftover 8 which I am sure they all want and could use, but now with potential PAC 12 members or ACC members to try and lure well do you really want to weaken a GOR for yourself and all the more so if the ACC GOR ends up and stands up in court (which would mean only PAC 12 teams to try and lure)......but any of those teams from the PAC 12 especially and the ACC as well would be looking to GTFO ASAP

for that matter I am not sure ESPN and Fox really want a GOR to be cheap cheap or near FREE! to break because that really means if some new big swinging dick company like Elon Musk Media or Amazon TV or The Google Channel could come along and just start buying teams they want and throwing enough fuck you and your GOR money at them to make it happen.....I think they want it to be just cheap enough where they know they get a return on what it might cost over the long haul, but expensive enough that a new competitor will think twice about trying to buy up a bunch of teams and perhaps getting some old rivalries back together and going with their own structure...really I am not sure Fox or especially ESPN has really thought this through they are not exactly great business people when it comes down to it and ESPN is really flat shitty at a lot of things, but they just pay for their mistakes and throw cash and move on 

[clapclapclap 9000]

3 hours ago, 66BUFF said:

When did SDSU move to LA?

Last year:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29892165/san-diego-state-play-2021-home-football-games-dignity-health-sports-park-carson-california

San Diego State to play 2021 home football games at Dignity Health Sports Park in Carson, California

...Tuesday's announcement notably said the Aztecs would play a spring season at Dignity Health Sports Park, home to the LA Galaxy of Major League Soccer and the former temporary home of the NFL's Los Angeles Chargers....

 

A pattern is emerging...

Edited July 2, 2022 by clapclapclap
"Your 2023 San Diego State Super Aztecs of Anaheim"

[totallynotabuttpirate 5349]

2 hours ago, pwood220 said:

My mom went to UT in 1969/1970. 

I remember her. 

[wild_turkey 3154]

Negged. College football is going to get reigned in as something people can follow and be involved with. Like Horns With Heart. This is how you get everyone to pay players and be open about it with NIL to do good things. The conference sets the rules for caps and rev share and whatnot.

Thanks for the neg.

College football was already something fans followed and were involved with. We didn’t need any of these changes to enable us to become fans of college sports.

I don’t disagree that NIL should be a thing (which was only one of my initial points), but it’s a symptom of the bigger problem which is that massive amounts of money will continue to degrade the quality of college sports. College football has always been far better than NFL for reasons, and the more it changes to become similar to the NFL, the less enjoyable it becomes.

It would be very difficult to argue otherwise unless you prefer pro sports to begin with, in which case I don’t know what to tell you.

[walker 175]

3 hours ago, pwood220 said:

My mom went to UT in 1969/1970. She said Arkansas was a big rivalry when she was there. Supposedly, when traveling to the game in AR, you needed to fill up your tank before crossing state lines, because on that weekend all of the gas stations refused to fill tanks with Texas plates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This kind of spite and pettiness in rivalries is amazing.  Not sure if we'll ever get that back again as people say a decent portion of the incoming arky class comes from TX

[clapclapclap 9000]

15 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

Thanks for the neg.
 

 

I gave you a plus, so no need to call Iceman.

[SL Xpress 7505]

48 minutes ago, walker said:

This kind of spite and pettiness in rivalries is amazing.  Not sure if we'll ever get that back again as people say a decent portion of the incoming arky class comes from TX

A decent portion of the Arkansas football team was from Texas back then. The amount of quality football players from the state of Arkansas was always tiny, even if all of them went to the state school.

Arkansas fans are going to show an amazing amount of pettiness once again once the rivalry starts getting played every year. The big difference between now and then is that a bigger portion of the student body is from places outside Arkansas. I can’t imagine we’ll get a reprise of the gas station episodes of the past, but there will be plenty of vitriol to spare. And who knows? Maybe the coming generations of Texas fans will view Arkansas as a rivalry game. That’s not a bad thing. It just bothers me to see it painted as something it most definitely was not other than the relatively brief amount of time Arkansas managed to be one of the top 5 programs in the country during the 60s. 

[TriStone 1724]

19 hours ago, Sleep off ugly said:

This may be the most idiotic idea on this thread, which is saying a lot.

How committed are the horns and ou to the sec? If the big whatever gets Notre Dame, what if we and the land thieves joined? Maybe add in UVA or some other school that gave a shit about schooling. That’s five to six elite traditional powerhouses. Make a west pod with UT, OU, USC, UCLA and Nebraska (just to fuck with them) and that could be some fun fucking football. Add in ND as a “permanent rival” and I’d be down. 
 

I’m know this will never happen and UT would be blamed for ruining something, something integrity but I’m buzzed and a man can dream.

I am but a humble caveman, but by my read of the landscape the image of the SEC in the minds of today's yutes as THE place to be if you want to make it to the NFL is unshakeable.  Changing tack now and joining the Big10 would be a tremendous mistake.

[Poolflood 845]

3 hours ago, Deej said:

I just want to make it clear that I'm for whatever realignment scenario fucks Baylor over the most. 

Preferably without consent. 

[Francisco 2.0 32347]

11 year old tweet:

 

 

 

[Left Coast 863]

I know everyone is assuming Oregon and Washington would be next into the B1G but this part of an analysis from the LA Times caught my eye:

The Cardinal would be a more palatable West Coast partner for USC and UCLA than the Ducks and Huskies. Both L.A. schools are sick of Oregon with its Nike flash coming into Southern California and stealing top talent, and USC’s and UCLA’s move to the Big Ten has wounded the Ducks.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-07-02/big-ten-expansion-impacts-usc-ucla-notre-dame-football

So maybe SC and UCLA might not be so hot on Oregon joining them? Or may even try to actively block them? Wasn’t something I had considered before.

[TKthunder2 4981]

45 minutes ago, Left Coast said:

I know everyone is assuming Oregon and Washington would be next into the B1G but this part of an analysis from the LA Times caught my eye:

The Cardinal would be a more palatable West Coast partner for USC and UCLA than the Ducks and Huskies. Both L.A. schools are sick of Oregon with its Nike flash coming into Southern California and stealing top talent, and USC’s and UCLA’s move to the Big Ten has wounded the Ducks.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-07-02/big-ten-expansion-impacts-usc-ucla-notre-dame-football

So maybe SC and UCLA might not be so hot on Oregon joining them? Or may even try to actively block them? Wasn’t something I had considered before.

They don’t get a vote until they join.

[Left Coast 863]

5 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

They don’t get a vote until they join.

Well yeah but they sure as hell could have made it a condition of joining.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, Left Coast said:

I know everyone is assuming Oregon and Washington would be next into the B1G but this part of an analysis from the LA Times caught my eye:

The Cardinal would be a more palatable West Coast partner for USC and UCLA than the Ducks and Huskies. Both L.A. schools are sick of Oregon with its Nike flash coming into Southern California and stealing top talent, and USC’s and UCLA’s move to the Big Ten has wounded the Ducks.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-07-02/big-ten-expansion-impacts-usc-ucla-notre-dame-football

So maybe SC and UCLA might not be so hot on Oregon joining them? Or may even try to actively block them? Wasn’t something I had considered before.

Maybe the Big Ten really is willing to be done at 16 unless the Irish come knocking.  If so, the B1G would avoid killing the PAC 12 in the way that the SEC technically avoided killing the Big 12.  "The Rose Bowl" as a power player in college football politics, and an obstacle in the CFP expansion talks, would be dead, though.  

Considering the likely hurt feelings in all of this, then maybe the Big 12 ends up with a (primarily) FOX media rights deal and the PAC remnants end up with Disney.  That divides up the U.S. map fairly well between the two media companies.