(02-06-2013 02:32 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  I'm sure the B12 fans will believe they have the Almighty GOR and the ACC will just have a fly-by-night GOR.

Only if Pitt is negotiating the details, curtis, like they did with The BEast's TV contract renewal before they bailed for the ACC...

(02-06-2013 11:47 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 11:01 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The GOR was a public relations ploy for the B12 and it will be for the ACC as well. If a team wants to leave, it will be able to leave - just like every other contract, it can be broken.

Some contracts are exponentially more difficult and expensive to break. People on this board assume it would be an easy and inexpensive process relative to most exit fees- it wouldn't be.

I have always said that a GOR is better than a simple exit fee. But it is not the Almighty, All-Powerful Shackle that Big 12 fans have made it out to be on this site and others.

Once Oklahoma knew it couldn't leave for the Pac-12 without Texas, both agreed to the GOR. Assuming the rumor is true, perhaps FSU has finally accepted the fact that they aren't going to get that call from the SEC or the BiG but because UNC likely would (maybe even did) the Noles probably realized it will be in their best interest to agree to a GOR after all to ensure, as much as possible, UNC stays.

Still, the best way to ensure long-term stability is to have members that for the most part want to be part of your conference and ONLY your conference (whatever conference that is).

The BiG's stability isn't built around a GOR. It's built around the fact that those TV media rights resulted in an equity share in the BTN that long-term is worth more than any individual school's media rights separately.

Cheers,
Neil

If FSU is the only school not willing to sign a GOR, than they probably should change their tune. Tell the big 10 and sec that fsu will sign the GOR by a certain date unless you invite FSU.

The idea that Ohio State is making more $ as a B1G member than it would as a Big 12 member, with control of its own tier 3 rights, is laughable. OSU is taking a hit because it is essentially subsidizing inferior athletic departments.

(02-07-2013 11:00 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  The idea that Ohio State is making more $ as a B1G member than it would as a Big 12 member, with control of its own tier 3 rights, is laughable. OSU is taking a hit because it is essentially subsidizing inferior athletic departments.

Doesn't every "big name school" (Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, FSU, Oklahoma, Alabama, Southern Cal, etc.) "essentially subsidize inferior athletic departments"?

Aren't football conferences essentially socialistic, "welfare" organizations except for the big name, traditional "anchor" schools in each conference?

Is there really that much difference between conferences in that regard?

Back in December there was speculation the the ACC would be better served froma GoR.
It could be argued that UMD would have stayed had one been one in place.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/...nt-frenzy/

Notre Dame would likely not have given the ACC a look, however, IMO the GoR rather than increased exit fees is in the best interest of the ACC for the long term.
It certainly seems be a stabilizing influence for the B1G.

(02-07-2013 01:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 11:00 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  The idea that Ohio State is making more $ as a B1G member than it would as a Big 12 member, with control of its own tier 3 rights, is laughable. OSU is taking a hit because it is essentially subsidizing inferior athletic departments.

Doesn't every "big name school" (Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, FSU, Oklahoma, Alabama, Southern Cal, etc.) "essentially subsidize inferior athletic departments"?

Aren't football conferences essentially socialistic, "welfare" organizations except for the big name, traditional "anchor" schools in each conference?

Is there really that much difference between conferences in that regard?

You're right in that while people deride some schools as inferior, there are multiple ways for a school to contribute to a conference. If you were to look at Indiana or Kansas, for example, they are certainly not major direct contributors to their conferences in football. However, not only do they provide a counterbalance as major contributors in basketball, their sustained struggles in football have been a factor in the likes of Michigan and Oklahoma building their overall success in football. You don't want a conference of just one or two "haves" and a contingent of "Washington Generals", but the big boys didn't get there in a vacuum, and a lot of those big overall win numbers came against "lesser" schools rather than in struggles between titans.

If there ever was a final consolidation of just the top power schools, you'd see a lot of cannibalization take place, and the loss of brand equity for those who didn't come out on top. I think you'll likely see that at the upper-mid-levels of conferences as consolidation takes place. aTm is a great add to the SEC overall - but it also means a there's a new player with significant potential to add L's not only to the likes of Alabama or LSU, but more regularly to the likes of Georgia and Tennessee. The same is true to a lesser extent with Missouri, although they're also likely to see their brand damaged (at least on the football side) if they don't step up in their new home.