(02-09-2013 02:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 11:27 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 11:07 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 10:25 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  would mean if a team like Texas went to the Pac 12 or Big Ten, the Big XII would either pay to show Texas games v.s. someone else, or let UT keep those games as tier 3

If Texas went to another conference, per the GOR, not only would the Big 12 have the broadcast rights to their home games that are Tier 1 & Tier 2 BUT the Big 12 would retain the related TV revenue for those games and would not have to distribute it to Texas. THAT is the aspect of the GOR which makes leaving the conference prohibitive. Texas has boatloads of cash but even the Horns don't want to go years without their Tier 1 & Tier 2 money.

Hmmm... so you are saying that a U.S. court of law is going to enforce a contract where one party (Big XII) gets everything and the other party (U of Texas) gets nothing. I'm not a lawyer, but... that doesn't sound right to me.

That is what Texas signed up for, as did the other Big 12 members.

That is why the Pac 12, Big 10 and Big 12 TV deals are worth so much more than the ACC's because they are exponentially more secure.

That is why Swofford so desperately wants his conference members to sign a GOR.

That is why so many ACC schools are reluctant to sign a GOR.

The evidence is everywhere, still you choose to ignore it. We are kind of at a dead end here. What facts can you present to someone who doesn't value facts?

Continue in your belief that the GOR is meaningless. I hope it comforts you when the ACC gets shredded.

Were those your balls I saw bouncing down the highway?

(02-09-2013 11:41 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I said it there on page 2 and so I will say it here too.

The Big 12 has a big hole in the bottom of it's GoR. Once the Networks choose what they want to take for their programming, the rest reverts back to the schools.

In the Big Ten with it's GoR all of that reverts to the BTN. The schools in the Big Ten stand on equal ground in that all of their television rights are given up. That is not the case with the Big 12 as certain schools do not get back many of their TV rights which is why Texas fights to get some for their LHN. Their home games are highly desired for airplay by the Networks. Other schools....such as Kansas are not as desired and end up with a lot of unused content that technically they could sell to someone else for airplay.

Big difference.

I don't remember my sources, but I'm pretty sure that between the ESPN and Fox contracts, the networks actually own the rights to more Big 12 games than actually exist, when you factor out the one "reserved game" for each school. Those games may not be on FOX or FX or ESPN, but Fox owns them and they're on Fox Sports Net locally even if they're not on Fox Sports Near-you.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfr...Comments=1

BY JOHN E. HOOVER World Sports Columnist
Sunday, June 03, 2012
6/3/2012 7:09:07 AM

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Everyone in the Big 12 Conference seems to be on the same page, arm-in-arm, marching in lockstep.

Like anyone would with a gun to their head.

"I don't know if it's a gun or it's a handful of money," said Oklahoma State president, Burns Hargis, chairman of the Big 12 board of directors.

Hargis answered a question about the Big 12's newfound harmony coming from a proposed 13-year grant-of-rights. Essentially, if any school leaves the Big 12, that school's football television revenue remains with the rest of the conference for 13 years.

(02-09-2013 05:58 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfr...Comments=1

BY JOHN E. HOOVER World Sports Columnist
Sunday, June 03, 2012
6/3/2012 7:09:07 AM

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Everyone in the Big 12 Conference seems to be on the same page, arm-in-arm, marching in lockstep.

Like anyone would with a gun to their head.

"I don't know if it's a gun or it's a handful of money," said Oklahoma State president, Burns Hargis, chairman of the Big 12 board of directors.

Hargis answered a question about the Big 12's newfound harmony coming from a proposed 13-year grant-of-rights. Essentially, if any school leaves the Big 12, that school's football television revenue remains with the rest of the conference for 13 years.

OK. So we have a source.

But I don't think that will stand up in court.

(02-09-2013 07:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Sounds like the GoR
(1) guarantees that ESPN/Fox will have games to show on TV (i.e. protects ESPN/Fox)
(2) guarantees that the Big XII TV contract will continue to pay the teams that stay (i.e. protects Iowa St/Kansas St, etc.)
(3) would mean if a team like Texas went to the Pac 12 or Big Ten, the Big XII would either pay to show Texas games v.s. someone else, or let UT keep those games as tier 3 (but risk having ESPN/Fox tear up the contract)
(4) in that case the Pac-12/B1G would not get the right to broadcast Texas home games (min. 5/year), though they could still show UT away games on their own TV network (est. 5 to 7 games/year).

Would that be enough economic disincentive to keep UT in the Big XII, in view of the recruiting beating that A&M put on them this year?

When you consider travel cost and exit penalties eating up whatever payout Texas road contests in football and basketball divided several ways would generate... yes.

Also the fact they don't WANT to leave.

Also recruiting slumping has less to do with A&M than it does with how they went against OU this year, and last year, and generally having a mediocre 3 years.

(02-09-2013 06:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 05:58 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfr...Comments=1

BY JOHN E. HOOVER World Sports Columnist
Sunday, June 03, 2012
6/3/2012 7:09:07 AM

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Everyone in the Big 12 Conference seems to be on the same page, arm-in-arm, marching in lockstep.

Like anyone would with a gun to their head.

"I don't know if it's a gun or it's a handful of money," said Oklahoma State president, Burns Hargis, chairman of the Big 12 board of directors.

Hargis answered a question about the Big 12's newfound harmony coming from a proposed 13-year grant-of-rights. Essentially, if any school leaves the Big 12, that school's football television revenue remains with the rest of the conference for 13 years.

OK. So we have a source.

But I don't think that will stand up in court.

That changes EVERYTHING! I'm calling DeLoss right now to tell him you don't think it will stand up in court. The Pac, the B1G, the Big 12, ESPN, FOX.....THEY ARE ALL WRONG. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHEN WILL THESE PEOPLE LEARN TO START TRUSTING THE GUT INSTINCTS OF MESSAGE BOARD POSTERS!!!!!

(02-09-2013 06:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 05:58 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfr...Comments=1

BY JOHN E. HOOVER World Sports Columnist
Sunday, June 03, 2012
6/3/2012 7:09:07 AM

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Everyone in the Big 12 Conference seems to be on the same page, arm-in-arm, marching in lockstep.

Like anyone would with a gun to their head.

"I don't know if it's a gun or it's a handful of money," said Oklahoma State president, Burns Hargis, chairman of the Big 12 board of directors.

Hargis answered a question about the Big 12's newfound harmony coming from a proposed 13-year grant-of-rights. Essentially, if any school leaves the Big 12, that school's football television revenue remains with the rest of the conference for 13 years.

OK. So we have a source.

But I don't think that will stand up in court.

Depends on how things are written. That said I expect the anti-Big 12 contingent to keep viewing it how they want.

How much evidence do you need?

Each time the ACC puts out a trite statement with nothing to turn those empty promises into unbreakable bonds, it becomes more and more obvious: The future of the conference is at the mercy of Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and the SEC's Mike Slive. And until the ACC's schools agree to a so-called "grant of rights" like the once-shaky Big 12 did last year, those solidarity statements aren't worth the Internet bandwith it took to Tweet them.

A grant of rights, in case you haven't been following the realignment carousel for the past 2 ½ years, is powerful because it requires schools to sign their media rights to the conference for the length of the contract. In other words, if Oklahoma wanted to leave the Big 12, for instance, it couldn't bring its television rights with it to another league. In the case of the Big 12, that's about $200 million.

And that matters. That binds. That can be taken seriously.

The ACC's statement Thursday can't.

(02-09-2013 06:11 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 06:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 05:58 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfr...Comments=1

BY JOHN E. HOOVER World Sports Columnist
Sunday, June 03, 2012
6/3/2012 7:09:07 AM

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Everyone in the Big 12 Conference seems to be on the same page, arm-in-arm, marching in lockstep.

Like anyone would with a gun to their head.

"I don't know if it's a gun or it's a handful of money," said Oklahoma State president, Burns Hargis, chairman of the Big 12 board of directors.

Hargis answered a question about the Big 12's newfound harmony coming from a proposed 13-year grant-of-rights. Essentially, if any school leaves the Big 12, that school's football television revenue remains with the rest of the conference for 13 years.

OK. So we have a source.

But I don't think that will stand up in court.

Depends on how things are written. That said I expect the anti-Big 12 contingent to keep viewing it how they want.

On that we can all agree...

(02-09-2013 05:58 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfr...Comments=1

BY JOHN E. HOOVER World Sports Columnist
Sunday, June 03, 2012
6/3/2012 7:09:07 AM

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Everyone in the Big 12 Conference seems to be on the same page, arm-in-arm, marching in lockstep.

Like anyone would with a gun to their head.

"I don't know if it's a gun or it's a handful of money," said Oklahoma State president, Burns Hargis, chairman of the Big 12 board of directors.

Hargis answered a question about the Big 12's newfound harmony coming from a proposed 13-year grant-of-rights. Essentially, if any school leaves the Big 12, that school's football television revenue remains with the rest of the conference for 13 years.

There was never any question in my mind whether the TV revenue remains with the conference if they leave... that's what a GoR is all about, I think. The issue was whether Texas would continue to get a 10% share - this quote doesn't address that. There are some lawyers on this board who have said time & again that a one-sided contract is unenforceable (whether you signed it of your own free will or not is irrelevant). So all I'm saying is either Texas would have to continue to receive a share, or else they've have to get their TV rights back. Baylor can get a share, too, and the Big XII TV contract would be safe for the duration as long as UT kept getting paid... but the Big XII would have to pay them even if they left.

(02-09-2013 06:17 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  How much evidence do you need?

A court decision that reverses the precedent established by the West Virginia vs Big East case, and the Big 12 vs Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and A&M cases, that contract terms designed to hold a school in a conference are not enforceable.

ACC vs MAryland is on the clock.

(02-09-2013 07:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 06:17 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  How much evidence do you need?

A court decision that reverses the precedent established by the West Virginia vs Big East case, and the Big 12 vs Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and A&M cases, that contract terms designed to hold a school in a conference are not enforceable.

ACC vs MAryland is on the clock.

1- WVU vs Big East was a very different case with very different criteria

2- The Big 12 vs NU, CU, MU, ATM was all settled out of court unless I am mistaken so no precedent on whether it was enforceable was established.

Also complicating matters is that they left earlier than the Big 12 could withold a penalty for so that pushed the settlement fee down as the bird in the hand was more desirable than the two in the bush you'd incur serious legal fees going after.

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Actually, as I saw at least several of the posts by the op before they were deleted in the wvu thread, most likely nothing else to see here. The OP was most likely banned (or asked to move on) and may not even have a copy of the GOR. He/she may have used the thread for another purpose, which may or may not have been accomplished. I hope the OP does in fact have a copy of the Big 12 gor, but if he/she does, don't look for it to be on the wvu board.

There are some lawyers on this board who have said time & again that a one-sided contract is unenforceable (whether you signed it of your own free will or not is irrelevant). So all I'm saying is either Texas would have to continue to receive a share, or else they've have to get their TV rights back.

This really is the crux of the matter.

Why would the B1G, Pac and Big 12 all make a big deal about, and waste their time on, something that is of no value?

Why would Swofford be so desperate for something to be ratified by the ACC that is meaningless?

Why would so many ACC schools be so afraid of signing something that is obviously unenforceable?

How can so many experienced and savvy mainstream media professionals have been so easily conned?

Or maybe.....just maybe.....this huge collection of diverse and well-educated professionals know what they are talking about.

(02-09-2013 08:37 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  There are some lawyers on this board who have said time & again that a one-sided contract is unenforceable (whether you signed it of your own free will or not is irrelevant). So all I'm saying is either Texas would have to continue to receive a share, or else they've have to get their TV rights back.

This really is the crux of the matter.

Why would the B1G, Pac and Big 12 all make a big deal about, and waste their time on, something that is of no value?

Why would Swofford be so desperate for something to be ratified by the ACC that is meaningless?

Why would so many ACC schools be so afraid of signing something that is obviously unenforceable?

How can so many experienced and savvy mainstream media professionals have been so easily conned?

Or maybe.....just maybe.....this huge collection of diverse and well-educated professionals know what they are talking about.

As does Wallace Loh in his arguments against the gor......sorry, I mean punitive damages that inhibit free market/enterprise. Freedom of movement is inherent in free enterrprise. Devil's in the details, guess we'll never know.........till the time comes.

Then you'll never know. Nobody is leaving the B12 for the length of the GoR...

Now the ACC could be another matter. We will see after the Maryland case is decided...

(02-09-2013 08:49 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 08:37 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  There are some lawyers on this board who have said time & again that a one-sided contract is unenforceable (whether you signed it of your own free will or not is irrelevant). So all I'm saying is either Texas would have to continue to receive a share, or else they've have to get their TV rights back.

This really is the crux of the matter.

Why would the B1G, Pac and Big 12 all make a big deal about, and waste their time on, something that is of no value?

Why would Swofford be so desperate for something to be ratified by the ACC that is meaningless?

Why would so many ACC schools be so afraid of signing something that is obviously unenforceable?

How can so many experienced and savvy mainstream media professionals have been so easily conned?

Or maybe.....just maybe.....this huge collection of diverse and well-educated professionals know what they are talking about.

As does Wallace Loh in his arguments against the gor......sorry, I mean punitive damages that inhibit free market/enterprise. Freedom of movement is inherent in free enterrprise. Devil's in the details, guess we'll never know.........till the time comes.

Wallace Loh isn't arguing against a GOR that a school voluntarily approves of, he's arguing against exit penalties he didn't vote for being enacted and executed in a manner that isnt even consistent with Acc bylaws and are in his opinion invalid.

(02-09-2013 09:02 PM)S11 Wrote:  Wallace Loh isn't arguing against a GOR that a school voluntarily approves of, he's arguing against exit penalties he didn't vote for being enacted and executed in a manner that isnt even consistent with Acc bylaws and are in his opinion invalid.

Oliver Luck argued against penalties he DID vote for and that WERE duly enacted by Big East bylaws, and he got what he wanted.

So we know that "You signed the contract voluntarily" doesn't mean as much in a court as laymen and logic would assume.

If you argue that Texas isn't leaving because they'd rather be King of the Big XII than an equal member or an outlier somewhere else, I'm listening and that makes a lot of sense, maybe.

If you argue that Texas isn't leaving because they signed a contract saying that they wouldn't leave, with penalties for leaving, well, you haven't been paying attention.

WVU argued that The BEast that it once proudly joined was stupid in their responsibility to their membership. By the time WVU sued for their exit, every rivalry the Mountaineers valued had been destroyed by The BEast's complacency and reluctance to put more emphasis on football, which is why the conference is valueless now...