(05-24-2015 07:37 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 03:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 11:02 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 10:22 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Just a quick point... Why not sign a GOR?

Does anybody on here think we will hit $10 million a year? (if you do, stop bogarting and pass that **** along...I could use a hit)

So we sign a GOR and If/When a P5 offers one of us, we at a minimum will make $14 million more per year. (thats what the next closest P5 made $24 million minus the $10 we theoretically would be making...probably less)

Maryland had to pay about $32 million to leave and that was from the ACC. What would our exit look like? Maybe $25 million and I think thats on the high side.

So in 2 years time, you make back all the money you paid to leave and the rest is gravy.


So whats the upside? We get more money now. I say we sign a GOR. If it gets us more money by showing stability then why not. On top of it, a GOR would help us to land someone like BYU. We need to go into our next negotiations looking like a CONFERENCE and not a bunch of leftover misfits who are pissed to be here.

Sign the GOR. Raid a few MWC teams. Make an offer to BYU for all sports.... thats a recipe for getting closer to that $10 million.

Any school with any hopes do getting a P5 slot will never sign a GOR. That immediately eliminates Cinci, UConn, USF, UCF, Houston, ECU, SMU, Memphis, and Tulane for sure---probably every AAC member to be honest.

Why not? You really think that a GOR would slow down Cinci? Lets say the Big 12 wants to expand, Cinci would make so much more there that the GOR wouldnt even begin to be a deterrent.
The reality is that every one of those teams mentioned really dont have a prayer of moving until the B12 contract is over with... so we all agree to a 7 year GOR and secure more money now.

Do you know what a GOR is? It is a grant of rights. Essentially, every team in the conference agrees to grant their TV rights to the conference.

In your example above, you're saying the Big-12 would add a team (Cinci) that cannot supply the Big-12 with its tv rights. Why would a conference add any team that cant supply its TV rights? So, while Cincy would certainly leave the AAC and join the Big-12 if invited (despite a GOR being in affect), the reality is---the Big-12 will never invite them as long as they are encumbered by a GOR. Theya re not going to invite Cinci because they have no value without their TV rights.

That's the whole point of a GOR. A GOR provides conference stability by making the members of a conference unattractive expansion targets for other conferences. That's why networks like GOR's and might pay a bit more for a conference with a GOR in effect. The network is confident they can invest and promote such a conference secure in the knowledge that the product cannot be undermined or degraded by realignment. Since most every member of the AAC wants to leave the conference for a slot in a P5 conference---there is absolutely no way in hell any of them will sign a document who's sole purpose is make them an unattractive expansion candidate.

This has been analyzed by many including experts on ESPN when Texas signed one. They have all said that it really isn't totally enforceable in the sense of the conference keeping the rights. They have all said that there would be exit penalties but that any GOR is breakable.

This is why I suggest signing one. If it was totally enforceable then nobody would sign it. essentially it has been said that you would have to pay a difference of what the contract is worth with your team and then without.

If we get the crappy contract that we all think is coming, then the buyout of the GOR wouldnt be that bad in comparison to the income.

Orangebloods had the best writeups on breaking GORs, if anyone is interested in reading up on them.

From what I understand the b12s is because it stipulates that all parties agree that it's not punitive to keep the rights and that there was cash give. Upfront to sign it. They don't want case law overturning it because it hurts the entertainment industry. One has yet to be successfully challenged

(05-24-2015 11:43 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 10:22 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Just a quick point... Why not sign a GOR?

Does anybody on here think we will hit $10 million a year? (if you do, stop bogarting and pass that **** along...I could use a hit)

So you think it is less far fetched for schools in this conference to sign a GOR than it is for Aresco to leverage the Big East's great hoops-only deal against bidders for the AAC'S football plus basketball? That baffles me.

How can Aresco 'leverage' the Big East's deal?

He can't. The BE deal and AAC deal have nothing to do with each other. It shows only one thing, what one group was willing to pay the BE at that moment in time.

Will it be used somewhat as a bench mark, I imagine.

(05-24-2015 09:07 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  He can't. The BE deal and AAC deal have nothing to do with each other. It shows only one thing, what one group was willing to pay the BE at that moment in time.

Will it be used somewhat as a bench mark, I imagine.

I guess that is possible, though you have to wonder how relevant a contract negotiated in 2013 is going to be for a contract that will be negotiated in 2020.