Even though there doesn't seem to be much happening "on the ground" in terms of realignment, there are some brewing big picture items that provide fodder for those of us who like to traffic in speculation.

1. Is the BIG trying to, almost single handedly, usher in the 4 x 16 era?

2. In the process, is the BIG leading the charge to eliminate one of either the ACC or Big12, more likely the ACC.

3. Will the food chain of BIG/ACC/Big East/CUSA/SBC result in at least one of those conferences to go belly up?

4. Is the linchpin for further movement really all about Maryland and its exit fee to the ACC? Might Maryland's success in this lawsuit imperil future exit fee issues for conferences trying to protect their future?

5. Will the P5 conferences be able to shut out the Go5 Conferences with all access to the big money bowls? Would this create a de facto 2nd tier with the Go5 having their own playoffs?

6. Of all the conferences with the staying power to make it to the promised land of 4 x 16, the PAC 12 seems to have the most difficult road simply because of geography. I think there's been some assumption in the past that 4 Big 12 teams might be enticed to move, but the GoR situation and the fact that the Big12 sees them selves as a legitimate, long lasting Power Conference also stands in the way. How does this move to a 4 x16 affect the PAC 12's future relevance?

Of course, there are more big picture items, but there is plenty to chew on while we all wait for that next realignment bombshell. For realignment junkies, have at it. Let's move this board to a discussion of bigger picture issues while we wait! It could be fun.

So you are saying the GOR is more restrictive (punitive) than the exit fee?

I see the Big Ten as out for themselves. The Big Ten has not raided a single conference for more than one school at a time which is why is the move to 16 is very interesting. What are the chances the Big Ten picks up one from the ACC and UConn from the Big East. Would BC and UConn make more sense than two southern schools. Would UVa and UConn give them balance.

If they select BC and UConn the ACC and Big East would still be around. ACC probably looks at Navy, Cincinnati, and Temple and picks one from that group. While the Big East would pluck UMass.

(02-19-2013 08:43 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  So you are saying the GOR is more restrictive (punitive) than the exit fee?

Restrictive yes, punitive no. Hard to call something that pays you money punitive.

(02-19-2013 08:43 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  So you are saying the GOR is more restrictive (punitive) than the exit fee?

As it has been explained to me, the whole nature of an exit fee possibly being punitive exists in the realm of contract law. A GOR is governed by property law, since the school no longer owns (in the case of the Big 12) its Tier 1 & Tier 2 TV rights, and can not be punitive.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/1752757/

Preventing you from moving to a conference that pays you more money is not Punitive?

(02-19-2013 08:39 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  Even though there doesn't seem to be much happening "on the ground" in terms of realignment, there are some brewing big picture items that provide fodder for those of us who like to traffic in speculation.

1. Is the BIG trying to, almost single handedly, usher in the 4 x 16 era?

2. In the process, is the BIG leading the charge to eliminate one of either the ACC or Big12, more likely the ACC.

3. Will the food chain of BIG/ACC/Big East/CUSA/SBC result in at least one of those conferences to go belly up?

4. Is the linchpin for further movement really all about Maryland and its exit fee to the ACC? Might Maryland's success in this lawsuit imperil future exit fee issues for conferences trying to protect their future?

5. Will the P5 conferences be able to shut out the Go5 Conferences with all access to the big money bowls? Would this create a de facto 2nd tier with the Go5 having their own playoffs?

6. Of all the conferences with the staying power to make it to the promised land of 4 x 16, the PAC 12 seems to have the most difficult road simply because of geography. I think there's been some assumption in the past that 4 Big 12 teams might be enticed to move, but the GoR situation and the fact that the Big12 sees them selves as a legitimate, long lasting Power Conference also stands in the way. How does this move to a 4 x16 affect the PAC 12's future relevance?

Of course, there are more big picture items, but there is plenty to chew on while we all wait for that next realignment bombshell. For realignment junkies, have at it. Let's move this board to a discussion of bigger picture issues while we wait! It could be fun.

1- The B1G is doing what is best for the B1G. They may go to 14, 16, 18, or 20 with no concern regarding what everyone else does. They are simply making use of what leverage they have while they have it to build as beneficial of a research and athletic partnership as they can.

1b- 4x16 isn't likely. If the Big 12 isn't raidable the PAC will sit at 12. If the right schools aren't available it's doubtful the Big 12 expands or if they expand it would take the right 6 to get them to 16. The ACC may not go past 14 football members. 4x16 is people wanting their playoff models to influence the conferences when the opposite tends to be true in reality.

2- I think they frankly aren't out to kill either, they just want theirs.

3- No. The Big East will still be able to pick off CUSA/SBC teams and the SBC can add move ups IMO.

4- It makes a temporary window where the ACC can't really do anything to slow teams down if UMD wins. With the 50+MM exit fee regarded as punitive it would open a window where anyone leaving prior to July likely gets out cheap. After that the ACC would probably have a stronger deterrent but there would be a window before the opening could be closed due to the deal in when certain new penalties could take effect.

5- All but one spot has already happened. I don't think one spot is worth the legal fight so I don't see it changing much in the short term.

6- As I mentioned before I don't see 4x16 being the rule. Leagues may expand to or past 16 but getting more than the SEC or B1G to 16 isn't likely IMO anytime soon. Even in a 3x16 and the Pac at 12 world they'd be relevant though.

(02-19-2013 09:01 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:43 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  So you are saying the GOR is more restrictive (punitive) than the exit fee?

As it has been explained to me, the whole nature of an exit fee possibly being punitive exists in the realm of contract law. A GOR is governed by property law, since the school no longer owns (in the case of the Big 12) its Tier 1 & Tier 2 TV rights, and can not be punitive.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/1752757/

Exit fees act as contract damages while a GOR acts as a license.

(02-19-2013 09:01 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Preventing you from moving to a conference that pays you more money is not Punitive?

GOR is granting the rights as part of a contract. It's a voluntary process and they will get a check from the conference whether they stay or go. What it prevents is the new league pooling those rights to elevate their deal which has the effect of making whatever additional payout they could offer a defector capped at a number that would be unlikely to exceed the reasonable damages by a significant enough number to justify the move. (using a high of the 1-2mm ND gives the acc for their nonfb and road fb games vs acc teams as a fair highball estimate)

The ACC's fee is being called punitive as it was enacted to a larger number without much if any financial justification for the damages for the expressed reason of deterring teams from leaving. A GOR is simply a different animal and does not coerce penalties from the departee but rather locks their rights into an agreement they willingly agreed to an receive payment from.

(02-19-2013 09:01 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Preventing you from moving to a conference that pays you more money is not Punitive?

Probably not......an exit fee becomes punitive when its asks for damages above and beyond what the conference actually endures. Let's look at Maryland leaving, the TV contract wasn't decreased in the slightest and numerous ACC ADs said they felt their conference was now stronger with Maryland being replaced by Louisville. Honestly, I don't see how the ACC can claim they have even one cent in damages.

Now, let's say OU wants to leave the Big 12 for the Pac. OU has signed a Grant of Rights with the Big 12. OU has assigned its Tier 1 & Tier 2 TV rights to the Big 12 and gets paid that money only if it is a member of the conference. If it leaves, that money paid by the new conference, is the legal property of the Big 12 and is distributed to the other members. This is roughly about $20 million/year. Let's say OU went to the Pac 12 and its new Tier 1 and Tier 2 money paid by the Pac is determined to be $25 million/year, it could be argued that it would be punitive for the Big 12 to legally claim an more than the $20 million/year for the length of the GOR. Still, OU would only be making $5 million/year from the Pac and the other $20Million/year from the Pac would be distributed to the remaining Big 12 members.

People keep always bring up 4x16 with each conference champion getting a spot in the playoffs. That will NEVER happen.

The SEC is currently looking at 2 of the 4 playoff spots in many years. They will never agree to give that up.

The PAC 12 will not add more teams, unless they come from the B12. The GOR is a temporary barrier that give Texas time to see if the LHN is successfully enough to keep the conference alive. If the PAC12/SEC networks start making B10 Network money in a few years, expect B12 teams to start looking at the end of the GOR as realignment free-for-all.

The conferences with networks (PAC12, B10, SEC) will continue to add teams in new states/markets, if the money is there. 16 is not a magical number that will get people to stop. If the PAC12/SEC/B10 start taking teams to block expansion of each other, they can grow to 18 or 20.

(02-19-2013 09:01 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Preventing you from moving to a conference that pays you more money is not Punitive?

But there is no conference that pays more money per school. So what are you trying to say?

(02-19-2013 09:20 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 09:01 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Preventing you from moving to a conference that pays you more money is not Punitive?

GOR is granting the rights as part of a contract. It's a voluntary process and they will get a check from the conference whether they stay or go.

That's not what the (I think) OSU AD said. I can't find the article, but he said that if you leave the conference, you don't get paid.

That makes it a one-way contract, as far as I can tell.

Quote:A GOR is simply a different animal and does not coerce penalties from the departee but rather locks their rights into an agreement they willingly agreed to an receive payment from.

But if they don't receive the payment, that should void the deal.

(02-19-2013 08:39 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  Even though there doesn't seem to be much happening "on the ground" in terms of realignment, there are some brewing big picture items that provide fodder for those of us who like to traffic in speculation.

1. Is the BIG trying to, almost single handedly, usher in the 4 x 16 era?

2. In the process, is the BIG leading the charge to eliminate one of either the ACC or Big12, more likely the ACC.

1&2. I guess I wonder why you've decided its the Big10 that is "single handedly trying to usher in 4x16" when the SEC was the first of the major conferences to expand to 12, (and then the ACC and Big12 went to 12 too - a decade or so before the Big10 expanded past 11) and then the SEC was the first to expand to 14. Wouldn't that lead you to believe that the SEC is leading and the Big10 (and everyone else) is following their lead?

The ACC had already invited enough teams to get to 14 (FB) and 15 (non-FB), when the Big10 invited Maryland - so that actually made them the 3rd major conference to expand to 14. That's hardly "leading" the charge. And of course, the ACC is still the biggest of the major conferences because they have 14 plus NotreDame non-FB.

A few years ago, the SEC took 2 (TexasA&M and Missouri) from the Big12 (which was already down to 10), so wouldn't that lead you to believe its the SEC out to destroy someone (the Big12, in this case)? There's a lot more evidence of it there.

I know that when the Big10 makes an invite, the rest have seemed to panic and quickly make invites of their own, but the others have generally been willing to get bigger before the Big10 is (except for the PAC - which was the last of the major conferences to expand past 10). But even the PAC made an attempt to go to 16 prior to any similar movement by the Big10 (or anyone else); they just weren't able to dislodge Texas and Oklahoma et al. Again - wasn't that more of a move to eliminate a conference than anything the Big10 has done?

Now the rumor is that the Big10 is "interested in" inviting 2 from a group of schools that includes: UVa, UNC, GaTech and some say FloridaSt (which seems a major misfit IMO), but the ACC is currently at 14/15 teams, so even if 2 came from the ACC, it would hardly be a death blow to the ACC.

Personally, I think the Big10 would be better off with UVa and Kansas (more balanced growth), rather than 2 from the ACC.

(02-19-2013 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 09:20 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 09:01 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Preventing you from moving to a conference that pays you more money is not Punitive?

GOR is granting the rights as part of a contract. It's a voluntary process and they will get a check from the conference whether they stay or go.

That's not what the (I think) OSU AD said. I can't find the article, but he said that if you leave the conference, you don't get paid.

That makes it a one-way contract, as far as I can tell.

Quote:A GOR is simply a different animal and does not coerce penalties from the departee but rather locks their rights into an agreement they willingly agreed to an receive payment from.

But if they don't receive the payment, that should void the deal.

Consideration is part of a contract. Take consideration away and you do not have a required element of a contract. I would think Big 12 would have to pay Texas some sort of compensation if it wants to keep the Texas rights. I am curious how the GOR would handle a defection. Interestingly, Fox and ABC hold the rights to both conferences. So if Texas left the Big 12 for the Pac12, the television rights of ABC and Fox would face no legal hurdle.

(02-19-2013 09:21 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 09:01 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Preventing you from moving to a conference that pays you more money is not Punitive?

Probably not......an exit fee becomes punitive when its asks for damages above and beyond what the conference actually endures. Let's look at Maryland leaving, the TV contract wasn't decreased in the slightest and numerous ACC ADs said they felt their conference was now stronger with Maryland being replaced by Louisville. Honestly, I don't see how the ACC can claim they have even one cent in damages.

Now, let's say OU wants to leave the Big 12 for the Pac. OU has signed a Grant of Rights with the Big 12. OU has assigned its Tier 1 & Tier 2 TV rights to the Big 12 and gets paid that money only if it is a member of the conference. If it leaves, that money paid by the new conference, is the legal property of the Big 12 and is distributed to the other members. This is roughly about $20 million/year. Let's say OU went to the Pac 12 and its new Tier 1 and Tier 2 money paid by the Pac is determined to be $25 million/year, it could be argued that it would be punitive for the Big 12 to legally claim an more than the $20 million/year for the length of the GOR. Still, OU would only be making $5 million/year from the Pac and the other $20Million/year from the Pac would be distributed to the remaining Big 12 members.

What I don't understand about this situations is:

What actually happens to the games. Do OU's PAC12 games get broadcast as part of the B12 contract?

Fox/ESPN owns OUs home games, and the right to broadcast them through the length of the B12 contract.

This keeps the games away from FOX/ESPN, who own the rights to the PAC12 games.

Will FOX broadcast USC @OU as national B12 game, thus reducing B12 television exposure? I'm sure this will make B12 members happy.

Can't they just agree to sell the OUs home games to themselves. B12 keeps the $20/million a year to divide between other 9 members (bump to $22 million per pear) , and the netowkrs agree to bump the PAC12 contract by $21/million because of added inventory?

Since we're playing realignment fantasy:

In no seriousness whatsoever:

What about the unthinkable coup of adding Kansas and Kentucky (is Kentucky AAU?) to the Big10? Can you imagine Kansas, Kentucky, and Indiana in the same BB conference - followed up by a "second tier" of MichState, Wisconsin, Maryland, OhioSt, UMich, Purdue and Illinois? Kansas they could get - but taking an SEC team would be very difficult.

But how about this?:
Could the Big10 take UVa and UNC (as many predict) this time around and then take Kansas later (which shouldn't be hard of the Big10) - and then be able to steal Kentucky from the SEC (or Duke from the ACC)? That would be a nightmare schedule in BB. The Big10 (18) tournament would be harder to win than the NCAA tournament!

Why not serious? Why would any great BB program subject itself to such rigor just to get a conference/conference tournament championship? Kansas would go from winning 6-7 conference championships/conference tournament championships per decade to winning 1 or 2. The same for Kentucky - or UNC/Duke - or Indiana/MichState.

I just don't see unc going to the big 10 as team 15 or 16 + hard to see them going to the big 10 without duke. Also, have a hard time seeing the big 10 jump past 16 unless ND or unc join but even than going past 16 really changes the conference fabric and not sure that is what the presidents of the big 10 want. My guess is the big 10 would like unc and uva for spots 15 and 16 after giving up on ND. Yet, that just seems impossible but no doubt they will try to bluff unc into that position. I still have a hard time seeing uva jump solo or i would think they might even request va tech if unc won't move. Personally, if the big 10 is gonna raid acc school's, i would target Florida state as team 15, than move up to 16-18 with bids to uva, unc and duke. Looking at the big picture, i think unc and uva have all the leverage. They don't need to join the big 10, same thing with ND, and if they big 10 can't get them, they are boxed out unless they green light lower tiered targets for expansion. All unc, uva and nd have to tell the big 10 is we have no interest in joining you for spots 15 or 16, than sit back and see what happens. ITs not like those school's won't find good homes.

(02-19-2013 09:01 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:43 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  So you are saying the GOR is more restrictive (punitive) than the exit fee?

As it has been explained to me, the whole nature of an exit fee possibly being punitive exists in the realm of contract law. A GOR is governed by property law, since the school no longer owns (in the case of the Big 12) its Tier 1 & Tier 2 TV rights, and can not be punitive.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/1752757/

"...since the school no longer owns ..."

No, they contracted that away....

(02-19-2013 09:24 AM)94panther Wrote:  People keep always bring up 4x16 with each conference champion getting a spot in the playoffs. That will NEVER happen.

The SEC is currently looking at 2 of the 4 playoff spots in many years. They will never agree to give that up.

The PAC 12 will not add more teams, unless they come from the B12. The GOR is a temporary barrier that give Texas time to see if the LHN is successfully enough to keep the conference alive. If the PAC12/SEC networks start making B10 Network money in a few years, expect B12 teams to start looking at the end of the GOR as realignment free-for-all.

The conferences with networks (PAC12, B10, SEC) will continue to add teams in new states/markets, if the money is there. 16 is not a magical number that will get people to stop. If the PAC12/SEC/B10 start taking teams to block expansion of each other, they can grow to 18 or 20.

The SEC could try to drag their feet, but if the B12 is not on their side, they get out voted.

I have thought for a while that we would see a 8 team playoff, with 3 16 team conferences and the Pac 12 and a best of the rest SOS qualifier.

Take the 4 Conf champs and then the best rated teams (at no more that 2 additional per conf) before the conference title games and go from there.

As far as expanding to reach a #, lets not forget that these conferences are an exclusive boys club and nobody is going to let the get too big