(08-01-2016 09:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:17 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  May be contractually bound but they could treat you like a G5 after this contract.

Exactly. The Big XII could theoretically gouge them for an additional $80 million a year now by adding four teams, and then watch as ESPN and Fox offer them $80 million a year TOTAL for their next contract. Divide that by 14, suckas!

The Big XII's problem here is that they are trying to screw both their partners at once, leaving them with no major media player interested in outbidding the other later.

To my knowledge, nobody except the actual parties to the media contract have actually seen it. Not even the reporters who are quick to say what it includes based on hearsay. Do you suppose that ESPN and/or Fox might have included a stipulation that if OU and UT leave the contract must be renegotiated? And if it does, does the Big XII want to give ESPN motivation to make that happen?

Heard someone say that they have a different idea of what contracts mean in the northeast than in the south and west. They believe a contract is just the starting point for negotiations.

(08-01-2016 09:18 AM)stever20 Wrote:  yeah, I don't know what leg ESPN/Fox would have to stand on quite frankly here.

Diminished value. It could be argued that by making the suggested additions that the net effect would be the diminishing of value in the Big 12. Since that is contrary to the generous amounts listed in the original contract that virtually everyone knew were designed to hold the conference together it could be argued that the pro rata amounts were intended for schools that would either add to, or at least not diminish, the value of the conference for their rights holders.

While there are many tangents that this matter might eventually take, any additions would reasonably require an extension of the GOR for the sake of the networks involved and for the interests of the joining schools. If the GOR extension is refused then it essentially opens up the Big 12 schools to do due diligence in finding future placement and pulls the teeth of the current GOR's rules against such behavior. It would also serve notice to ESPN and FOX that if they wanted access to the top brands of the conference that they too needed to be working on how much they were willing to pay for those brands and which conferences they each might like to see them associated with.

ESPN has more options in that regard than does FOX, but then FOX represents one of the two heavy hitters in payout.

Anything that forces a vote on a GOR extension dictates the future options. If it is agreed to, then the Big 12 is secured with the new members. If an extension is rejected it will be every school for itself within the decade, sooner if the networks work to place at least 8 of them elsewhere, or 8 of them within their own contracted conferences.

Remember that right now the networks may not exactly be flush to pursue expensive product, but they are also working hard to try to lock up as many rights for as long as possible as insurance against shifting pay models.

The Big 10 is better positioned here as currently they are the only ones not locked up for a decade or longer. The PAC is up in 2025 with their leases of product. The SEC goes much earlier for their T1 with CBS, but is locked up through 2034 with the SECN. The ACC is now on the hook until 2036.

If ESPN wants the top brands out of the Big 12 they will have to really pay for to place those in either the ACC or SEC or perhaps in a PAC that is willing to sell them a % of its network.

FOX is in a good position being essentially the agent of the Big 10. They have a good war chest and their contract is up sooner.

It's going to get real interesting before any movement occurs, if it occurs.

(08-01-2016 10:26 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  It is honestly unbelievable how horribly the Big 12 is run. I cannot fathom that they did not work through their television partners to get through this process.

Yeah, they can stick it to their television partners right now but eventually that's going to come back to haunt them.

Just so, so unbelievably stupid.

Well they have already kind of stuck it to the Big 12. They financed Missouri and A&M leaving. They told the Big 12 that the market wouldn't handle another conference network and then promptly signed a deal to do one with the ACC.

The good news is that this decreases the likelihood of adding 4 (good news except for #s3 and 4).

They've done extensive research. Clearly they think they can add certain schools and not hurt TV ratings.

(08-01-2016 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:18 AM)stever20 Wrote:  yeah, I don't know what leg ESPN/Fox would have to stand on quite frankly here.

Diminished value. It could be argued that by making the suggested additions that the net effect would be the diminishing of value in the Big 12. Since that is contrary to the generous amounts listed in the original contract that virtually everyone knew were designed to hold the conference together it could be argued that the pro rata amounts were intended for schools that would either add to, or at least not diminish, the value of the conference for their rights holders.

While there are many tangents that this matter might eventually take, any additions would reasonably require an extension of the GOR for the sake of the networks involved and for the interests of the joining schools. If the GOR extension is refused then it essentially opens up the Big 12 schools to do due diligence in finding future placement and pulls the teeth of the current GOR's rules against such behavior. It would also serve notice to ESPN and FOX that if they wanted access to the top brands of the conference that they too needed to be working on how much they were willing to pay for those brands and which conferences they each might like to see them associated with.

ESPN has more options in that regard than does FOX, but then FOX represents one of the two heavy hitters in payout.

Anything that forces a vote on a GOR extension dictates the future options. If it is agreed to, then the Big 12 is secured with the new members. If an extension is rejected it will be every school for itself within the decade, sooner if the networks work to place at least 8 of them elsewhere, or 8 of them within their own contracted conferences.

Remember that right now the networks may not exactly be flush to pursue expensive product, but they are also working hard to try to lock up as many rights for as long as possible as insurance against shifting pay models.

The Big 10 is better positioned here as currently they are the only ones not locked up for a decade or longer. The PAC is up in 2025 with their leases of product. The SEC goes much earlier for their T1 with CBS, but is locked up through 2034 with the SECN. The ACC is now on the hook until 2036.

If ESPN wants the top brands out of the Big 12 they will have to really pay for to place those in either the ACC or SEC or perhaps in a PAC that is willing to sell them a % of its network.

FOX is in a good position being essentially the agent of the Big 10. They have a good war chest and their contract is up sooner.

It's going to get real interesting before any movement occurs, if it occurs.

No inside knowledge
But, after reading & dissecting
the issues as it stands currently.

Big 12 will either "implode"
Texas, OU, OSU, & Kansas scramble
or Big 12 works a "deal" w/ its TV partners
get more $$$ per current 10 team arrangement
until TV contract runs out in 2024
& another sorted realignment occurs

(08-01-2016 09:09 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...12-TV.aspx

It is going to happen, this why the contract posturing has started. The announcement and press conference will soon happen.

(08-01-2016 10:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  The good news is that this decreases the likelihood of adding 4 (good news except for #s3 and 4).

1. How is that good news except for the AAC left behinds?

2. I don;t think it decreases the likelihood at all. If there is money on the table for Texas to take, they are going to take it. They have their heels dug in on the Longhorn Network, thats not effecting them negatively with ESPN.

(08-01-2016 10:46 AM)HHOOTter Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:18 AM)stever20 Wrote:  yeah, I don't know what leg ESPN/Fox would have to stand on quite frankly here.

Diminished value. It could be argued that by making the suggested additions that the net effect would be the diminishing of value in the Big 12. Since that is contrary to the generous amounts listed in the original contract that virtually everyone knew were designed to hold the conference together it could be argued that the pro rata amounts were intended for schools that would either add to, or at least not diminish, the value of the conference for their rights holders.

While there are many tangents that this matter might eventually take, any additions would reasonably require an extension of the GOR for the sake of the networks involved and for the interests of the joining schools. If the GOR extension is refused then it essentially opens up the Big 12 schools to do due diligence in finding future placement and pulls the teeth of the current GOR's rules against such behavior. It would also serve notice to ESPN and FOX that if they wanted access to the top brands of the conference that they too needed to be working on how much they were willing to pay for those brands and which conferences they each might like to see them associated with.

ESPN has more options in that regard than does FOX, but then FOX represents one of the two heavy hitters in payout.

Anything that forces a vote on a GOR extension dictates the future options. If it is agreed to, then the Big 12 is secured with the new members. If an extension is rejected it will be every school for itself within the decade, sooner if the networks work to place at least 8 of them elsewhere, or 8 of them within their own contracted conferences.

Remember that right now the networks may not exactly be flush to pursue expensive product, but they are also working hard to try to lock up as many rights for as long as possible as insurance against shifting pay models.

The Big 10 is better positioned here as currently they are the only ones not locked up for a decade or longer. The PAC is up in 2025 with their leases of product. The SEC goes much earlier for their T1 with CBS, but is locked up through 2034 with the SECN. The ACC is now on the hook until 2036.

If ESPN wants the top brands out of the Big 12 they will have to really pay for to place those in either the ACC or SEC or perhaps in a PAC that is willing to sell them a % of its network.

FOX is in a good position being essentially the agent of the Big 10. They have a good war chest and their contract is up sooner.

It's going to get real interesting before any movement occurs, if it occurs.

No inside knowledge
But, after reading & dissecting
the issues as it stands currently.

Big 12 will either "implode"
Texas, OU, OSU, & Kansas scramble
or Big 12 works a "deal" w/ its TV partners
get more $$$ per current 10 team arrangement
until TV contract runs out in 2024
& another sorted realignment occurs

The TV partners don't want to pay more, thats the point. Why would the Big XII just accept less than what they could get by expanding?

ESPN can also hurt these schools by not featuring them,or dissing them for the next 9 years.

The thing is ESPN has certain # of exposures that they have to provide.

(08-01-2016 10:46 AM)HHOOTter Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:18 AM)stever20 Wrote:  yeah, I don't know what leg ESPN/Fox would have to stand on quite frankly here.

Diminished value. It could be argued that by making the suggested additions that the net effect would be the diminishing of value in the Big 12. Since that is contrary to the generous amounts listed in the original contract that virtually everyone knew were designed to hold the conference together it could be argued that the pro rata amounts were intended for schools that would either add to, or at least not diminish, the value of the conference for their rights holders.

While there are many tangents that this matter might eventually take, any additions would reasonably require an extension of the GOR for the sake of the networks involved and for the interests of the joining schools. If the GOR extension is refused then it essentially opens up the Big 12 schools to do due diligence in finding future placement and pulls the teeth of the current GOR's rules against such behavior. It would also serve notice to ESPN and FOX that if they wanted access to the top brands of the conference that they too needed to be working on how much they were willing to pay for those brands and which conferences they each might like to see them associated with.

ESPN has more options in that regard than does FOX, but then FOX represents one of the two heavy hitters in payout.

Anything that forces a vote on a GOR extension dictates the future options. If it is agreed to, then the Big 12 is secured with the new members. If an extension is rejected it will be every school for itself within the decade, sooner if the networks work to place at least 8 of them elsewhere, or 8 of them within their own contracted conferences.

Remember that right now the networks may not exactly be flush to pursue expensive product, but they are also working hard to try to lock up as many rights for as long as possible as insurance against shifting pay models.

The Big 10 is better positioned here as currently they are the only ones not locked up for a decade or longer. The PAC is up in 2025 with their leases of product. The SEC goes much earlier for their T1 with CBS, but is locked up through 2034 with the SECN. The ACC is now on the hook until 2036.

If ESPN wants the top brands out of the Big 12 they will have to really pay for to place those in either the ACC or SEC or perhaps in a PAC that is willing to sell them a % of its network.

FOX is in a good position being essentially the agent of the Big 10. They have a good war chest and their contract is up sooner.

It's going to get real interesting before any movement occurs, if it occurs.

No inside knowledge
But, after reading & dissecting
the issues as it stands currently.

Big 12 will either "implode"
Texas, OU, OSU, & Kansas scramble
or Big 12 works a "deal" w/ its TV partners
get more $$$ per current 10 team arrangement
until TV contract runs out in 2024
& another sorted realignment occurs

With some minor sidebars that's pretty much how I see it as well.

(08-01-2016 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:18 AM)stever20 Wrote:  yeah, I don't know what leg ESPN/Fox would have to stand on quite frankly here.

Diminished value. It could be argued that by making the suggested additions that the net effect would be the diminishing of value in the Big 12. Since that is contrary to the generous amounts listed in the original contract that virtually everyone knew were designed to hold the conference together it could be argued that the pro rata amounts were intended for schools that would either add to, or at least not diminish, the value of the conference for their rights holders.

While there are many tangents that this matter might eventually take, any additions would reasonably require an extension of the GOR for the sake of the networks involved and for the interests of the joining schools. If the GOR extension is refused then it essentially opens up the Big 12 schools to do due diligence in finding future placement and pulls the teeth of the current GOR's rules against such behavior. It would also serve notice to ESPN and FOX that if they wanted access to the top brands of the conference that they too needed to be working on how much they were willing to pay for those brands and which conferences they each might like to see them associated with.

ESPN has more options in that regard than does FOX, but then FOX represents one of the two heavy hitters in payout.

Anything that forces a vote on a GOR extension dictates the future options. If it is agreed to, then the Big 12 is secured with the new members. If an extension is rejected it will be every school for itself within the decade, sooner if the networks work to place at least 8 of them elsewhere, or 8 of them within their own contracted conferences.

Remember that right now the networks may not exactly be flush to pursue expensive product, but they are also working hard to try to lock up as many rights for as long as possible as insurance against shifting pay models.

The Big 10 is better positioned here as currently they are the only ones not locked up for a decade or longer. The PAC is up in 2025 with their leases of product. The SEC goes much earlier for their T1 with CBS, but is locked up through 2034 with the SECN. The ACC is now on the hook until 2036.

If ESPN wants the top brands out of the Big 12 they will have to really pay for to place those in either the ACC or SEC or perhaps in a PAC that is willing to sell them a % of its network.

FOX is in a good position being essentially the agent of the Big 10. They have a good war chest and their contract is up sooner.

It's going to get real interesting before any movement occurs, if it occurs.

while anything can be argued legally it would be extremely difficult for the networks to claim this and actually win it

1. as I stated before the sports business article is factually incorrect the media partners did not "help the Big 12 out in 2010"

the Fox deal was for 10 teams and was signed when it was known the Big 12 might lose more members

2. ESPN signed a brand new contract with the Big 12 in Sept 2012 AFTER the Big 12 was 10 teams with TCU and WVU and Fox augmented their existing contract at that time as well

3. and what really kills your argument is both ESPN and Fox were well aware that the Big 10, ACC and PAC 12 all had grants of rights in place in Sept of 2012

so unless ESPN and Fox thought the Big 12 was somehow going to draw SEC SEC SEC teams to the Big 12 it would be impossible for ESPN and Fox to claim that they were signing contacts in Sept of 2012 that had any type of logical assumption that the Big 12 was going to be able to add P5 level programs

now perhaps ESPN could claim that they were hoping that the Big 10 would draw members from the ACC and have those members ATTEMPT to break the GOR and that would leave P5 teams for the Big 12, but both ESPN and Fox are a party to deals with the Big 10 and thus they would have to know what possibilities there was for that to happen or not happen

and the current Big 12 deal expires BEFORE the current ACC deal and thus it would not be possible for the Big 12 under the current deal to wait for the end of the ACC media deals and the ACC GOR pre-extension and draw teams to the Big 12 after the Big 10 took teams because the Big 12 deal would have ended before that

and of course now ESPN is a party to a supposed extended deal with the ACC that has also resulted in an extension of the ACC GOR

and the PAC 12 and SEC SEC SEC deals expire only a year before the current Big 12 deals so again no assumption possible that the Big 12 would realistically wait out a PAC 12 GOR and then add teams for a single season under the current contract and that is why the pro rata was put in the contract....and no realistic assumption that SEC SEC SEC teams are coming now or in the future even wit no GOR

so there is really no possible way that argument would stand up and in fact the actions of ESPN and Fox both make it pretty much impossible to support any argument they were only putting that in place for P5 level teams not G5 level teams

(08-01-2016 10:26 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:17 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  May be contractually bound but they could treat you like a G5 after this contract.

Nine years out. A lifetime in this business.

It's not really nine years. Supposedly, there are 8 years left on the current deal. At best, some new members could be on board in 2017, bringing it down to 7 years. If the alternative cost to ESPN/Fox is going to be $80 million, they could afford to pay a lot of legal fees to push that back yet another year.

And all ESPN and Fox need to do then is to threaten to not bid on the next contract and all the current members will start scrambling to find a home with another power conference. It wouldn't be all that surprising if the media partners are already having private conversations with individual B12 presidents on this subject.

Usually in negotiations like this, the ones who are being asked to pay the freight have more leverage than the ones who are going to get the money.

Well does ESPN want to risk Fox getting another big property? If UT or OU stay no way ESPN doesn't bid. Thats a stupid and unrealistic plan. It's business, peoples feelings don't get hurt. It's about making money for the shareholders plain and simple.

I don't think ESPN would mind all that much if the alternative is to lose a lot of money. It would be far cheaper for ESPN to get OU and UT to move to a conference they already have than to lose money by paying for other schools that add very little value. And they wouldn't have to worry about the schools that get left behind. Their feelings won't be hurt if their revenues get slashed to the bone. It's only business.

(08-01-2016 10:47 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  The good news is that this decreases the likelihood of adding 4 (good news except for #s3 and 4).

1. How is that good news except for the AAC left behinds?

2. I don;t think it decreases the likelihood at all. If there is money on the table for Texas to take, they are going to take it. They have their heels dug in on the Longhorn Network, thats not effecting them negatively with ESPN.

Best case scenario for the AAC is BYU + 1 AAC School or just 2 AAC Schools. The Big12 does not see 4 schools that it honestly believes strengthens the Conference. It is a stretch to find just two to make the Big12 the Big12, what reason do they have to go to 14 except a money grab from the networks. Networks know this and are going to want an extension to the current GOR and we will find out fast if Texas and Oklahoma are committed to making the Big12 work or if it is just going to go the way of the Big East

I think bullet has a great point in #39, in regards to smacking down any attempt at an argument that ESPN/FOX might make.

Certainly the size of the living alumni-bases and the current fan-bases -- which are the markets, not the city, not the state -- of BYU, Cincy and Houston have to be pretty comparable to Utah, Rutgers and Syracuse.

(08-01-2016 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:26 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:17 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  May be contractually bound but they could treat you like a G5 after this contract.

Nine years out. A lifetime in this business.

It's not really nine years. Supposedly, there are 8 years left on the current deal. At best, some new members could be on board in 2017, bringing it down to 7 years. If the alternative cost to ESPN/Fox is going to be $80 million, they could afford to pay a lot of legal fees to push that back yet another year.

And all ESPN and Fox need to do then is to threaten to not bid on the next contract and all the current members will start scrambling to find a home with another power conference. It wouldn't be all that surprising if the media partners are already having private conversations with individual B12 presidents on this subject.

Usually in negotiations like this, the ones who are being asked to pay the freight have more leverage than the ones who are going to get the money.

Well does ESPN want to risk Fox getting another big property? If UT or OU stay no way ESPN doesn't bid. Thats a stupid and unrealistic plan. It's business, peoples feelings don't get hurt. It's about making money for the shareholders plain and simple.

I don't think ESPN would mind all that much if the alternative is to lose a lot of money. It would be far cheaper for ESPN to get OU and UT to move to a conference they already have than to lose money by paying for other schools that add very little value. And they wouldn't have to worry about the schools that get left behind. Their feelings won't be hurt if their revenues get slashed to the bone. It's only business.

Well ESPN doesn't have a say and those two could just as easily end up in the B1G which Fox gets first choice of. They aren't going to the ACC thats for sure and could end up in the Pac which Fox also has a hand in.

The conference without OU and UT still has value and would be wise to hold onto and pay them closer to a P5 conference than a G5.

(08-01-2016 11:01 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:26 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Nine years out. A lifetime in this business.

It's not really nine years. Supposedly, there are 8 years left on the current deal. At best, some new members could be on board in 2017, bringing it down to 7 years. If the alternative cost to ESPN/Fox is going to be $80 million, they could afford to pay a lot of legal fees to push that back yet another year.

And all ESPN and Fox need to do then is to threaten to not bid on the next contract and all the current members will start scrambling to find a home with another power conference. It wouldn't be all that surprising if the media partners are already having private conversations with individual B12 presidents on this subject.

Usually in negotiations like this, the ones who are being asked to pay the freight have more leverage than the ones who are going to get the money.

Well does ESPN want to risk Fox getting another big property? If UT or OU stay no way ESPN doesn't bid. Thats a stupid and unrealistic plan. It's business, peoples feelings don't get hurt. It's about making money for the shareholders plain and simple.

I don't think ESPN would mind all that much if the alternative is to lose a lot of money. It would be far cheaper for ESPN to get OU and UT to move to a conference they already have than to lose money by paying for other schools that add very little value. And they wouldn't have to worry about the schools that get left behind. Their feelings won't be hurt if their revenues get slashed to the bone. It's only business.

Well ESPN doesn't have a say and those two could just as easily end up in the B1G which Fox gets first choice of. They aren't going to the ACC thats for sure and could end up in the Pac which Fox also has a hand in.

The conference without OU and UT still has value and would be wise to hold onto and pay them closer to a P5 conference than a G5.

If it were only without OU and UT yes, but those 2 will be leaving with probably 3-5 other lucky schools and then the scraps will be paid like a G5 league because they'll have no leverage and ESPN or whoever will pay them as little as possible and then reap the excess value like they are currently doing with the AAC.

Probably best not to piss off your tv partners, ala Big East. If the tv partners do get involved this is good for Florida schools.

(08-01-2016 11:01 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:26 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Nine years out. A lifetime in this business.

It's not really nine years. Supposedly, there are 8 years left on the current deal. At best, some new members could be on board in 2017, bringing it down to 7 years. If the alternative cost to ESPN/Fox is going to be $80 million, they could afford to pay a lot of legal fees to push that back yet another year.

And all ESPN and Fox need to do then is to threaten to not bid on the next contract and all the current members will start scrambling to find a home with another power conference. It wouldn't be all that surprising if the media partners are already having private conversations with individual B12 presidents on this subject.

Usually in negotiations like this, the ones who are being asked to pay the freight have more leverage than the ones who are going to get the money.

Well does ESPN want to risk Fox getting another big property? If UT or OU stay no way ESPN doesn't bid. Thats a stupid and unrealistic plan. It's business, peoples feelings don't get hurt. It's about making money for the shareholders plain and simple.

I don't think ESPN would mind all that much if the alternative is to lose a lot of money. It would be far cheaper for ESPN to get OU and UT to move to a conference they already have than to lose money by paying for other schools that add very little value. And they wouldn't have to worry about the schools that get left behind. Their feelings won't be hurt if their revenues get slashed to the bone. It's only business.

Well ESPN doesn't have a say and those two could just as easily end up in the B1G which Fox gets first choice of. They aren't going to the ACC thats for sure and could end up in the Pac which Fox also has a hand in.

The conference without OU and UT still has value and would be wise to hold onto and pay them closer to a P5 conference than a G5.

bigger than that is the ESPN/Fox deal with the PAC 12 expires in 2023-24 a year before the Big 12 deal in 2024-25

so neither ESPN or Fox has a clue what portion if any of the PAC 12 media rights they would control when the Big 12 GOR and media deals are set to expire

and I have recently read on some forums like this that supposedly the SEC SEC SEC extended their tier 2 rights with ESPN when they made the SECn, but I have seen no actual confirmation of that

and the CBS tier 1 deal with the SEC SEC SEC also expires in 2023-24 and the idiot travis clay thinks that the SEC SEC SEC will not renew with CBS because CBS told them F'off on any additional money for adding A&M and MU but who knows who will bid on that as well

and the CBS deal is for only the game of the week and the CCG, but unless the ESPN tier 2 deal has been extended it also expires in 2023-24 and again there is no guarantee that ESPN (or Fox) would get it

and the NEW Big 10 deals are said to expire in 6 or 7 years so even those could end before the Big 12 GOR ends and the Big 12 media contracts end

and with the Big 10 only Fox would have any guarantee of any UT and OU rights because of the BTN ownership

so for both Fox and especially ESPN if they want UT and OU and think they will wait out the Big 12 GOR and not offer the Big 12 a media deal there is a lot of risk one or both of them could still end up with no UT and OU rights when it is all done