ACC Basketball a Dud

[upstater]

You don't have to convince me that UConn would be a good addition to the ACC. I'm already impressed with the UConn athletics department and its potential. This other poster was once again pushing Rutgers. It seems that most of the time I get into good conversation about college athletics here on the boneyard someone wants to bring up Rutgers. My luck I guess.

Everyone including Nicky I believe acknowledges what happened with Rutgers. A big state U. in a big state with lots of people. An eternally floundering athletic department that needs to get its act together but which doesn't inspire promise given their last 3 big hires (head football coach, head basketball coach and AD).

I still hold to the point I began with. The ACC's decisions could easily come back to bite them in the bum.

 

[TerryD]

You don't think that the B1G adding Kansas and Uconn is something the ACC should worry about?

As for the rest, it's incredibly rich for a Virginia fan to label UConn and Kentucky a Cinderella. Come on. Look at your your OOC.

No, I don't think the ACC is that worried, at least for close to a decade, due to the existence of the Big 12 bylaws and associated Grant of Rights.

 

[upstater]

No, I don't think the ACC is that worried, at least for close to a decade, due to the existence of the Big 12 bylaws and associated Grant of Rights.

I'm talking about the suckitude of ACC basketball. That was on display this year. We don't need to wait 10 years. The B1G can basically close this discussion about basketball instantly right now.

 

[TerryD]

Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need him?

Where he belongs. He died, they dug him up and hung him, then buried him a second time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/cromwell_oliver.shtml

 

[TerryD]

I'm talking about the suckitude of ACC basketball. That was on display this year. We don't need to wait 10 years. The B1G can basically close this discussion about basketball instantly right now.

I thought you were talking about the Big Ten adding Kansas basketball in the fairly near future?

 

[upstater]

I thought you were talking about the Big Ten adding Kansas basketball in the fairly near future?

Do you really believe that the B1G couldn't add Kansas? That they have to wait 10 years? Heck, even the Maryland lawsuit with the ACC will never go to court. In the event of any litigation, you're talking about 2 or 3 years of negotiations before settlement. I think 10 years is a fantasy.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Do you really believe that the B1G couldn't add Kansas? That they have to wait 10 years? Heck, even the Maryland lawsuit with the ACC will never go to court. In the event of any litigation, you're talking about 2 or 3 years of negotiations before settlement. I think 10 years is a fantasy.

I think a lot of this GOR stuff is kind of like a paper shield. Since none has been challenged in a court, it give schools and conferences some kind of false security. Within any conference, there will always be schools that are happy to be there and schools that think they can do better. Until someone challenges GOR in a court, we won't know the real answer. My personal experience with attorneys is that there is always a way to get around things. With a good attorney that knows what he/she is doing, there will be a way for schools to get around this GOR if necessary. BE exit fee was negotiable, ACC will find out soon theirs are too, and so are all those GOR terms.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I think a lot of this GOR stuff is kind of like a paper shield. Since none has been challenged in a court, it give schools and conferences some kind of false security. Within any conference, there will always be schools that are happy to be there and schools that think they can do better. Until someone challenges GOR in a court, we won't know the real answer. My personal experience with attorneys is that there is always a way to get around things. With a good attorney that knows what he/she is doing, there will be a way for schools to get around this GOR if necessary. BE exit fee was negotiable, ACC will find out soon theirs are too, and so are all those GOR terms.

What really remains to be seen with the GOR is whether the courts would allow the conferences to seek specific performance of the contract upon breach by a departing school. If not, then the GOR simply becomes a measure of damages, namely the value of the media rights the school signed over to the conference. The real risk of that model is that it varies by school, and that it declines every year. It's not much different than an exit fee, except that shrinks over time.

I think it is relatively unlikely that the courts would require specific performance and actually let the conference retain the media rights of a departing member. It simply won't happen. Instead they will be compensated for the loss of those rights by the school. Just one lawyer's opinion. But if I am right, then as the GORs get closer to their end date, the cost of breaking them becomes much more reasonable to a departing school.

 

[NickyNewark]

Everyone including Nicky I believe acknowledges what happened with Rutgers. A big state U. in a big state with lots of people. An eternally floundering athletic department that needs to get its act together but which doesn't inspire promise given their last 3 big hires (head football coach, head basketball coach and AD).

I still hold to the point I began with. The ACC's decisions could easily come back to bite them in the bum.

Have you found a suitable sports bar in Albany yet for this weekend upstater? I noticed some gave you suggestions.

 

[TerryD]

What really remains to be seen with the GOR is whether the courts would allow the conferences to seek specific performance of the contract upon breach by a departing school. If not, then the GOR simply becomes a measure of damages, namely the value of the media rights the school signed over to the conference. The real risk of that model is that it varies by school, and that it declines every year. It's not much different than an exit fee, except that shrinks over time.

I think it is relatively unlikely that the courts would require specific performance and actually let the conference retain the media rights of a departing member. It simply won't happen. Instead they will be compensated for the loss of those rights by the school. Just one lawyer's opinion. But if I am right, then as the GORs get closer to their end date, the cost of breaking them becomes much more reasonable to a departing school.

That is this lawyer's opinion as well. That is why I said ten years. Isn't the Big 12's GOR in effect until 2027 or so?

 

[upstater]

Have you found a suitable sports bar in Albany yet for this weekend upstater? I noticed some gave you suggestions.

Oh, I'm in Buffalo. I do not like sports bars much. I'll be at home.

 

[Carl Spackler]

What really remains to be seen with the GOR is whether the courts would allow the conferences to seek specific performance of the contract upon breach by a departing school. If not, then the GOR simply becomes a measure of damages, namely the value of the media rights the school signed over to the conference. The real risk of that model is that it varies by school, and that it declines every year. It's not much different than an exit fee, except that shrinks over time.

I think it is relatively unlikely that the courts would require specific performance and actually let the conference retain the media rights of a departing member. It simply won't happen. Instead they will be compensated for the loss of those rights by the school. Just one lawyer's opinion. But if I am right, then as the GORs get closer to their end date, the cost of breaking them becomes much more reasonable to a departing school.

I had a talk over the weekend about this stuff. THese media rights grants are nothing more than a true paper tiger, for people that don't really understand what's going in with all the conference shifting and trying to show some kind of solidarity. The house of cards falls, because the majority of the money is tied up in tier 1 conference games only.

THe majority of the money is tied up in the revenue around CONFERENCE games. So theoretical Program X leaves Conference Y for Conference Z.

Program X - no longer has any conference games with Conference Y. Program X now has conference games scheduled with Conference Z. Conference Y is entitled to the revenue from Conference Z around Program X's Conference Z home games? That's going to be very tough legal road to enforce.

Say theoretically Kansas goes to the Big 10. Anyone really think that the Big 12 is going to collect Kansas' share of Big 10 money from the Big 10 from Kansas' new Big 10 conference games? What about Program X's out of conference games? Who's got those tier 2/ tier 3 rights? Never mind away games out of conference......which Program X has no control over revenue sharing....these things will not hold up for any conference.

These Grant of Rights things, nonsense. Maryland will prove that in due time.

 

[NickyNewark]

Oh, I'm in Buffalo. I do not like sports bars much. I'll be at home.

Maybe it was Coney who asked me for this weekend on a trip from out of town? Oh well it shouldn't be too hard for whoever it was to find. Thank you my friend. I don't frequent bar's anymore either!

 

[WestCoastHusky]

What really remains to be seen with the GOR is whether the courts would allow the conferences to seek specific performance of the contract upon breach by a departing school. If not, then the GOR simply becomes a measure of damages, namely the value of the media rights the school signed over to the conference. The real risk of that model is that it varies by school, and that it declines every year. It's not much different than an exit fee, except that shrinks over time.

I think it is relatively unlikely that the courts would require specific performance and actually let the conference retain the media rights of a departing member. It simply won't happen. Instead they will be compensated for the loss of those rights by the school. Just one lawyer's opinion. But if I am right, then as the GORs get closer to their end date, the cost of breaking them becomes much more reasonable to a departing school.

It also needs to take into account the conference that just lost a member can replace it with a new member. Therefore, what did the conference really suffered financially? In the case of Maryland, ACC got UL and got ESPN to bump its pay. Maryland can argue that ACC lost nothing in the process.

 

[SouthronCross]

As for Olympic sports, CA schools will ALWAYS dominate. In fact, close to 50% of Olympians in this country come from CA. It is not by accident either due to the weather and location. Oh yeah, I don't live far from the Stanford campus and I will be the first to tell you how nice the weather is. In fact, it is almost 6 PM now and it is like close to 60 degrees outside and sunny. I still get to get tennis in T-shirt and shorts every weekend.

A combination of nice weather and a great education make it easy to attract recruits for Olympic sports. Does it make it fair? No, but CA schools do have a built-in advantage no one on the East Coast can beat.

In fact, I also got a degree from Santa Clara University. It is a small school but it has higher Director's ranking than many P5 schools. It also sits right in the heart of Silicon Valley.

Santa Clara was the team who spanked Carolina in the season opener of the 2004-2005 season on the road. Won by 10, but, led by 12-16 points most of the 2nd half. No Ray Felton for us, but, it would not have mattered. They simply whipped us.

 

[HuskyHawk]

It also needs to take into account the conference that just lost a member can replace it with a new member. Therefore, what did the conference really suffered financially? In the case of Maryland, ACC got UL and got ESPN to bump its pay. Maryland can argue that ACC lost nothing in the process.

Yes, but that's a weakness of the GOR vs. liquidated damages in my view. Had Maryland voted for the $50M, and played in the ACC for a few years under those rules, I'd say they are stuck with the $50M despite the inclusion of UL. It's only the timing and process for the change to the ACC bylaws that gives them an argument (a decent one in my view). With a GOR on the other hand, the duty to mitigate would apply, and the value of the team you add would offset the value you lost to some degree. Actual damages would be reduced if they can find a good replacement. But if saw Kansas left the Big 12, it is unlikely that could replace them easily.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Santa Clara was the team who spanked Carolina in the season opener of the 2004-2005 season on the road. Won by 10, but, led by 12-16 points most of the 2nd half. No Ray Felton for us, but, it would not have mattered. They simply whipped us.

Santa Clara's biggest win was back in 1993 when it took down #2 seed Arizona as a #15 seed. PG for SCU was Steve Nash. That's probably the biggest win. I do remember that Carolina win. SCU plays in a very nice and cozy venue.

Although I follow SCU teams to a small extend, UCONN is the team I cheer for the most. I get some alumni stuff from UCONN. I get a TON of alumni stuff from SCU. UCONN needs to step up its marketing to alums.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Yes, but that's a weakness of the GOR vs. liquidated damages in my view. Had Maryland voted for the $50M, and played in the ACC for a few years under those rules, I'd say they are stuck with the $50M despite the inclusion of UL. It's only the timing and process for the change to the ACC bylaws that gives them an argument (a decent one in my view). With a GOR on the other hand, the duty to mitigate would apply, and the value of the team you add would offset the value you lost to some degree. Actual damages would be reduced if they can find a good replacement. But if saw Kansas left the Big 12, it is unlikely that could replace them easily.

This is a good point regarding Kansas replacement. I think most Jayhawk fans would prefer the B1G, especially if we are there too. If not, I hope B1G can target Missouri along with us. Kansas, however, is more likely to jump. I still don't know how they are going to resolve the KSU issue, but I am sure they will find a way if it means a B1G invite.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The problem with the GOR is the way that revenue sharing occurs around football scheduling. How the money is calculated and dispersed for in conference vs. out of conference, and also home vs. away scheduling arrangements. Where the revenue comes from. I don't really know much about basketball, but it's all about football anyway. There really are only about 4, maybe 5, games per year that any program that ever gets to the point of testing a broadcasting revenue grant of rights would really have a question about, and that would be their new conference home games. The only way any damages could be even close to be claimed, would be if the conference that was left, did not replace the program that left on any of their schedules, and it would be minimal if it came to it, in the grand scheme. schedules going empty not happening either. Florida State would play Savannah State clearly - before they let their schedule go empty.

I'll save the details for some other time, but it was laid out very clearly for me this past weekend in NYC by people I trust. No way a media "grant of rights" ever holds up if it's tested. Maryland will eventually blow up the concept of a grant of rights by the time their mess is all said and done. What the grant of rights is, is really the equivalent of promise ring, except the ring is just a piece of paper.

 

[dayooper]

The problem with the GOR is the way that revenue sharing occurs around football scheduling. How the money is calculated and dispersed for in conference vs. out of conference, and also home vs. away scheduling arrangements. Where the revenue comes from. I don't really know much about basketball, but it's all about football anyway. There really are only about 4, maybe 5, games per year that any program that ever gets to the point of testing a broadcasting revenue grant of rights would really have a question about, and that would be their new conference home games. The only way any damages could be even close to be claimed, would be if the conference that was left, did not replace the program that left on any of their schedules, and it would be minimal if it came to it, in the grand scheme. schedules going empty not happening either. Florida State would play Savannah State clearly - before they let their schedule go empty.

I'll save the details for some other time, but it was laid out very clearly for me this past weekend in NYC by people I trust. No way a media "grant of rights" ever holds up if it's tested. Maryland will eventually blow up the concept of a grant of rights by the time their mess is all said and done. What the grant of rights is, is really the equivalent of promise ring, except the ring is just a piece of paper.

Although I mostly agree with paper tiger that is a Grant of Rights, UMD's case has nothing to do with a GoR. The only GoR they signed is with The Big10. The ACC GoR was agreed to and signed after UMD announced they were leaving (UMD announced the change in conference membership in Nov 2012 and The ACC GoR was announced sometime in the spring of 2013).

What UMD and The ACC are arguing about is how much UMD will pay to leave the conference (exit fee).

 

[NotreDameJoe]

What really remains to be seen with the GOR is whether the courts would allow the conferences to seek specific performance of the contract upon breach by a departing school. If not, then the GOR simply becomes a measure of damages, namely the value of the media rights the school signed over to the conference. The real risk of that model is that it varies by school, and that it declines every year. It's not much different than an exit fee, except that shrinks over time.

I think it is relatively unlikely that the courts would require specific performance and actually let the conference retain the media rights of a departing member. It simply won't happen. Instead they will be compensated for the loss of those rights by the school. Just one lawyer's opinion. But if I am right, then as the GORs get closer to their end date, the cost of breaking them becomes much more reasonable to a departing school.

That's also this law school graduate's opinion while waiting for the bar.

I had a talk over the weekend about this stuff. THese media rights grants are nothing more than a true paper tiger, for people that don't really understand what's going in with all the conference shifting and trying to show some kind of solidarity. The house of cards falls, because the majority of the money is tied up in tier 1 conference games only.
THe majority of the money is tied up in the revenue around CONFERENCE games. So theoretical Program X leaves Conference Y for Conference Z.
Program X - no longer has any conference games with Conference Y. Program X now has conference games scheduled with Conference Z. Conference Y is entitled to the revenue from Conference Z around Program X's Conference Z home games? That's going to be very tough legal road to enforce.
Say theoretically Kansas goes to the Big 10. Anyone really think that the Big 12 is going to collect Kansas' share of Big 10 money from the Big 10 from Kansas' new Big 10 conference games? What about Program X's out of conference games? Who's got those tier 2/ tier 3 rights? Never mind away games out of conference.which Program X has no control over revenue sharing....these things will not hold up for any conference.
These Grant of Rights things, nonsense. Maryland will prove that in due time.

I can't imagine Conference Y would continue to broadcast their former member's home games. I can imagine that Conference Z would fork over a settlement to Y that was a bit below the value of X
's home and in-conference games.


The paper tiger argument is taking things way too far. I doubt the Court will rule that billion dollar entities can sign a 9 digit contract with other entities, and then simply walk away with no penalty any time they like.

 

[SouthronCross]

Santa Clara's biggest win was back in 1993 when it took down #2 seed Arizona as a #15 seed. PG for SCU was Steve Nash. That's probably the biggest win. I do remember that Carolina win. SCU plays in a very nice and cozy venue.

Although I follow SCU teams to a small extend, UCONN is the team I cheer for the most. I get some alumni stuff from UCONN. I get a TON of alumni stuff from SCU. UCONN needs to step up its marketing to alums.

UNC was pre-season No 1, IIRC, and, SCU played a tremendous game. Very impressed by them that night.

I remember that SCU-Arizona game. Nash went crazy against them.

 

[dayooper]

That's also this law school graduate's opinion while waiting for the bar.





I can't imagine Conference Y would continue to broadcast their former member's home games. I can imagine that Conference Z would fork over a settlement to Y that was a bit below the value of X
's home and in-conference games.


The paper tiger argument is taking things way too far. I doubt the Court will rule that billion dollar entities can sign a 9 digit contract with other entities, and then simply walk away with no penalty any time they like.

Of course they can't. What is the use of signing a GoR if they will. But there seems to be the sentiment among a certain group that any school that leaves will see no payment at all. I highly doubt the courts will see it that way too. If conference Z holds a schools rights, they have to pay them for it. They can't with hold funds if they keep the rights.

 

[huskypantz]

I can't imagine Conference Y would continue to broadcast their former member's home games.

The problem is that the conference doesn't choose who plays on national TV and when. This is why I think the GOR just ends up in a settlement. Otherwise, ESPN chooses to play conf X home game with the departing school instead of a conf Y game in a prime time slot. Conf Y can't stop ESPN without allowing the GOR to be broken.

 

[pj]

The GoR is funny. Suppose Oklahoma goes to the B1G and the GoR is valid, so their TV rights have been assigned to the B12 and its media partner. Yet Oklahoma isn't necessarily obliged to let the B12's TV partner come on campus to film games. And if they bring the B1G's TV partner on campus to film games, and that partner televises it, now you have a breach case.

Another aspect is that you'd have to look at the specific wording of who owns what. Traditionally teams own their home games, and the "home team" is specified in the agreement to play. You can have a home game anywhere. What if Oklahoma simply agreed that all its B1G games are away games, even the ones played at Oklahoma's campus stadium?

 

[HuskyHawk]

This is a good point regarding Kansas replacement. I think most Jayhawk fans would prefer the B1G, especially if we are there too. If not, I hope B1G can target Missouri along with us. Kansas, however, is more likely to jump. I still don't know how they are going to resolve the KSU issue, but I am sure they will find a way if it means a B1G invite.

Since I'm a Jayhawk and a Husky, I'd suggest that they never wanted the Big Ten. But the reality is that there are three teams they mostly care about playing. Missouri in any sport, KState in any sport, Nebraska in football. OSU has been a hoops rival and the best team in the league other than KU over the last 20+ years. OU is good at hoops occasionally, but never a rival (their football rivals were already Nebraska and UT). So Kansas is pretty well alone except for KState. The other teams are gone. Hell, even Colorado was a bit of a rival on the western border....gone. The Big 8 that was has been ripped apart already. I suppose they could become rivals of Iowa and Nebraska again.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Since I'm a Jayhawk and a Husky, I'd suggest that they never wanted the Big Ten. But the reality is that there are three teams they mostly care about playing. Missouri in any sport, KState in any sport, Nebraska in football. OSU has been a hoops rival and the best team in the league other than KU over the last 20+ years. OU is good at hoops occasionally, but never a rival (their football rivals were already Nebraska and UT). So Kansas is pretty well alone except for KState. The other teams are gone. Hell, even Colorado was a bit of a rival on the western border....gone. The Big 8 that was has been ripped apart already. I suppose they could become rivals of Iowa and Nebraska again.

If we are in the same conference, UCONN/Kansas would be a big hoops rivalry. It will just take a little time to develop, but it will be must see TV.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

UNC was pre-season No 1, IIRC, and, SCU played a tremendous game. Very impressed by them that night.

I remember that SCU-Arizona game. Nash went crazy against them.

Thank you sir. Those games put SCU on the map. Of course, one of the most famous alum we got is Brandi Chastain. There are some good players in the WCC. I still remember UCONN played on the Pepperdine campus before heading out to Maui for that tournament back in 2006.

 

[NotreDameJoe]

The GoR is funny. Suppose Oklahoma goes to the B1G and the GoR is valid, so their TV rights have been assigned to the B12 and its media partner. Yet Oklahoma isn't necessarily obliged to let the B12's TV partner come on campus to film games. And if they bring the B1G's TV partner on campus to film games, and that partner televises it, now you have a breach case.

Another aspect is that you'd have to look at the specific wording of who owns what. Traditionally teams own their home games, and the "home team" is specified in the agreement to play. You can have a home game anywhere. What if Oklahoma simply agreed that all its B1G games are away games, even the ones played at Oklahoma's campus stadium?

The court would be enforcing the old contract's terms, here the Big12's. I'm sure they have planned for that.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If we are in the same conference, UCONN/Kansas would be a big hoops rivalry. It will just take a little time to develop, but it will be must see TV.

It would be fantastic for me...would love to go back to Lawrence and see UConn at Allen. Grab some beers and food at Free State Brewery before the game.