Dennis Dodd: Big Ten expansion not done...stay tuned

[nelsonmuntz]

I give up. Everyone on this board is right. The GoR's have massive holes you could drive a truck through. They aren't really contracts at all. All these high pticed lawyers that drafted the actual agreements, and a lot of the posters on this board, don't know half as much as PJ and rmoore and Mr. Wonderful.

In fact, it turns out a content provider can sell their media rights as many times as they want under this new theory.

 

[justinslot]

I did find this post from arkstfan on the CSNBBS realignment board compelling:

They [GORs] are strong in theory.

Here is the reality.

Kansas and Virginia have pledged their rights to their respective conferences until a date in the future. Those conferences no longer own those rights having sold them to ESPN in the case of UVA and ESPN and Fox in the case of Kansas.

All the conference holds now is right to receive X dollars per year as set by their TV contract. If Virginia or Kansas were to leave and the TV network were to reduce the stream of payments, the departing school would be liable for the difference between the amount contracted already and the amount received. If the rights fee is not reduced, there are no damages and the departing school pays nothing under the GOR. But if there is a reduction then there are damages to pay.

If ESPN is just an observer, the GOR has significant value. If ESPN uses the GOR to leverage an extension of the Big 10 TV deal then ESPN has an incentive to not reduce the rights fee making the GOR essentially without value for retaining members.

 

[UConnJim]

I give up. Everyone on this board is right. The GoR's have massive holes you could drive a truck through. They aren't really contracts at all. All these high pticed lawyers that drafted the actual agreements, and a lot of the posters on this board, don't know half as much as PJ and rmoore and Mr. Wonderful.

In fact, it turns out a content provider can sell their media rights as many times as they want under this new theory.

Don't take it so seriously. It's only a message board that most want to slant in UConn's favor!

Hopefully, we can put this to bed as it seems nobody posting on this board has read the contracts and nobody knows what the outs are in the GOR contracts. I guess that is a perfect situation for a Boneyard debate as nobody can be proven right and nobody can be proven wrong!

 

[UPitt]

I give up. Everyone on this board is right. The GoR's have massive holes you could drive a truck through. They aren't really contracts at all. All these high pticed lawyers that drafted the actual agreements, and a lot of the posters on this board, don't know half as much as PJ and rmoore and Mr. Wonderful.

In fact, it turns out a content provider can sell their media rights as many times as they want under this new theory.

It was high priced lawyers that approved these agreements as well. They are no dummies either. Nobody said breaking the contract would be clear cut and easy, but all contracts have provisions for termination. ESPN or FOX, the conference, and each school likely has termination clauses. When invoked, the departing party would be subject to adhearing to additional clauses for media rights (ie home games remain with network) or monetary damages or a combination of both. Because no network wants to televise a competing conference's games, a network will sue for monetary damages. Just like every other contract that exists, it is always about the money.

 

[Drimple]

Guys, a "grant of rights" is nothing more than an exclusive license of one party's intellectual property to another. This is extremely common in entertainment agreements and such licenses are totally enforceable.

A school and a conference or a network might negotiate their way out of such a license for a variety of business reasons, but the notion that a "grant of rights" is on some kind of tenuous legal ground and will be struck down in court is fairly ridiculous.

 

[CTMike]

I don't think anyone is saying that GoR's aren't valid- just that it might not necessarily be some iron-clad lock on a conference's membership. If a member leaves- money will (likely) have to change hands.

PS- Nelson, for whatever reason, your last post above was one of my absolute favorites. It was so Nelson.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

I give up. Everyone on this board is right. The GoR's have massive holes you could drive a truck through. They aren't really contracts at all. All these high pticed lawyers that drafted the actual agreements, and a lot of the posters on this board, don't know half as much as PJ and rmoore and Mr. Wonderful.

In fact, it turns out a content provider can sell their media rights as many times as they want under this new theory.

Please don't bring my name up in posts unless you want to say something to me. It's rude. It's like talking about someone standing next to you to someone else as if they're not there.

Beside, I have no idea why I've joined some opposition club of yours. Nothing I posted contradicts your position. Grant of Rights is not going to be challenged by any school anywhere not named Notre Dame, and that's only because Notre Dame football is not part of any GoR agreement. The special clause about joining the ACC if they join anyone could just come down to monetary damages as made precedent by the Maryland case.

 

[pj]

I give up. Everyone on this board is right. The GoR's have massive holes you could drive a truck through. They aren't really contracts at all. All these high pticed lawyers that drafted the actual agreements, and a lot of the posters on this board, don't know half as much as PJ and rmoore and Mr. Wonderful.

In fact, it turns out a content provider can sell their media rights as many times as they want under this new theory.

I have said:

• The GoRs have no holes.
• They are binding contracts.
• Content providers can only sell their media rights once.
• The GoRs are not a major barrier to conference realignment. They are a major barrier to TV network realignment. They prevent (say) UNC from moving its rights from ESPN to Fox. They do not prevent UNC from moving from the ACC to the B1G while remaining on ESPN.

You seem to be unable to read. You keep accusing me of denying the first three bullets, when in every post I affirm them.

 

[Drimple]

I don't think anyone is saying that GoR's aren't valid- just that it might not necessarily be some iron-clad lock on a conference's membership. If a member leaves- money will (likely) have to change hands.

PS- Nelson, for whatever reason, your last post above was one of my absolute favorites. It was so Nelson.

Sure, but a conference probably isn't going to want a school unless they get the GOR issue straightened out ahead of time. There's a difference between the Big Ten saying "Welcome Maryland, I know you'll work out that exit fee business and we'll even loan you a few bucks if you need it because we can make money off you right away" and "Welcome UNC, we can't make a dime off you for 20 years so please try to get that worked out for us, thanks."

That, in effect, makes it fairly iron-clad from a business perspective.

That said, I think you could very well see some schools negotiate their way out more or less painlessly. I don't think anyone is really in love with the idea of being embroiled in school vs. conference lawsuits ala Maryland and Rutgers.

 

[UConn9604]

I give up. Everyone on this board is right. The GoR's have massive holes you could drive a truck through. They aren't really contracts at all. All these high pticed lawyers that drafted the actual agreements, and a lot of the posters on this board, don't know half as much as PJ and rmoore and Mr. Wonderful.

In fact, it turns out a content provider can sell their media rights as many times as they want under this new theory.

Would you take bets on whether the ACC in 2028 looks like the ACC in 2013?

 

[pj]

Sure, but a conference probably isn't going to want a school unless they get the GOR issue straightened out ahead of time. There's a difference between the Big Ten saying "Welcome Maryland, I know you'll work out that exit fee business and we'll even loan you a few bucks if you need it because we can make money off you right away" and "Welcome UNC, we can't make a dime off you for 20 years so please try to get that worked out for us, thanks."

That, in effect, makes it fairly iron-clad from a business perspective.

That said, I think you could very well see some schools negotiate their way out more or less painlessly. I don't think anyone is really in love with the idea of being embroiled in school vs. conference lawsuits ala Maryland and Rutgers.

Why? You're right, the new conference doesn't make a dime off the new team. But it doesn't lose a dime either. And the migrating team doesn't lose either, if the old conference has to continue paying on the old GoR. So the move to a new conference is dollar-neutral for both parties. They are going to evaluate it on its long-term merits, not short-term financial impact. If, say, Kansas feels it is better off in the B1G than the B12, the GoR won't prevent the move.

 

[GopherHawk]

I agree with PJ. Here is a poor example. If a team moved to a conference with more compelling home games the vale of their media rights would increase. There would be no loss to the previous conference. In fact the moving school could potentially negotiate that portion from the new conference.

 

[CL82]

I give up. Everyone on this board is right.

Wow, that was a long time coming. I'm glad I didn't hit the ignore button....kind of.

 

[NEforceUConn]

Would you take bets on whether the ACC in 2028 looks like the ACC in 2013?

Just as their was absolutely NO chance that PJ Hairston was getting charged with posession of a handgun (even though it was found about 5 feet from the car) in North Carolina, there is NO chance that the ACC in 2028 will look like the ACC in 2014.

 

[SouthronCross]

Just as their was absolutely NO chance that PJ Hairston was getting charged with posession of a handgun (even though it was found about 5 feet from the car) in North Carolina, there is NO chance that the ACC in 2028 will look like the ACC in 2014.

What do you think will be different? Who will still be there, and, who will be gone, in your opinion? I am honestly curious.

 

[Limbo Land]

What do you think will be different? Who will still be there, and, who will be gone, in your opinion? I am honestly curious.

I agree with SouthronCross that the teams in the ACC will stay pretty much the same.. BUT... only if the ACC network actually gets the schools more money. Fla St. and Clemson were all but promised that if they hang in with the ACC then they will get the new revenue stream. Fl. St Pres pretty vocal about the lack of new funding and Tier 3 rights. Problem is that the deal with Comcast is extremely disadvantageous. No new revenue stream.... Fl St. and Clemson will look to leave.

 

[itgoeslike]

I agree with SouthronCross that the teams in the ACC will stay pretty much the same.. BUT... only if the ACC network actually gets the schools more money. Fla St. and Clemson were all but promised that if they hang in with the ACC then they will get the new revenue stream. Fl. St Pres pretty vocal about the lack of new funding and Tier 3 rights. Problem is that the deal with Comcast is extremely disadvantageous. No new revenue stream.... Fl St. and Clemson will look to leave.

The following article suggests that the ACC network will be delayed and may never get off the ground.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...:"35762_1369068703_166310064","pt":"twitter"}

 

[woomba]

Even most people on message boards were skeptical when talk of the ACC Network surfaced when ESPN already owns the most of media rights already.

The question becomes were ACC Presidents fooled by Swofford's promises or were they aware that the network was a long shot going in when they signed the GoR...meaning that the formation of the ACCN will NOT be the catalyst for future realignment going forward.

I personally bet on the latter and think the ACC's safe for now.

 

[itgoeslike]

ESPN owns the ACC's rights top to bottom. The problem is that they sold a portion of 2nd and 3rd tier rights to Raycom and Fox Sports Net. The cost to re-aquire them is going to be cumbersome and expensive, and without a "pot of gold" (like the SEC) waiting for them, they are clearly dragging their feet. Per the article above, it may be cheaper to dish out $2M per school than try to get the ACCN off the ground.

 

[Huskyforlife]

If we ever do find our way into the B1G I'm going to go troll the Syracuse board harder than I've ever trolled anyone before.

It will be glorious.

no you won't. they banned me on that board after we beat them last year and i hadn't even posted yet about it. they're board does not tolerate other fans. at least not me

 

[SouthronCross]

The following article suggests that the ACC network will be delayed and may never get off the ground.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx?app_data={"pi":"35762_1369068703_166310064","pt":"twitter"}

The most glaring point in the article, to me, anyways, was the question of whether or not the ACC had waited too long to undertake this project. They had the opportunity to take this step as far back as 2007, but, passed on it at that time.

Its a given that if the league does decide to get one, it will be a 3-4 year process. I believe that ESPN can, and will, work out a deal with Raycom for their share of the ACC's broadcast rights. Part of which will be keeping Raycom involved in some small capacity. Attempting to reacquire the rights Raycom sublicensed to Fox is going to be another matter altogether. Seventeen football and 25 basketball games does not seem like a huge amount, but, that is content that an ACCN will NEED to exist.

 

[itgoeslike]

The most glaring point in the article, to me, anyways, was the question of whether or not the ACC had waited too long to undertake this project. They had the opportunity to take this step as far back as 2007, but, passed on it at that time.

Its a given that if the league does decide to get one, it will be a 3-4 year process. I believe that ESPN can, and will, work out a deal with Raycom for their share of the ACC's broadcast rights. Part of which will be keeping Raycom involved in some small capacity. Attempting to reacquire the rights Raycom sublicensed to Fox is going to be another matter altogether. Seventeen football and 25 basketball games does not seem like a huge amount, but, that is content that an ACCN will NEED to exist.

The decision will ultimately be up to ESPN and not the league. ESPN has to decide if it less costly/more profitable to pay out $2M per school or launch the network in the coming years.

 

[BigEastCT]

Like one person noted, for the Big Ten in any expansion, ''first comes football: Penn St,/Nebraska; next comes TV markets: Maryland/Rutgers; then comes basketball: Kansas/UNC.''

 

[NEforceUConn]

What do you think will be different? Who will still be there, and, who will be gone, in your opinion? I am honestly curious.

With this new huge money era in college athletics combined with traditional university presidents change will happen in 14 years. The ACC, B1G, and BIG 12 will be different team wise.

I'm not directly picking on the ACC, although I do take jabs at UNC. My difficulty with Carolina stems from my belief that 10 years ago they were considered probably the top university (athletic and academic wise), and since then they sold out to unethical self minded individuals which have, and continue to, take huge bites out of Carolina's reputation. If they continue in these ways they will challenge the SEC schools for operating with that brand of college athletics.

I have no idea what changes will take place in the ACC in the next 14 years. Perhaps Texas joins, perhaps UVA gets tired of this new ACC and realizes the B1G is more academically and traditionally in step with UVA's college beliefs, or perhaps FSU moves for more money, or Charlie Strong continues to bring his UM style of college football recruiting to UL and the ACC throws them out. A lot can happen over 14 years. I just hope Carolina changes course and regains the national respect it once held so high.

But I'm a UConn fan and I'm so pleased with KO and the direction of his program. Geno speaks for himself, and when he breaks Wooden's NCAA championship record I hope the nation realizes what a great accomplishment UConn's women bb is. Lastly UConn fb is on the rise, and although PP is not my favorite, I believe the next coach will impress just like KO with his leadership. As a friend in the ACC higherarchy has told me, "Don't worry, UConn is a strong state supported school and will be fine."

 

[uconndogs]

With this new huge money era in college athletics combined with traditional university presidents change will happen in 14 years. The ACC, B1G, and BIG 12 will be different team wise.

I'm not directly picking on the ACC, although I do take jabs at UNC. My difficulty with Carolina stems from my belief that 10 years ago they were considered probably the top university (athletic and academic wise), and since then they sold out to unethical self minded individuals which have, and continue to, take huge bites out of Carolina's reputation. If they continue in these ways they will challenge the SEC schools for operating with that brand of college athletics.

I have no idea what changes will take place in the ACC in the next 14 years. Perhaps Texas joins, perhaps UVA gets tired of this new ACC and realizes the B1G is more academically and traditionally in step with UVA's college beliefs, or perhaps FSU moves for more money, or Charlie Strong continues to bring his UM style of college football recruiting to UL and the ACC throws them out. A lot can happen over 14 years. I just hope Carolina changes course and regains the national respect it once held so high.

But I'm a UConn fan and I'm so pleased with KO and the direction of his program. Geno speaks for himself, and when he breaks Wooden's NCAA championship record I hope the nation realizes what a great accomplishment UConn's women bb is. Lastly UConn fb is on the rise, and although PP is not my favorite, I believe the next coach will impress just like KO with his leadership. As a friend in the ACC higherarchy has told me, "Don't worry, UConn is a strong state supported school and will be fine."

Much wisdom in that post.

 

[SouthronCross]

The decision will ultimately be up to ESPN and not the league. ESPN has to decide if it less costly/more profitable to pay out $2M per school or launch the network in the coming years.

Very true, although, I'd hope they get one, and, have UConn be a member if it comes to pass.

 

[SouthronCross]

Like one person noted, for the Big Ten in any expansion, ''first comes football: Penn St,/Nebraska; next comes TV markets: Maryland/Rutgers; then comes basketball: Kansas/UNC.''

I personally do not see UNC joining the B1G. Had the ACC collapsed last summer, Carolina was headed to the SEC. At least from what the Rams Club (UNC boosters) members I spoke to say. But, who really knows what might've happened.

 

[RMoore1999]

Seriously? How do you feed your children?

Kibbles and bits, and friskies (dry; canned to expensive)...

 

[SouthronCross]

With this new huge money era in college athletics combined with traditional university presidents change will happen in 14 years. The ACC, B1G, and BIG 12 will be different team wise.

I'm not directly picking on the ACC, although I do take jabs at UNC. My difficulty with Carolina stems from my belief that 10 years ago they were considered probably the top university (athletic and academic wise), and since then they sold out to unethical self minded individuals which have, and continue to, take huge bites out of Carolina's reputation. If they continue in these ways they will challenge the SEC schools for operating with that brand of college athletics.

Thats pretty much my take as well. I do not know how long you have lived in NC, but, the University has not had a strong, principled leader as chancellor since Dr Michael Hooker passed away in 1999. It has also failed to follow former UNC President William Friday's advice to 'not let the athletic tail wag the academic dog.' Which is why the misconduct that occured happened in the first place. Too many members of the BORs do not place the same emphasis on 'education first, athletics second,' that they did. And, its reputation has been smeared from a mess of its own making because of it.

I have no idea what changes will take place in the ACC in the next 14 years. Perhaps Texas joins, perhaps UVA gets tired of this new ACC and realizes the B1G is more academically and traditionally in step with UVA's college beliefs, or perhaps FSU moves for more money, or Charlie Strong continues to bring his UM style of college football recruiting to UL and the ACC throws them out. A lot can happen over 14 years. I just hope Carolina changes course and regains the national respect it once held so high.

You and me both. Its pretty hard watching the buck get passed around, concerning blame, when it was obvious that ALL of the adults supposedly in charge were either asleep at the wheel. Or, chose to turn a blind eye to it.

But I'm a UConn fan and I'm so pleased with KO and the direction of his program. Geno speaks for himself, and when he breaks Wooden's NCAA championship record I hope the nation realizes what a great accomplishment UConn's women bb is. Lastly UConn fb is on the rise, and although PP is not my favorite, I believe the next coach will impress just like KO with his leadership. As a friend in the ACC higherarchy has told me, "Don't worry, UConn is a strong state supported school and will be fine."

I think UConn made a great choice with KO. He looks like a keeper. Real hoops fans see what Geno has done, and, realise just how difficult it is to not just build a program to that level, but, to keep it there annually. UConn FB will be just fine. PP might not be the answer, but, your powers-that-be have shown that they recognise coaching talent. You will get a HC to bring FB up to where you all expect it to be.

Lastly, your ACC friend is correct. And, I still believe they are pushing for UConn behind the scenes.

 

[NickyNewark]

no you won't. they banned me on that board after we beat them last year and i hadn't even posted yet about it. they're board does not tolerate other fans. at least not me

Yeah SU's board is too quick on the banning-trigger for fan's of other school's!I got banned there too just for being right about a recruit they swore would choose SU over RU and when he chose RU rather than admit they were wrong I found I was banned w/o even a by your leave sir or explanation!I sent him a message later calling him a commie lol!Lately I found I can get in just to lurk but the lack of opposing points of view makes for nothing but a cheering section rather than an exchange of knowledge or information...its become a boring board listening to a single point of view!