Expansion/realignment chatter post TAMU

[buckley503]

Latest ESPN scroll has BYU first option with Pitt and Lville serious considerations. They don't want another Texas school. But we know that in an hour there will be a different scroll.

 

[businesslawyer]

What Waylon's post misses is the underlying strength of the programs within a conference. Contracts and demographics matter, but contracts aren't forever and demographics within a footprint are softened by how well the product sells outside of its core market. Factoring that in changes things substantially. Although it doesn't change the fact that, vis a vis the ACC and Big XII, the Big East is in a much, much stronger position than it was a few years ago.

 

[SAMCRO]

Joe Schadd reported yesterday (on College Football Live) that L'ville and Pitt were strong considerations for the B12 and he'd have more updates on that later in the week. So, if Schadd is reporting that ic ould happen, you can pretty much guarentee that L'ville and Pitt will NOT go to the B12. How does that guy still have a job.

 

[upstater]

does anyone know what TCU's contractual obstacles would be to leave us for the Big 12? i don't know if they'd want to jump into Texas' shadow or not, but is there anything preventing them from doing so? geographically it would make a lot of sense

It would be a huge gamble if they accepted a slot before the SEC and Pac-12 finished moving around. It's a gamble staying still as well. If they move to the B12 and it evaporates, then what?

 

[Excalibur]

Every contract is a starting point. But sometimes that starting point is pretty set in stone. As desperately as the Big East needed to make something happen a year ago, they didn't get it done. ESPN didn't have to budge, so they didn't.

Fine, but what the B12 has is an event that allows for the potential re-opening of the contract, even if the standard for what permits it is subjective. That in itself is more leverage than the Big East had.

 

[jpm25]

Joe Schadd reported yesterday (on College Football Live) that L'ville and Pitt were strong considerations for the B12 and he'd have more updates on that later in the week. So, if Schadd is reporting that ic ould happen, you can pretty much guarentee that L'ville and Pitt will NOT go to the B12. How does that guy still have a job.

I don't like the guy and he is usually wrong, but he was first to report Edsall to Maryland back in December.

 

[Jimdish255]

I'm just thinking that once the season starts some of this scramble will fade a little to the back-burner. The SEC will keep entertaining offers and some other conferences may "accidentally" flirt with a few teams, but those teams are unlikely to seriously consider the upheaval of a move controversy in mid-season. And as the season comes to a close with a new contract in sight for the BE, then we will start to see who's desperate and who's in a position of strength. Time is on our side after next week, but February 2012 is another story.

 

[jpm25]

I don't like the guy and he is usually wrong, but he was first to report Edsall to Maryland back in December.

BTW, being a consideration, or the top consideration, or whatever might very well be factually correct. Pitt and L'ville do not have to accept any invitation or ovetures for this to be absolutly correct, and why shouldn't it be?

 

[jpm25]

I'm just thinking that once the season starts some of this scramble will fade a little to the back-burner. The SEC will keep entertaining offers and some other conferences may "accidentally" flirt with a few teams, but those teams are unlikely to seriously consider the upheaval of a move controversy in mid-season. And as the season comes to a close with a new contract in sight for the BE, then we will start to see who's desperate and who's in a position of strength. Time is on our side after next week, but February 2012 is another story.

unfortunatly, this is the story for the next couple of months. The timing sucks and I think will detract from the season but it would be hard to imagine Oklahoma playing Texas A&M without every other comment being about conference realignment.

 

[RS9999X]

The Big-12 doesn't have much in the way of options, its either stay put or raid the Big East.

We know those who play fantasy league think a Big-12/Big East merger is inevitable. Otherwise the cannibalization will continue

Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Missouri or Kansas or Cincy depending on who else the SEC takes and the Kansas/Kansas State lockup

and'

VVU
Pitt
SU
LU
RU
UConn

Leaving Kansas State, Idaho State, USF, and Cincy high and dry

Basketball would include St John's, Nova, Notre Dame. and Georgetown.

leaving PC, Depaul, Marquette, and Seton Hall high and dry.

Part of the problem in Providence: The Big East represents all the teams and officials want to preserve their jobs. The Big-12 has the same conflcit-of-interest between the league and the teams. It's much like union politics between bargaining units.

Putting the logical best 12 teams (for TV sets) together won't happen for that reason. The other reason: BCS money. Such an arrangement would cost the teams BCS money. They'd only get 1 seat at the table guaranteed split 1/12 rather than 1/9.

The Big East isn't the weaker player in this but they could be. If ESPN throws a small bucket of money at the Big-12 to go to 12 or 14 teams (and the SEC goes to 14) it may be cheaper (a lot cheaper) for ESPN to do exactly that.

If ESPN throw another $30 million a year at the Big-12 plus a championship game to add 3 teams, between that $30 million and TAMU exit fees and 'transition to full share' agreements it woulodn't cost much more than that.

What remains of the BE if the 4 most marketable football teams are lost in tne ensuing shuffle? The remainders will settle for chicken feed. What's not mentioned is the Big-12 going to 14 teams (losing 6 teams in conference shuffle) which also dooms the BE as we know it.

As easy argument could be made that UConn is not one of the 4 most desirable Television properties in the BE but the branding and success is there. Pitt and SU and RU would be gone under most any football market-size scenarios leaving Cincy (Ohio), LU (Kentucky). and UConn in a battle with newbie TCU.

Put it this way: ESPN could easily write a deal that dooms the BE for a lot less money than paying though the nose for both conferences. A 12 or 14 team Big-12 gives them the time-zones and superconference they want.

Even 14 teams and bring GU, SJU, ND and Nova in for basketball.

 

[jpm25]

The Big-12 doesn't have much in the way of options, its either stay put or raid the Big East.

We know those who play fantasy league think a Big-12/Big East merger is inevitable. Otherwise the cannibalization will continue

Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Missouri or Kansas or Cincy depending on who else the SEC takes and the Kansas/Kansas State lockup

and'

VVU
Pitt
SU
LU
RU
UConn

Leaving Kansas State, Idaho State, USF, and Cincy high and dry

Basketball would include St John's, Nova, Notre Dame. and Georgetown.

leaving PC, Depaul, Marquette, and Seton Hall high and dry.

Part of the problem in Providence: The Big East represents all the teams and officials want to preserve their jobs. The Big-12 has the same conflcit-of-interest between the league and the teams. It's much like union politics between bargaining units.

Putting the logical best 12 teams (for TV sets) together won't happen for that reason. The other reason: BCS money. Such an arrangement would cost the teams BCS money. They'd only get 1 seat at the table guaranteed split 1/12 rather than 1/9.

The Big East isn't the weaker player in this but they could be. If ESPN throws a small buckets of money at the Big-12 to go to 12 teams (and the SEC goes to 14) it may be cheaper for ESPN to do exactly that.

If ESPN throw another $30 million a year at the Big-12 plus a championship game to add 3 teams, between that $30 million and TAMU exit fees and 'transition to full share' agreements it woulodn't cost much more than that.

What remains of the BE if the 4 most marketable football teams are lost in tne ensuing shuffle? The remainders will settle for chicken feed. What's not mentioned is the Big-12 going to 14 teams (losing 6 teams in conference shuffle) which also dooms the BE as we know it.

As easy argument could be made that UConn is not one of the 4 most desirable Television properties in the BE but the branding and success is there. Pitt and SU and RU would be gone under most any football market-size scenarios leaving Cincy (Ohio), LU (Kentucky). and UConn in a battle with newbie TCU.

Put it this way: ESPN could easily write a deal that dooms the BE for a lot less money than paying though the nose for both conferences. A 12 or 14 team Big-12 gives them the time-zones and superconference they want.

Even 14 teams and bring GU, SJU, ND and Nova in for basketball.

I don't think this will happen. Much more likely Pac 12 takes 4 from Oklahoma and Texas and the Big East picks up a few of the remaining pieces (Kansas, K-State, Mizzou).

 

[RS9999X]

The Big-12 is fighting for survival. The Pac-16 isn't.

The Big East has limited flexibility to expand and raid and to pay $20 million a team. Don't count out the Big-12 in this. Or ESPN which stands to reap a windfall if the BE contract can be cut down to size.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

Didn't you (WaylonSmithers/NelsonMuntz) once say that any contract was open for renegotiation?

Could be, but Waylon's might argue that was then, or some other foolishness, implying a dramatic change in conference members would have no impact on a media contract.

 

[businesslawyer]

Every motivation that ESPN has "to cut the Big East down to size" is a stronger motivation for those who want to compete with ESPN for sports content to not let that happen.

Anything is possible, but I'm not pessimistic about the Big East's position.

 

[Adios]

Anything is possible, but I'm not pessimistic about the Big East's position.

I completely agree. If we lose teams to the B1G, we can still replace the teams lost with remaining Big XII teams and some ACC teams using a larger payout as bait. At the same time, we are also a candidate for B1G expansion as long as they can overlook the lack of AAU affiliation. UConn will probably get the AAU affiliation in a matter of time. One thing we have that just about every other Big East schools doesn't have: hockey!

 

[Pudge]

Let us NOT forget a Key feature of these contracts. They OPEN up if the conference's alignment changes. That's both for the positive and the negative. So, the fact that the BE is in line next Sept for the next great contract ... is meaningless IF the ACC grabs a few of our teams. Cause, at that point, they go mark to market.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Let us NOT forget a Key feature of these contracts. They OPEN up if the conference's alignment changes. That's both for the positive and the negative. So, the fact that the BE is in line next Sept for the next great contract ... is meaningless IF the ACC grabs a few of our teams. Cause, at that point, they go mark to market.

not true. CNBC had an article covering this a couple of days ago that I linked somewhere on the board. Basically, adding teams would result in an assessment of whether the contract was more valuable with the teams than it was before. It sounded like the dispute resolution would be arbitration, although it was not explicit. If the benchmark of that negotiation is the ACC's current lousy contract at $13MM/year/team, adding Syracuse and Rutgers isn't going to make it a $20MM/year/team deal.

 

[Excalibur]

That's enough to open up the negotiation, particularly if the clause doesn't expressly exclude economic factors like the increasing value of sports programming.

 

[Adios]

So the ACC is pretty much screwed by their contract.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

That's enough to open up the negotiation, particularly if the clause doesn't expressly exclude economic factors like the increasing value of sports programming.

You, Pudge and a few others keep making the same point that you think any league can reopen a contract anytime they want. You are a lawyer, and I have been involved in some meaningful business negotiations. How many long-term contracts have you have seen that have a unilateral cancellation or renegotiation clause for the supplier?

The Big East was literally getting strangled by its contract, and it had schools throwing themselves at the conference. Why didn't the Big East simply exercise the "Excalibur Clause" that you believe exists in every deal, add UCF or someone, and triple the per team take to get us more in-line with market?

 

[Excalibur]

You, Pudge and a few others keep making the same point that you think any league can reopen a contract anytime they want. You are a lawyer, and I have been involved in some meaningful business negotiations. How many long-term contracts have you have seen that have a unilateral cancellation or renegotiation clause for the supplier?

The Big East was literally getting strangled by its contract, and it had schools throwing themselves at the conference. Why didn't the Big East simply exercise the "Excalibur Clause" that you believe exists in every deal, add UCF or someone, and triple the per team take to get us more in-line with market?

You're somehow translating "open negotiations" into "unilaterally amend the contract". All I'm saying is that the clause that we both agree exists is leverage to open negotiations, and the argument that two established BCS programs add value is a lot more compelling than the argument that directional Florida or the sisters of the poor . You seem to think that a clause that dictates an assessment of the value of additional teams is a roadblock, which I can understand since you're including the unsubstantiated assumption that the benchmark is the original contract, even for the additional team. We don't know what the benchmark is, particularly for the determining the value of the additional teams.

Your position 12 months ago that any contract can be opened for discussions was more accurate that your current position, which appears to be that a contract with a clause that actually allows a re-opening of the contract, albeit with conditions, is somehow an iron-clad prohibition.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You're somehow translating "open negotiations" into "unilaterally amend the contract". All I'm saying is that the clause that we both agree exists is leverage to open negotiations, and the argument that two established BCS programs add value is a lot more compelling than the argument that directional Florida or the sisters of the poor . You seem to think that a clause that dictates an assessment of the value of additional teams is a roadblock, which I can understand since you're including the unsubstantiated assumption that the benchmark is the original contract, even for the additional team. We don't know what the benchmark is, particularly for the determining the value of the additional teams.

Your position 12 months ago that any contract can be opened for discussions was more accurate that your current position, which appears to be that a contract with a clause that actually allows a re-opening of the contract, albeit with conditions, is somehow an iron-clad prohibition.

My position 12 months ago was out of desperation. I was proposing dissolving the league or splitting or doing something creative to try and break it. On the other hand, if it was easy to re-open these deals, it would have already been done. The conference commissioners may fall down on some matters, but everyone pays attention to the TV contract.

 

[Pudge]

You are forgetting a simple basic rule: 2 parties can "allow" a contract to re-open. The clause gives leverage. But, I think there are compelling reasons for ESPN and/or a conference to simply morph into a new paradigm. The fact that the BE has the "next" contract that comes open ... gives me little to no confidence that we are OK.

 

[businesslawyer]

Pudge -- doesn't the fact that ESPN made an offer to give us a different level of money give you some confidence?

 

[Pudge]

smidge ...

But this is a fluid situation. AS evidenced by the carousel flying in circles following the TexasA&M moves.