I'm More Convinced Than Ever: UConn & UVA to the B1G

[BC1978]

A lot of people share information. How do you think ESPN breaks stories? How do you think CNN and FOX break government stories? It's true that "sensitive" information is rarely shared, but what I've said on this board could hardly be construed as sensitive material, especially since I've shown a quote from Delaney himself where it stated their goal of contiguous expansion. And unlike the ridiculous poster you quoted above, I've never claimed to be getting "all their thoughts and strategies" nor do I get anything resembling frequent blow by blow accounts. I imagine I only get a fraction of the things that go on behind the scenes and I've never purported otherwise.

As to the UVA/UNC signing a GoR, I've answered this question so many times on this board it's getting ridiculous that people still can't grasp it.

Did you ever consider that perhaps the GoR isn't the absolute brick wall stopping people from changing conferences that perhaps you think it is? I know this may come as a shock to you, but it's unlikely any school would commit themselves absolutely to any league for 10+ years without a way out. If you really think UNC and UVA signed a GoR binding themselves to the ACC for over a decade no matter what happens on the advice of legal counsel, then I'm not sure you're in a position to speak of the ways of the world.

Fact of the matter is one tenet of contract law is that no entity, or their inherent rights, can be bound to another party for an unfair duration. Any person or entity has a right to make a living. The Grant of Rights is absolutely NOT a contract that was meant to bind schools to their conference for 10-15 years. The agreement was meant to protect the interests of the television networks, and by proxy, the league, so that if the schools wanted to leave, they would continue receiving just value.

The problem here is a lack of understanding for what a Grant of Rights really is and what it's meant to accomplish. I've stated this a great many times on this board. And until you listen to what I've said on the topic, you'll continue to falsely construe my stance as not answering why UVA/UNC would sign it. But that is based wholly on a false premise.

I don't know what to say. You claim that "I'm not sure you're in a position to speak of the ways of the world" , but you clearly have no problem doing just that.

I think you are the one that has a misunderstanding of the GOR. The GOR does NOT bind a school to a conference for a set period of time. It only deals with the specified media rights that they have sold. That's it. The school can leave whenever they want (subject to whatever exit fees provisions can be enforced).

What you are missing here, IMO, is that IF UVA or UNC had ANY intention of considering a BiG invitation, why would they sign a GOR to begin with? Regardless of whether they can find a "way out", why would they even take that risk? They simply would not support or sign it. Generally, in my experience, parties do not knowingly undertake actions which are not in their best interests.

The other issue would be how any school would position their opposition to the GOR (after voluntarily agreeing to it) in a court if they were going to another conference with a GOR, where they would be expected to sign the new conference's GOR. At the very least, IMO, they would be running against the "Clean Hands" doctrine.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

With all due respect, if UVA and UNC had any interest in joining the BiG, I don't think they would have signed the GOR. Look, I would not be surprised if one or both of these schools at some point talked to the BiG, but, they ultimately concluded they wanted to stay in the ACC. If they had any doubts, they would have kept their options open and not agreed to the GOR. Not rocket science here.

What choice did either have? It was sign or leave and neither appear to have had an invitation to the B1G. Seems even more likely to me than UNC and UVA rejecting the B1G, that the B1G knew they needed to swallow the northeast, something they were already committed to, before they attempted such a big bite in the southeast.

 

[kyleslamb]

I dont know wat to say. You claim that "I'm not sure you're in a position to speak of the ways of the world" , but you clearly have no problem doing just that.

I think you are the one that has a misunderstanding of the GOR. The GOR does NOT bind a school to a conference for a set period of time. It only deals with the specified media rights that they have sold. That's it. The school can leave whenever they want (subject to whatever exit fees provisions can be enforced).

What you are missing here, IMO, is that IF UVA or UNC had ANY intention of considering a BiG invitation, why would they sign a GOR to begin with? Regardless of whether they can find a "way out", why would they even take that risk? They simply would not support or sign it. Generally, in my experience, parties do not knowingly undertake actions which are not in their best interests.

The other issue would be how any school would position their opposition to the GOR (after voluntarily agreeing to it) in a court if they were going to another conference with a GOR, where they would be expected to sign new conference's GOR. At the very least, IMO, they would be running against the "Clean Hands" doctrine.

See, now I have confirmation you haven't been reading my posts very much or very closely. Of course it doesn't bind a team to a league. That's been my point all along. So the question being asked "why would UNC or UVA sign the GoR if they had intentions of keeping their B1G options open" is an irrelevant question, because it assumes that signing the GoR eliminates the possibility. It doesn't.

The GoR does attach the media rights to a league. That's not in dispute. In fact, that's been my point all along. But the other point I've made repeatedly, if you'd paid any attention, is that for a GoR to be legal, the teams would have to continue being PAID for their rights if they leave. And that is the big takeaway here is that any team could leave the ACC and if the GoR continued to be honored on both sides, would not preclude a team from leaving.

Signing the GoR was in their best interests at the time, because it was the only way the ACC was going to receive competitive compensation from the media networks. Even if Virginia and UNC were theoretically interested in the Big Ten, it doesn't mean they wouldn't try to better their current circumstances. And frankly, I have never argued they were trying to leave the ACC. I've merely stated that if the time comes where the Big Ten is offering, they'll listen. Signing the Grant of Rights was their only real choice at that time. There were no guarantees and no other offers on the table officially, and yes, they wanted to maximize the ACC's earning potential so of course they signed. It was the best thing they could do at that moment.

 

[BC1978]

What choice did either have? It was sign or leave and neither appear to have had an invitation to the B1G. Seems even more likely to me than UNC and UVA rejecting the B1G, that the B1G knew they needed to swallow the northeast, something they were already committed to, before they attempted such a big bite in the southeast.

Why did they have to sign? Nobody knew about the ACC GOR as it was being discussed among the schools. If they had refused to sign, what was the. ACC going to do, kick them out? Of course not. All that would have happened is that the ACC GOR would not have gotten done. In fact, if they really did want into the BiG, not signing the GOR would have resulted in the continued rumors of the ACC's demise and probably hastened a BiG invitation.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

As a B12 alum (Texas), I also think it will be the B12 that craters and not the ACC.

There are 3 keys to the continued viability of the B12, and in order of importance those keys are: Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. However, the importance of the schools is actually an inverted pyramid because Texas can definitely be forced by Oklahoma, and Oklahoma might play along with Kansas if Kansas took a hankering to leave the B12. Thus, Kansas may actually turn out to be the critical domino in the demise of the B12. Here's what I mean ....

Texas' LHN has now found national carriage with DISH and DirecTV will probably be on-board with the LHN by the end of 2014. The LHN will almost certainly prove to give Texas a nice boost in national recruiting, plus there is the prestige factor involved with having your very own 24/7/365 national network dedicated to all things Longhorn. Thus, Texas wants mightily to keep the B12 glued together since it is not at all clear that any other major conference would allow Texas to keep the LHN in its current form if Texas ever migrated out of the B12. Texas, then, is strong for the continued viability of the B12 into the long and distant future.

The glue to Texas' keeping the B12 together is Oklahoma. With the losses of Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri, obviously several good football schools in the B12 have been ripped out, leaving only Texas and Oklahoma as recognized football anchors. The B12 is not viable for Texas as the only football power if Oklahoma were ever to migrate out of the B12. So, really, Oklahoma carries a trump card over Texas, "keep us happy or maybe watch your LHN go bye-bye".

Which brings us to Kansas. While I have no information as to the thinking of Kansas' PTB, I can tell you anecdotally that there appears to be a sizable majority of Kansas folks that would like to see Kansas move out of the B12 and into the B1G. And why not? The B12 is severely weakened by previous defections and the B12 footprint has shrunk drastically -- basically to Kansas City and the State of Texas (both of which are shared with the SEC). More importantly, the B12 is not drawing TV viewers outside of the limited B12 footprint. In fact, the B12 is severely slipping in TV ratings behind the SEC in the City of Houston. Also, Kansas lost its major rival in Mizz to the SEC. There is little remaining loyalty to the B12 among Kansas folks that I can glean.

Out of B1G territory, the rumor is that the B1G may have some interest in Kansas, especially if things don't work out for the B1G in adding any more eastern schools. This is not particularly earth-shaking news since Kansas is AAU, the founder of basketball, a basketball powerhouse, is contiguous to the B1G, and therefore brings significant value to the B1G (and the B1G to Kansas). There is every reason to believe that Kansas would be attractive to the B1G, at least in a back-up plan capacity. Personally, I think that if the B1g offered Kansas toward the end of the B12 GOR, and before the GOR is re-upped, Kansas would accept a BiG offer in a heartbeat. This is assumption #1.

How would a Kansas defection, if it happened, affect Texas? Texas wouldn't like a Kansas defection -- not at all -- but Kansas -> B1G wouldn't likely shake Texas out of the B12. So long as Oklahoma stays in the B1G, I have no doubt Texas stays put.

How would a Kansas defection affect Oklahoma? Here I think things get interesting. Oklahoma's PTB yearn for academic validation. Both Boren and Castiglione have been quoted to the effect that they want to raise OU's academics to the first rank. They don't get academic validation in the truncated B12, and, frankly, probably never will. They don't get it in the SEC, no matter how many new AAU schools the SEC has added in the recent past (Mizz and A&M). Oklahoma would get academic validation in the B1G, being able to join the CIC, with fast-track toward AAU membership. Oklahoma would also re-establish the OU-NU rivalry, no small matter. I also think the Sooners would guess that they could preserve OU-Texas even if Texas didn't follow them to the B1G. I think, if offered by the B1G (that's a big "if"), there is a very distinct probability that Oklahoma would follow Kansas to the B1G. OU to the B1G is assumption #2 (and is the weakest of the assumptions).

Thus would Texas' hand be called out. Texas cannot remain in the B12 without Oklahoma because without OU, the B12 loses its last remaining football anchor (other than Texas). If KU and OU defected, ushering in the final crisis of the B12, Texas could probably pick the conference that gave it the best deal on its LHN. To me, the B1G has the most ability to fold in the LHN into the BTN, and, financially, give Texas the best deal there. My guess is that for Texas it would boil down to the B1G and the SEC in the end, with the PAC as an outside possibility. If Texas did join the B1G -- and I personally think we would -- then UConn suddenly comes into focus.

A league of 17 is disjointed. A league of 18 is not as manageable as a league of 20, due to the symmetry of pods, but a league of 18 can work adequately, schedule-wise.

There are a lot of wild-cards.

For example, right now, the B12 grosses more money "per school" than any other conference. If this continues, nobody -- including Kansas -- is going to want to leave the B12. But if the B1G really does begin to gross $44.5M per school beginning in 2017, as rumored, then that might persuade Kansas to hesitate before agreeing to re-up the B12 GOR when that time arises. The B12 is expected to reach $40M-$45M per school, but not until the 2025 time-frame. In 2025, the B1g will undoubtedly be grossing much, much more than $44.5M per school since these TV contracts are always back-loaded. Assumption #3 is that the B1G grosses around $44.5M beginning in 2017, with payouts increasing thereafter.

Also, I think Delany prefers to expand with east coast schools down the eastern seaboard, not schools in the prairie states. I think the B1G is determined to wait out MY-ACC to see if UVA shakes out of the ACC, and then add UVA and some other school to balance out UVA. I used to think that other school would be UConn, but now, after synthesizing dayooper's information about BC upthread (via FtT), I am not so sure. Maybe BC looks a whole lot better to the B1G than I previously realized.

At any rate, if UVA doesn't shake out, then Delany may decide to examine a potential B12 gambit to the west. Delany's said he doesn't want to be responsible for destroying a conference, but maybe that was just talk for public consumption, to make him sound like "a good guy after all." In truth and fact, it appears inevitable today that either the B12 or the ACC is going to be destroyed at some point in the next 10 years. You pick.

If Delany does pull out KU, OU, and Texas from the B12, then I think UConn would be sitting pretty because there's no guarantee at that point that the ACC will ever fracture beyond the loss of Maryland. I think B1G and SEC raids on the ACC produce the worst case scenario for UConn. If the B1G and the SEC successfully dismantle the ACC, that would probably freeze UConn out of the B1G, leaving UConn with an option to join a crippled ACC, or, as a remote possibility, a crippled and distant B12. Neither being good choices for UConn, I should think.

So ... from the pov of UConn, I think it is better for the B1G to raid the B12 and not the ACC. Again, JMO.

Thanks, good food for thought as I never thought of looking at the XII from Kansas's viewpoint and I did not know that Oklahoma has AAU dreams, though, they may want to ask Nebraska how much help the B1G has been with their nor ex AAU status.

General question for you, politically, how tied are the 3 'big' XII (Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas) to their little sisters (Oklahoma St, Kanas St, Texas Tech)? Can the three move to the B1G or another conference without them or so they need to come along, too, or at the very least, have a safe landing place (PAC)?

Another question, would the addition of Texas (and Oklahoma) make the B1G attractive to ND?

Lastly, unless the B1G breaks from their model, i.e. large, state flagship universities, UConn appears to be more of a fit than BC. The B1G already has BC 'type' school that is higher rated academically, has more history with football, is successful in other sports, and does not carry any religious 'baggage.' BC would only add hockey and a new market, Boston, that UConn can also provide.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Why did they have to sign? Nobody knew about the ACC GOR as it was being discussed among the schools. If they had refused to sign, what was the. ACC going to do, kick them out? Of course not. All that would have happened is that the ACC GOR would not have gotten done. In fact, if they really did want into the BiG, not signing the GOR would have resulted in the continued rumors of the ACC's demise and probably hastened a BiG invitation.

Precisely. UNC and UVA could have seriously destabilized the ACC without having a certain place elsewhere. Don't you think that sort of petulance would have sent up seriously red flags in the B1G and SEC? Why not just hang out signs in Chapel Hill and Charlottesville: Prima donna available, inquire within.

 

[kyleslamb]

As a B12 alum (Texas), I also think it will be the B12 that craters and not the ACC.

There are 3 keys to the continued viability of the B12, and in order of importance those keys are: Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. However, the importance of the schools is actually an inverted pyramid because Texas can definitely be forced by Oklahoma, and Oklahoma might play along with Kansas if Kansas took a hankering to leave the B12. Thus, Kansas may actually turn out to be the critical domino in the demise of the B12. Here's what I mean ....

Texas' LHN has now found national carriage with DISH and DirecTV will probably be on-board with the LHN by the end of 2014. The LHN will almost certainly prove to give Texas a nice boost in national recruiting, plus there is the prestige factor involved with having your very own 24/7/365 national network dedicated to all things Longhorn. Thus, Texas wants mightily to keep the B12 glued together since it is not at all clear that any other major conference would allow Texas to keep the LHN in its current form if Texas ever migrated out of the B12. Texas, then, is strong for the continued viability of the B12 into the long and distant future.

The glue to Texas' keeping the B12 together is Oklahoma. With the losses of Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri, obviously several good football schools in the B12 have been ripped out, leaving only Texas and Oklahoma as recognized football anchors. The B12 is not viable for Texas as the only football power if Oklahoma were ever to migrate out of the B12. So, really, Oklahoma carries a trump card over Texas, "keep us happy or maybe watch your LHN go bye-bye".

Which brings us to Kansas. While I have no information as to the thinking of Kansas' PTB, I can tell you anecdotally that there appears to be a sizable majority of Kansas folks that would like to see Kansas move out of the B12 and into the B1G. And why not? The B12 is severely weakened by previous defections and the B12 footprint has shrunk drastically -- basically to Kansas City and the State of Texas (both of which are shared with the SEC). More importantly, the B12 is not drawing TV viewers outside of the limited B12 footprint. In fact, the B12 is severely slipping in TV ratings behind the SEC in the City of Houston. Also, Kansas lost its major rival in Mizz to the SEC. There is little remaining loyalty to the B12 among Kansas folks that I can glean.

Out of B1G territory, the rumor is that the B1G may have some interest in Kansas, especially if things don't work out for the B1G in adding any more eastern schools. This is not particularly earth-shaking news since Kansas is AAU, the founder of basketball, a basketball powerhouse, is contiguous to the B1G, and therefore brings significant value to the B1G (and the B1G to Kansas). There is every reason to believe that Kansas would be attractive to the B1G, at least in a back-up plan capacity. Personally, I think that if the B1g offered Kansas toward the end of the B12 GOR, and before the GOR is re-upped, Kansas would accept a BiG offer in a heartbeat. This is assumption #1.

How would a Kansas defection, if it happened, affect Texas? Texas wouldn't like a Kansas defection -- not at all -- but Kansas -> B1G wouldn't likely shake Texas out of the B12. So long as Oklahoma stays in the B1G, I have no doubt Texas stays put.

How would a Kansas defection affect Oklahoma? Here I think things get interesting. Oklahoma's PTB yearn for academic validation. Both Boren and Castiglione have been quoted to the effect that they want to raise OU's academics to the first rank. They don't get academic validation in the truncated B12, and, frankly, probably never will. They don't get it in the SEC, no matter how many new AAU schools the SEC has added in the recent past (Mizz and A&M). Oklahoma would get academic validation in the B1G, being able to join the CIC, with fast-track toward AAU membership. Oklahoma would also re-establish the OU-NU rivalry, no small matter. I also think the Sooners would guess that they could preserve OU-Texas even if Texas didn't follow them to the B1G. I think, if offered by the B1G (that's a big "if"), there is a very distinct probability that Oklahoma would follow Kansas to the B1G. OU to the B1G is assumption #2 (and is the weakest of the assumptions).

Thus would Texas' hand be called out. Texas cannot remain in the B12 without Oklahoma because without OU, the B12 loses its last remaining football anchor (other than Texas). If KU and OU defected, ushering in the final crisis of the B12, Texas could probably pick the conference that gave it the best deal on its LHN. To me, the B1G has the most ability to fold in the LHN into the BTN, and, financially, give Texas the best deal there. My guess is that for Texas it would boil down to the B1G and the SEC in the end, with the PAC as an outside possibility. If Texas did join the B1G -- and I personally think we would -- then UConn suddenly comes into focus.

A league of 17 is disjointed. A league of 18 is not as manageable as a league of 20, due to the symmetry of pods, but a league of 18 can work adequately, schedule-wise.

There are a lot of wild-cards.

For example, right now, the B12 grosses more money "per school" than any other conference. If this continues, nobody -- including Kansas -- is going to want to leave the B12. But if the B1G really does begin to gross $44.5M per school beginning in 2017, as rumored, then that might persuade Kansas to hesitate before agreeing to re-up the B12 GOR when that time arises. The B12 is expected to reach $40M-$45M per school, but not until the 2025 time-frame. In 2025, the B1g will undoubtedly be grossing much, much more than $44.5M per school since these TV contracts are always back-loaded. Assumption #3 is that the B1G grosses around $44.5M beginning in 2017, with payouts increasing thereafter.

Also, I think Delany prefers to expand with east coast schools down the eastern seaboard, not schools in the prairie states. I think the B1G is determined to wait out MY-ACC to see if UVA shakes out of the ACC, and then add UVA and some other school to balance out UVA. I used to think that other school would be UConn, but now, after synthesizing dayooper's information about BC upthread (via FtT), I am not so sure. Maybe BC looks a whole lot better to the B1G than I previously realized.

At any rate, if UVA doesn't shake out, then Delany may decide to examine a potential B12 gambit to the west. Delany's said he doesn't want to be responsible for destroying a conference, but maybe that was just talk for public consumption, to make him sound like "a good guy after all." In truth and fact, it appears inevitable today that either the B12 or the ACC is going to be destroyed at some point in the next 10 years. You pick.

If Delany does pull out KU, OU, and Texas from the B12, then I think UConn would be sitting pretty because there's no guarantee at that point that the ACC will ever fracture beyond the loss of Maryland. I think B1G and SEC raids on the ACC produce the worst case scenario for UConn. If the B1G and the SEC successfully dismantle the ACC, that would probably freeze UConn out of the B1G, leaving UConn with an option to join a crippled ACC, or, as a remote possibility, a crippled and distant B12. Neither being good choices for UConn, I should think.

So ... from the pov of UConn, I think it is better for the B1G to raid the B12 and not the ACC. Again, JMO.

I echo the sentiments of this post being very thought-provoking.

I think you raise a lot of compelling points. While I have maintained that UVA and UNC are 'interested' in the Big Ten, I also have never claimed they would automatically jump at the first sign of an invite. I do think all things being equal, they'd absolutely stay in the ACC. While all things are not equal, they might be enough that they'd elect to stay in the ACC.

Say, for a moment, that the Big Ten was ready to expand but those two stayed put. You could definitely make a case that the Big Ten could then go to UConn and Kansas as 15 & 16, given Kansas might be more likely to leave the Big 12 for the reasons you mention than perhaps those ACC schools. That gives more contiguous expansion for the Big Ten, but might then produce an all-out bidding war for Oklahoma and Texas.

Interestingly, the Big Ten isn't necessarily resolved in simply stopping at 16. So if they had Kansas & Nebraska, I think they could make a more compelling case for Oklahoma and Texas this time around. You know neither wants to join the SEC, so it would probably be a matter of the Pac-12 and Big Ten fighting for those two.

 

[Seaa Blue]

So questions: If you are so plugged into the conversations and have such great access...

1. Why are your posts so long? You should have better things to do.

Unless, of course, he's a... writer/author/journalist.

 

[dayooper]

Thanks, good food for thought as I never thought of looking at the XII from Kansas's viewpoint and I did not know that Oklahoma has AAU dreams, though, they may want to ask Nebraska how much help the B1G has been with their nor ex AAU status.

General question for you, politically, how tied are the 3 'big' XII (Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas) to their little sisters (Oklahoma St, Kanas St, Texas Tech)? Can the three move to the B1G or another conference without them or so they need to come along, too, or at the very least, have a safe landing place (PAC)?

Another question, would the addition of Texas (and Oklahoma) make the B1G attractive to ND?

Lastly, unless the B1G breaks from their model, i.e. large, state flagship universities, UConn appears to be more of a fit than BC. The B1G already has BC 'type' school that is higher rated academically, has more history with football, is successful in other sports, and does not carry any religious 'baggage.' BC would only add hockey and a new market, Boston, that UConn can also provide.

I think UConn is now more attractive to the Big10 then it was 4 years ago. BC is in a larger DMA in of itself, but not part of the NYC market. I also believe that being a flagship school with a large enrollment and alumni base is important as well. I'm not sure, but I believe that BC does very little of the research that the Big10 finds important. I want to stress that those were very preliminary and some holes may have been punched in that since. I brought it up because of the whole reactionary piece that certain posters were bring up. I wanted to show that both Maryland and Rutgers were being looked at for quite a while before the ACC expanded.

 

[whaler11]

Unless, of course, he's a... writer/author/journalist.

Yeah those are professions where people get paid...

 

[Stray_Dog]

You don't have any evidence. You're using a ridiculous premise. Since logic isn't your strong suit, apparently, let me let you in on some secrets.

Signing a document/contract with one entity doesn't prove they aren't interested in another entity, sir. Suggesting otherwise is as idiotic as insinuating that because you buy a Honda, therefore you have no interest in a Toyota.

Furthermore, just because one party isn't already a member of one entity, doesn't prove that they won't be. Strike two, sir. That's as idiotic as saying that because someone signed a new lease for an apartment, they must have no interest in buying a house because if they did, they already would have bought one.

You have no evidence that the Big Ten actually offered Virginia (they didn't, by the way). That they're still in the ACC is immaterial to whether or not they're interested or could be interested.

I understand your need to offer a rebuttal to each of his points, but wouldn't it have been better to make him look-up and define the word possibility??? Just asking!

 

[kyleslamb]

Yeah those are professions where people get paid...

Did you not realize that from 2003-2009, my job was as a beat writer covering college athletics? I still write freelance, but if you want, since I don't use an anonymous screen name you can very easily verify what I did for a living for six years. When working in athletics, you tend to get to know other writers, administrators, trustees, publishers, parents, coaches, athletics, etc. Sometimes some of these relationships wind up becoming friendships.

 

[kyleslamb]

I understand your need to offer a rebuttal to each of his points, but wouldn't it have been better to make him look-up and define the word possibility??? Just asking!

That would have been easier, admittedly lol

 

[Stray_Dog]

Yes, it is as dumb and juvenile as the "Notre Lame", "Notre Dumb" , "Neuter Dumb", "Notre Shame" and other such "idiotic, disparaging terms" used by Big Ten and other fans when discussing ND.

Those terms should never be used by adults (or anyone over 14) on any sports message board. All are equally immature.

Note that I never use such a term, although I always state "Big Ten" instead of that recent "B1G" attempt at rebranding by that conference. Likewise, I never call that school in Los Angeles by the name "USC". I always use the traditional "Southern Cal", but I never use some sort of disparaging moniker when discussing schools/conferences.

so the Judas University would be....???

 

[billybud]

Oh gawd...we have Kyleslamb trying to interpret the intracacies of a GOR...and proslytizing as if he knew media law...and everybody is so sure of the board narrative,,,tthat he ACC must fail...Va must go to the Big Ten....I'd much, much sooner to just put my money on black as to bet such.

 

[Dooley]

Well today's Boneyard threads sure do suck. I open one up to read that Delany wants to move his hoops tournament to MSG "to welcome (friggin') RUTGERS"!?!?! To calm down, I come over to this one because it has a pro-UCONN title and I love the idea of UCONN to the B1G and what do I read? B friggin' C talk. Enough. BC is not AAU (we've been told this is important), has a very mediocre athletic department (except for hockey), is not a flagship (not even in its own CITY), and is not public (i.e. small private enrollment). In other words, they are the complete opposite of what we are told the B1G is looking for in expansion.

I'm going to take a BY break for about a hour. Please sort this out and get back to talking about the merits of UCONN...not BC.

 

[kyleslamb]

Oh gawd...we have Kyleslamb trying to interpret the intracacies of a GOR...and proslytizing as if he knew media law...and everybody is so sure of the board narrative,,,tthat he ACC must fail...Va must go to the Big Ten....I'd much, much sooner to just put my money on black as to bet such.

Could you show me where I've said the ACC would definitely fail and that UVa or UNC would definitely go to the Big Ten?

Please show me these comments. I trust you wouldn't be purposely building a strawman from my stance, would you?

I would also challenge you to point out what I've said about the GoR that is, in your opinion, mistaken and on what legal premise. I wonder how someone can boldly dismiss comments from another person without themselves claiming to have knowledge about it.

This was the point I made earlier. You're blindly trying to misrepresent and/or dismiss everything I say without refuting any specific points. That's a big old magic trick, frankly.

 

[whaler11]

Did you not realize that from 2003-2009, my job was as a beat writer covering college athletics? I still write freelance, but if you want, since I don't use an anonymous screen name you can very easily verify what I did for a living for six years. When working in athletics, you tend to get to know other writers, administrators, trustees, publishers, parents, coaches, athletics, etc. Sometimes some of these relationships wind up becoming friendships.

Let's go back to your journalism days... I bet you asked questions. You do realize I've asked you a dozen questions in this thread and you haven't answered a single one.

Now your stance is you have inside information from all these sources and you are sharing it freely on a message board and yet your assumption is that people will continue to share with you.

That the captain of the PTA and CAHusky like your posts is fairly hilarious. I'm glad Art was able to find time between cutting up oranges and organizing bake sales to get on your bandwagon.

 

[billybud]

Kyle...I understand contract law probably a little better than you might think...handled FSU's contracts for a time when I was employed by the President's office, was an administrative law judge, and have issued 1000's of decisions.

Not saying that media law is my forte...but I have worked with contracts in one way or another for 30 years...

 

[kyleslamb]

Kyle...I understand contract law probably a little better than you might think...handled FSU's contracts for a time when I was employed by the President's office, was an administrative law judge, and have issued 1000's of decisions.

Not saying that media law is my forte...but I have worked with contracts in one way or another for 30 years...

So only people that have worked with contracts for 30 years can understand them or understand the fundamentals of law? Got it.

I'd still appreciate you actually bother to have a discussion about what specific points you disagree with about the premise of what I've said. Interestingly, you haven't bothered to disagree with anything. Instead, you're just making sweeping generalizations about me.

I've said the following:

* That the purpose of a Grant of Rights is to protect the media partners, so that they can be confident they'll continue to receive the value of the teams they pay for when dealing with a conference. What part of this, if any, do you disagree with?

* That for any contract to be enforceable, both sides must receive consideration. Do you disagree with this?

* That for 30+ years, conferences have acquired the broadcast rights of its conference members in exchange for negotiation rights with media partners, and then the league payouts of such media revenue is then re-distributed to league members. What part of this, if any, do you disagree with?

* That no entity may be bound to another party, as it has a right to make a living, meaning any contract stipulation cannot be punitive or overly obtrusive in scope. What part, if any, do you disagree with?

* That due to these things, if the league were to stop compensating a departed member for its rights, therefore it would be in violation of the spirit of the consideration of the contract as well as the idea that no person/entity should be bound to another.

It astounds me your implication that another person cannot know anything about law unless they're a lawyer, but what's worse, is that I don't see you disagreeing on any of these points. Instead, you'd rather just make sweeping, ad hominem attacks at me.

 

[kyleslamb]

Let's go back to your journalism days... I bet you asked questions. You do realize I've asked you a dozen questions in this thread and you haven't answered a single one.

Now your stance is you have inside information from all these sources and you are sharing it freely on a message board and yet your assumption is that people will continue to share with you.

That the captain of the PTA and CAHusky like your posts is fairly hilarious. I'm glad Art was able to find time between cutting up oranges and organizing bake sales to get on your bandwagon.

I've answered plenty of your questions. Problem is, they've all been ridiculous and based on logical fallacies and petty strawmen, so it was pointless to continue answering them.

You made up your mind anyhow. Not sure why you care about my answers.

 

[whaler11]

I've answered plenty of your questions. Problem is, they've all been ridiculous and based on logical fallacies and petty strawmen, so it was pointless to continue answering them.

You have literally answered zero.

So I'll line it up for you again - since you've answered so many should be easy.

1. Why are you here? What would possibly drive you to write Spackler like diatribes about the Big 10 and their wisdom?

2. If you have sources why would you sell them out so publicly on a fan website with absolutely no benefit?

3. Why would Virginia sign a GOR with the ACC after Maryland left if they wanted to join the Big 10?

 

[whaler11]

So I took Mr Lamb's offer and used the Google.

His Twitter avatar is a picture of a bear answering a phone with the text 'Mr Swofford, Cincinnati is on the line'.

Now I know I'm not good with da logix, but Mr Lamb is just a better spoken version of the WVU idiots.

Certainly a 'journalist' would not have missed the classes where they covered the concepts of impartiality.

Now some of you make sure to like his posts and wash his balls because he's telling you what you want to hear.

 

[whaler11]

If you want the inside word on the Big 10 - the place to get is a washed out Ohio State blogger who works for a company selling cell phones.

Seriously you can not even make up the nonsense you read here.

 

[Drimple]

If you want the inside word on the Big 10 - the place to get is a washed out Ohio State blogger who works for a company selling cell phones.

Seriously you can not even make up the nonsense you read here.

Don't listen to this blowhard trying to shout everyone else down like a barroom meathead.

Personally, I appreciate kylelamb's contributions even if I don't necessarily agree with everything he's said. At least what he adds is interesting to read. What else do you want on a speculative board like this? His opinions are as valid as anyone else's.

Better than "Come at me bro, how much you wanna bet?" Bla bla bla. Give it a rest already. Nobody cares.