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

[businesslawyer]

Actually, ESPN says so. They are the ones that requested the Grant of Rights. After all, why do you think the Grant of Rights is an addendum to the media deal? Because it's one in the same. A Grant of Rights has always been to protect the publisher of rights.

The Grant of Rights is assurance to the media partners that when they are paying for certain teams, those teams are going to continue to be a part of the conference. If they didn't have that assurance, the Big 12 could swap Houston and Tulsa for Texas and Oklahoma and ESPN/FOX would have been forced contractually to continue paying the same amount of money as before.

The worst thing that could happen to ESPN is for them to pay a lot of money to the Big 12, and Texas and Oklahoma go off to the Big Ten (or another league) who winds up signing a tier-1 deal with NBC/Comcast or FOX. Then ESPN loses money paying out to the Big 12 based on the premise Texas/Oklahoma would be involved and a competitor winds up getting the value of those members.

The forfeiture clause of the bylaws was added by the Big 12 hoping to leverage the Grant of Rights to be something other than what it has always supposed to be. ESPN didn't request the GoR to bind teams to the league. They frankly don't care, so long as the teams they're paying for remain in their inventory.

You seem all worked up between the distinction between what is in the GOR from the schools to the conference and what is in the conferences's bylaws. That is a distinction without any legal significance whatsoever. So what we know is:

1. All ESPN needed to protect itself was a clause allowing it to change the contract equitably if a member left. The whole basis for the GOR did not, factually, come from ESPN and other broadcasters, it came from conferences who were trying to protect their offices (like any non-profit) from losing members.

2. ESPN certainly doesn't care once it has a GOR covering Texas's home games whether, if Texas leaves the Big XII, TX gets paid by the XII or not. That was entirely done by the conferences, and it was done both for anti-competitive purposes and to try to enact punitive damages without calling it punitive damages. But neither federal antitrust laws nor common law is that easily avoided.

Giving credit to your writing, your sources and your experience, you seem very hung up on technical distinctions that have no material bearing on the case at hand. The case at hand is that conferences have tried to enact anti-competitive members to keep schools from leaving, and to exact punitive damages from them if they do. I have no doubt that the documents in question were done by competent attorneys trying to make their side's argument in court as strong as they could when ultimately it is litigated. But it is no more than putting lipstick on a pig. These are real issues. And I am not understanding why you are focused on immaterial details (like the split if the troubling clauses between by laws and agreements) as opposed to the material issue of how a judge will analyze and decide the case when someone has their day in court.

 

[clmssun]

From UConn Dan's link:

Those stories parenthetically mentioned Swofford’s trip to Charlottesville, prompting some to wonder if Virginia might have been tempted to join Maryland in exiting the ACC for the Big Ten. Jim Delany, the Big Ten’s commissioner and Swofford’s former college classmate at North Carolina, then added to the intrigue by telling reporters that his conference had signed non-disclosure agreements with several prospective members.

“U.Va. was not a part of the non-disclosure agreements,” (UVa AD Craig) Littlepage said. “I don't know which schools were involved.”

 

[kyleslamb]

You seem all worked up between the distinction between what is in the GOR from the schools to the conference and what is in the conferences's bylaws. That is a distinction without any legal significance whatsoever. So what we know is:

1. All ESPN needed to protect itself was a clause allowing it to change the contract equitably if a member left. The whole basis for the GOR did not, factually, come from ESPN and other broadcasters, it came from conferences who were trying to protect their offices (like any non-profit) from losing members.

2. ESPN certainly doesn't care once it has a GOR covering Texas's home games whether, if Texas leaves the Big XII, TX gets paid by the XII or not. That was entirely done by the conferences, and it was done both for anti-competitive purposes and to try to enact punitive damages without calling it punitive damages. But neither federal antitrust laws nor common law is that easily avoided.

Giving credit to your writing, your sources and your experience, you seem very hung up on technical distinctions that have no material bearing on the case at hand. The case at hand is that conferences have tried to enact anti-competitive members to keep schools from leaving, and to exact punitive damages from them if they do. I have no doubt that the documents in question were done by competent attorneys trying to make their side's argument in court as strong as they could when ultimately it is litigated. But it is no more than putting lipstick on a pig. These are real issues. And I am not understanding why you are focused on immaterial details (like the split if the troubling clauses between by laws and agreements) as opposed to the material issue of how a judge will analyze and decide the case when someone has their day in court.

I disagree there's no legal distinction. They're two separate documents which could be in contradiction of one another, if the forfeiture clause is enforced by the league. The Grant of Rights is an addendum to the media deal. The forfeiture clause is part of the bylaws that govern league members. They aren't one in the same.

The point, though, regarding the Grant of Rights being to protect the media partners was more about the context of why it's implemented than having any 'legal' argument.

 

[businesslawyer]

I disagree there's no legal distinction. They're two separate documents which could be in contradiction of one another, if the forfeiture clause is enforced by the league. The Grant of Rights is an addendum to the media deal. The forfeiture clause is part of the bylaws that govern league members. They aren't one in the same.

The point, though, regarding the Grant of Rights being to protect the media partners was more about the context of why it's implemented than having any 'legal' argument.

That's nice that you disagree that there is no legal distinction between whether the anticompetitive and punitive clauses are in one document versus being split between two. But you disagreeing with me is as cute as me thinking I'm a better journalist than .... You can take your pick (I can't even name one these days without having to wait for some to tell me they would just be a one sided liberal quack).

 

[UConn Dan]

From UConn Dan's link:

yup, I read that. And Teel mentions that he doesn't believe UVA's littlepage would lie. But if UVA did sign a NDA he wouldn't be able to comment on it and "no comment" would be obvious. When there is smoke there almost certainly is fire. I think UVA had interest in keeping the B1G option open prior to being convinced to sign the GOR. Don't know if there were any talks, but UVA would be negligent if they didn't at least consider going B1G.

But who were the other schools that signed the NDA? I forget Delany's exact quote but there may have been 4 or 5 schools total. As I said previously, if UNC had talks it would have been post the Rutgers/MD announcement.

 

[kyleslamb]

That's nice that you disagree that there is no legal distinction between whether the anticompetitive and punitive clauses are in one document versus being split between two. But you disagreeing with me is as cute as me thinking I'm a better journalist than .... You can take your pick (I can't even name one these days without having to wait for some to tell me they would just be a one sided liberal quack).

That's a bit of a contradiction because on one hand you say there's no legal distinction, but in the same breath you turn around and admit that a legal case could be made for the GoR being breached if payment is withheld due to enforcement of the forfeiture clause. So that indeed would be a legal distinction because one document that survives expiration of membership would be breached due to a separate document's language. I'm not disputing separate documents can work in conjunction with one another. But if they're in contradiction to one another, there most definitely has to be a legal distinction drawn. Because the consideration is not explicitly clarified in the GoR, if it's implicit that compensation is the consideration, then the forfeiture clause would indeed potentially be in direct contradiction to that.

Fact of the matter is that bylaws govern league members until they cease to be a league member. The GoR governs a contract between schools, the league and the media partners for a set duration. The two contracts are indeed separate. That's not to say they can't work in conjunction with one another, but they can also be in contradiction, which would require a distinction.

 

[Fishy]

But who were the other schools that signed the NDA? I forget Delany's exact quote but there may have been 4 or 5 schools total. As I said previously, if UNC had talks it would have been post the Rutgers/MD announcement.

I may get this wrong, but Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Oklahoma and Kansas.

 

[UConn Dan]

I may get this wrong, but Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Oklahoma and Kansas.

I know vandy was on the reported list of schools the B1G studied as possible candidates, but hot damn if Delany actually got that far with them - talk about which of these things is not like the other. Ha ha

We also know the B1G had talks with Texas back in 2010 via "we have a tech problem" email. Not sure if JD considers that as one of them.

It's been four freaking years now of hoping we get the call, nearly three years of the sky is falling, and over one year of being doomed!

 

[Adios]

Is it possible UConn signed an NDA? Herbst has been talking about emulating freaking Michigan and Ohio State.

 

[Adios]

Imagine if UCONN Hockey takes off in Hockey East...being on par with BC would be enough to make a statement that UCONN is New England's dominant program. The hockey team wouldn't have to absolutely own BC as it did in hoops for all those years.

Owning New England in hockey would be so beautiful. We'd be able to forget the Whalers.

 

[Rappin'Rodney]

Owning New England in hockey would be so beautiful. We'd be able to forget the Whalers.

...aaaaand if Let's Play Hockey's tweet from 2013 holds true, "Big Ten hockey schools will get $2 million per year from the Big Ten Network, in addition to the allotment that all B1G schools receive." That would be a really sweet deal for UConn hockey.

 

[XOVERX]

That's a bit of a contradiction because on one hand you say there's no legal distinction, but in the same breath you turn around and admit that a legal case could be made for the GoR being breached if payment is withheld due to enforcement of the forfeiture clause. So that indeed would be a legal distinction because one document that survives expiration of membership would be breached due to a separate document's language. I'm not disputing separate documents can work in conjunction with one another. But if they're in contradiction to one another, there most definitely has to be a legal distinction drawn. Because the consideration is not explicitly clarified in the GoR, if it's implicit that compensation is the consideration, then the forfeiture clause would indeed potentially be in direct contradiction to that.

Fact of the matter is that bylaws govern league members until they cease to be a league member. The GoR governs a contract between schools, the league and the media partners for a set duration. The two contracts are indeed separate. That's not to say they can't work in conjunction with one another, but they can also be in contradiction, which would require a distinction.

Of course, huge point -- thank you: The GOR and the Bylaws are, related, but separate contracts, each requiring independent consideration.

I think we can all agree there is good and valuable consideration for the B12 GOR. But where's the consideration for the amended Bylaws that inserted the forfeiture language? I'm not seeing it.

My question -- how can a private entity (the B12) work a forfeiture against a governmental entity (say, the University of Texas)? -- suddenly takes secondary importance in the face of the (lack of) consideration issue associated with the forfeiture language in the B12 Bylaws.

 

[XOVERX]

Trying to change the subject from the whaler/kyleslamb feud...

I like this post. Seems possible and would seemingly provide UCONN a path to the B1G. B1G invites Kansas and UCONN as 15 and 16, locking up NYC, Kansas City, Hartford, and a wedge of Boston. Also, Delany would instantly upgrade hoops to the level of the ACC while the conference waits for a potential OU/Texas meltdown. If that happened, then that's when the big football addition comes. That gets the B1G to 18 where it can evaluate the leftovers of the B12 or decide to try to challenge the ACC GOR to get to 20.

The question on every UCONN fan's mind is when would UCONN get tapped. We all know UCONN is trapped and the B1G can add them whenever they wanted. But would it make a bit of sense to add UCONN now, give them time to elevate football (while waiting/hoping for OU/Texas), and in the meantime, use UCONN as a catalyst to move eastward into larger markets and hoops prestige (ex - MSG conference tournament). I guess it all depends if conference deregulation will pass so the B1G can feel comfortable (again) sitting on an odd number while it waits out the B12 GOR.

I could foresee a Kansas-UConn combo to 16. I posit a Kansas -> Oklahoma -> Texas -> UConn scenario, true, but Kansas-UConn is certainly within the realm of possibility if UVA doesn't work out for Delany after MY-ACC settles out.

You're right: it might take a little time for OU-UT percolate up to where they both leave the B12 because Delany would almost certainly have to sell OU to the B1G Presidents only as part of a deal that nets the B1G Texas. I could see it working this way (if it works at all).

Well, having said this, if Texas thought the B1G would turn down OU without Texas, Texas would probably say "no" because Texas wants to stay in the B12 if at all possible, due to wanting to maintain the LHN "as is". Scott and the PAC tried bluffing Texas in 2011 when OU-OkSU wanted the PAC, but Texas called the PAC's bluff, and OU and OkSU are still in the B12.

Delany would have to persuade the B1G Presidents on the merits of OU by itself, without Texas, get the go ahead to offer OU, and then offer OU unconditionally. Only then would be Texas forced. Really big "if" here. But I think it would work.

 

[Fishy]

I could foresee a Kansas-UConn combo to 16. I posit a Kansas -> Oklahoma -> Texas -> UConn scenario, true, but Kansas-UConn is certainly within the realm of possibility if UVA doesn't work out for Delany after MY-ACC settles out.

You're right: it might take a little time for OU-UT percolate up to where they both leave the B12 because Delany would almost certainly have to sell OU to the B1G Presidents only as part of a deal that nets the B1G Texas. I could see it working this way (if it works at all).

If Texas was the tick to Oklahoma's tock, it would take Delaney 1/5th of a second to sell the Big Ten presidents on the Sooners.

 

[djct1999]

If Texas was the tick to Oklahoma's tock, it would take Delaney 1/5th of a second to sell the Big Ten presidents on the Sooners.

Although I do think Texas would abandon Texas Tech if need be, I do not see Oklahoma doing the same with OK State. That being said, the only place Oklahoma would go to is the Pac 12.

 

[pj]

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.

All this is true, but even 4 years ago UConn would have been far more attractive to the Big10 than BC. There is a huge discrepancy in value under the B1G's cable-based business model. BC also has a small stadium, no room for expansion or tailgating, limited parking. UConn has great room for growth.

 

[Kolumbo]

Not too long ago I spent some time in Athens, GA. The UGA campus was much different than I had expected. It's fairly large and hilly, and the stadium is squeezed smack in the middle of campus. It just shows that a large stadium can be built anywhere, so UCONN has no excuses when it comes to stadium size, no matter the final location.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Maybe someone can help me out. Is the B1G's objective the Northeast or is it not? Why am I hearing all these claims about institutions all over hell and back that Delany would add in a heartbeat, a nanosecond, a New York Minute, or some faster interval should they open their legs? Schools in the Southeast, the Southwest; schools with an alumni base of twenty and a student body of eight. Isn't the Northeast challenging enough? ...big enough? ...lucrative enough? ...for now? To hell with the Northeast, North Carolina just winked in the direction of Columbus? Why would the B1G go scurrying off for a smaller, more remote, much more competitive market along the South Atlantic coast when they haven't even begun competition in the Northeast? Or more puzzling, even smaller, more remote Oklahoma and Baja Oklahoma? Is the B1G suddenly an organization with unlimited resources and capacity to adapt? Just because a property is attractive doesn't mean you're going to buy it.

 

[djct1999]

Maybe someone can help me out. Is the B1G's objective the Northeast or is it not? Why am I hearing all these claims about institutions all over hell and back that Delany would add in a heartbeat, a nanosecond, a New York Minute, or some faster interval should they open their legs? Schools in the Southeast, the Southwest; schools with an alumni base of twenty and a student body of eight. Isn't the Northeast challenging enough? ...big enough? ...lucrative enough? ...for now? To hell with the Northeast, North Carolina just winked in the direction of Columbus? Why would the B1G go scurrying off for a smaller, more remote, much more competitive market along the South Atlantic coast when they haven't even begun competition in the Northeast? Or more puzzling, even smaller, more remote Oklahoma and Baja Oklahoma? Is the B1G suddenly an organization with unlimited resources and capacity to adapt? Just because a property is attractive doesn't mean you're going to buy it.

You must know by now, these hypotheticals tend to grow a life of their own.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

but...but...my hypotheses are right!

 

[dayooper]

Maybe someone can help me out. Is the B1G's objective the Northeast or is it not? Why am I hearing all these claims about institutions all over hell and back that Delany would add in a heartbeat, a nanosecond, a New York Minute, or some faster interval should they open their legs? Schools in the Southeast, the Southwest; schools with an alumni base of twenty and a student body of eight. Isn't the Northeast challenging enough? ...big enough? ...lucrative enough? ...for now? To hell with the Northeast, North Carolina just winked in the direction of Columbus? Why would the B1G go scurrying off for a smaller, more remote, much more competitive market along the South Atlantic coast when they haven't even begun competition in the Northeast? Or more puzzling, even smaller, more remote Oklahoma and Baja Oklahoma? Is the B1G suddenly an organization with unlimited resources and capacity to adapt? Just because a property is attractive doesn't mean you're going to buy it.

We don't know truly what the Big10's objective is except that it wants to add money to it's coffers. If Texas want's to join, my guess is that they would be in as soon as it could happen. They have that much clout athletically and bring a huge state under the Big10 flag. If it takes adding Kansas and Oklahoma and just working around the LHN, you don't pass that up. I still don't know why The Pac turned them down unless UT was demanding all sorts of concessions.

As far as UNC goes, they have a very recognizable brand, a huge athletic department, and they are the flagship school in one of the fastest growing states. It's all about money and, the present athletic/academic scandal aside, they fit the mold of a Big10 school. They have a natural rival with UMD and, if UVA were to join as well (I don't UNC would even think of joining with out UVA), their closest partner academically.

 

[djct1999]

We don't know truly what the Big10's objective is except that it wants to add money to it's coffers. If Texas want's to join, my guess is that they would be in as soon as it could happen. They have that much clout athletically and bring a huge state under the Big10 flag. If it takes adding Kansas and Oklahoma and just working around the LHN, you don't pass that up. I still don't know why The Pac turned them down unless UT was demanding all sorts of concessions.

As far as UNC goes, they have a very recognizable brand, a huge athletic department, and they are the flagship school in one of the fastest growing states. It's all about money and, the present athletic/academic scandal aside, they fit the mold of a Big10 school. They have a natural rival with UMD and, if UVA were to join as well (I don't UNC would even think of joining with out UVA), their closest partner academically.

First, we absolutely know what the Big10 wants. They have said so many times and have implemented phase 1 of a multi-phase plan. Second, for UNC to join the Big10 the P5 would have to self-destruct quickly. This idea that Texas would join is more absurd than UNC joining. The Big 10 would take Texas under their terms and their is no way Texas would do that. Finally, Oklahoma will not move without OK State, so that is another dead end in this scenario of yours. It is my understanding that the PAC 10 said no because they didn't want to add on Texas Tech, Baylor, and OK State as well.

There have been things said, written, and in particular by UConn actually done or announced that all suggest UConn will be the next add. That is actual fact. These scenarios for everyone but UConn are simply out in left field.

 

[XOVERX]

Maybe someone can help me out. Is the B1G's objective the Northeast or is it not? Why am I hearing all these claims about institutions all over hell and back that Delany would add in a heartbeat, a nanosecond, a New York Minute, or some faster interval should they open their legs? Schools in the Southeast, the Southwest; schools with an alumni base of twenty and a student body of eight. Isn't the Northeast challenging enough? ...big enough? ...lucrative enough? ...for now? To hell with the Northeast, North Carolina just winked in the direction of Columbus? Why would the B1G go scurrying off for a smaller, more remote, much more competitive market along the South Atlantic coast when they haven't even begun competition in the Northeast? Or more puzzling, even smaller, more remote Oklahoma and Baja Oklahoma? Is the B1G suddenly an organization with unlimited resources and capacity to adapt? Just because a property is attractive doesn't mean you're going to buy it.

First, completely untapped markets. Second, recruiting grounds.

Once Delany tops off the NE Corridor, the B1G is essentially done in the NE. Why duplicate the markets?

You could. You could take both of UConn and a Massachusetts school like BC, or maybe a NY school for a more direct NY presence, and maybe the B1G will. But does anyone foresee the B1G adding more than 2 football schools north of NJ? Isn't one the most likely number north of NJ?

I think one NE school is more likely, IMO, for the second reason: The B1G needs more football recruiting grounds.

VA, NC, and especially TX gives the B1G those recruiting grounds and untapped markets. Break a 16- or 20-school B1G up into pods and the distances and scheduling is completely manageable.

Consider these theoretical pods in a 20-school B1G:

1: Connecticut, Penn St, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina
2: Ohio State, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern
3: Michigan, Michigan St, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois
4: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa

Arrange the pods anyway you want, but that's a heckuva league right there. Coherent. Geographically manageable. Huge markets all over the place. Vast recruiting grounds. Legendary rivalries. Outstanding basketball. Better football than anything the SEC can throw at you (IMO).

 

[RegisteredUconn]

We don't know truly what the Big10's objective is except that it wants to add money to it's coffers. If Texas want's to join, my guess is that they would be in as soon as it could happen. They have that much clout athletically and bring a huge state under the Big10 flag. If it takes adding Kansas and Oklahoma and just working around the LHN, you don't pass that up. I still don't know why The Pac turned them down unless UT was demanding all sorts of concessions.

As far as UNC goes, they have a very recognizable brand, a huge athletic department, and they are the flagship school in one of the fastest growing states. It's all about money and, the present athletic/academic scandal aside, they fit the mold of a Big10 school. They have a natural rival with UMD and, if UVA were to join as well (I don't UNC would even think of joining with out UVA), their closest partner academically.

I understand your points and I have no specific objections them taken one at a time. Things don't happen in a vacuum though. Are you suggesting the B1G would jeopardize their strong move into the Northeast by pursuing a risky wooing strategy in the Southeast (North Carolina)? That's what I'm objecting to, the idea that the B1G needn't follow a cogent expansion strategy. The B1G has significant unfinished business in the Northeast at the moment. A bi-regional B1G is difficult enough without adding significant risk in the form of a tri-regional strategy. Attempting entrée into the Southeast now puts both the Northeast and Southeast in jeopardy. What happens in New York if the ACC picks up UConn while the B1G is traipsing around the Carolinas? Forget whether UNC would choose to join the B1G in the foreseeable future, why would the B1G put the entire conference at risk with a Carolina strategy?

Does wining and dining the Carolinas, maybe Georgia too, plus Longhorn territory and its northern environs while you haven't even shored up your base make sense to you? I get where the people are but how do you get them in a way that makes sense?

 

[dayooper]

First, we absolutely know what the Big10 wants. They have said so many times and have implemented phase 1 of a multi-phase plan. Second, for UNC to join the Big10 the P5 would have to self-destruct quickly. This idea that Texas would join is more absurd than UNC joining. The Big 10 would take Texas under their terms and their is no way Texas would do that. Finally, Oklahoma will not move without OK State, so that is another dead end in this scenario of yours. It is my understanding that the PAC 10 said no because they didn't want to add on Texas Tech, Baylor, and OK State as well.

There have been things said, written, and in particular by UConn actually done or announced that all suggest UConn will be the next add. That is actual fact. These scenarios for everyone but UConn are simply out in left field.

Of course Texas joining is absurd on every level. I never said it wasn't. They aren't joining anyone. Yet, the idea that Texas would be turned away if they wanted to come with acceptable terms is even more absurd.

What is it the Big10 wants? Three things, money, strong demographics, and political clout. Those three things go together very nicely. Delany has said many times that they need to get into emerging demographics. Virginia and UNC give that. Since both are part of the research triangle, they give The CiC more political clout. Being a traditional basketball blueblood also give a good chunk of money to the Big10. I absolutely believe that the NE/Mid-Atlantic is the target right now and in the future. I also believe that Delany sees UNC as an extension of the Mid-Atlantic as long as their partner UVA is involved.

Do I think that UNC will go now or even ever? My guess is probably not, especially now. The thought isn't nearly as absurd as Texas moving. Then again, four and a half years ago, who would have thought UNL would forego every traditional rival (Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Missouri) to be in The Big10? Who would have thought two years ago that UMD would spurn a conference that it helped create and competed in for 50 years for another that had only one local school? In hindsight, it all makes sense, but without knowing what was going on before hand, it was a big surprise for most.

I may get this wrong, but Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Oklahoma and Kansas.

It also seems they were looking at more than NE schools, including a true Southern school in Vandy.