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

[Seaa Blue]

I never got any sense of real panic from any ACC school. FSU's nervousness was driven by a completely uninformed BOT member, who commented on the league media deal, when he knew jack spit about it.

I'll agree in that I didn't sense a general panic (other than FSU), but I don't know if FSU's actions can be minimized down to an uniformed BOT member. When you have the (former) president essentially announcing that FSU is "available" under the right conditions, that's a very big deal for both FSU and the ACC.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...-05-14/barron-email-fsu-acc-big-12/54961026/1

Then there's the knee-jerk reaction of setting an exit penalty in the stratosphere along with whatever compelled them to sign a GoR. To state that the GoR signing was done under some duress is not fantasy; no doubt there was a bit of panic there.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Yes Coney but in most of the ACC there in the SEC's shadow(footprint) whereas in the Big12 they really dominate within there admittedly narrower footprint!But like you said it looks like a wash all things considered ! Outside of NC/Va I'm not sure the ACC dominates much in terms of markets !?!

I was not ever looking at the SEC’s influence, just to focus on the ACC and XII. Basically, the only market that the XII has is Texas while the ACC has influence stretching from Boston to NYC to DC to the Carolinas and then FL. Plus, there are signs that the Texas market itself is turning in part due to the success of A&M and that many in Texas do not like U Texas’s elitist (or liberal) ways. Texas v A&M reminds me a lot of the split between U Michigan and Michigan St. fans. Thus, the ACC offers more in terms of potential TV revenue. Will that ensure that the ACC is one of the 4 final super conferences? I do not know.

Plus, I still think that if the XII does not add Cincinnati soon, West Virginia may decide that the cost of being on an island 800 miles away from the rest of its conference mates is more than the cost of challenging the XII’s GOR.

In my fantasy land, the XII releases West Virginia who then joins the ACC (goes back to their natural rivalries with Pitt, V Tech) to replace Louisville who bolts to the SEC (they already act like a SEC school and Kentucky does not carry enough weight in the SEC to keep them out unlike U Florida v. Florida St or S Carolina v Clemson) to replace Missouri who joins the B1G as originally planned and then UConn is added to get the B1G to 16. The XII then replaces West Virginia with BYU and USF plus UCF. Except for Cincinnati, everyone ends-up happy for now.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

What about the elephant in the conference realignment living room? The SEC. What are their plans? Will they expand before or after the B1G (if at all)? Who would their likely targets be? Any talk of North Carolina to the B1G has to include speculation they stay in the ACC, move to the B1G, or move to the SEC (let's just rule out the B12 (and Pac) shall we). Who would the SEC like to squeeze more? The ACC or the B12?

 

[DarthGrumpy]

What about the elephant in the conference realignment living room? The SEC. What are their plans? Will they expand before or after the B1G (if at all)? Who would their likely targets be? Any talk of North Carolina to the B1G has to include speculation they stay in the ACC, move to the B1G, or move to the SEC (let's just rule out the B12 (and Pac) shall we). Who would the SEC like to squeeze more? The ACC or the B12?

Good question.

I think the SEC would be interested in parts of the ACC and XII; but not the whole.

Out of the ACC, the SEC would defiantly like a stake in the DC/VA and NC markets and may be even willing to take the ‘second’ tier in V Tech and NC Should the ‘academic’ schools UVA and UNC go to the B1G. Big question would be is if the SEC would also take Duke. Not sure. Clemson would love the SEC; but, South Carolina may block that move. Ditto for Florida St with Florida and G Tech with UGA. Miami may be of interest as it gives the SEC a stronger position in S Florida, a team with multiple NCAA titles and private, solid academic school to match-up with Vanderbilt. Louisville could even be of interest as it adds a major basketball name (twice a year games between Kentucky and Louisville would rake in the money) and a decent football brand. The SEC has no interest in the former Big E/northern schools.

As for the XII, the SEC would be interested in the same schools the B1G for the same reasons. Kansas for basketball and Oklahoma for football. History says that SEC would not take each schools little sister though (OK St ad K State), which may cause political issues. U Texas would be interesting as I do not know if the SEC is happy with just one flagpole in Texas with A&M or if U Texas would have issue with sharing the throne with the likes of Alabama, Florida, etc. As an alternate, I could even see the SEC adding Baylor instead of U Texas as it’s a decent football brand (nice new facilities), ditto for basketball, would pair nicely with A&M, add another private school to make Vanderbilt smile, and carries a lot less ego than the folks from Austin. West Virginia acts as a SEC school; but, not sure if it adds enough to make the SEC interested.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I think UVa and the North Carolina universities are misunderstood by many B1G followers. UVa is not an original ACC charter member, but they are the last flagship school that has joined the ACC. After UVa came Georgia Tech, FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, partially ND and Louisville. None of which are flagship schools for their States (although Syracuse may as well be the athletic flagship school of NY even though they are private). UVa carries a lot of weight in the ACC for a non-charter member and non-Carolinian school. And in many ways, UVa acts like the Carolina schools, barring NCSU. That tells me that UVa will go the way of UNC... and UNC is still the face of the ACC, much the way Texas is the face of the Big XII.

The idea of the B1G stealing UVa is as realistic as FSU & Clemson going to the Big XII. It could happen one day, but not in the next 12 or 14 years. The GORs is going to hold the ACC together until 2026. I think sometime around 2024, things may get interesting with the ACC. But I think the ACC, B1G and SEC are going to realize how cumbersome and unmanageable a 14+ league conference is. The SEC is already struggling with the numbers and losing tradition fast.

If the big dogs can make more than 14 schools work logistically (or the NCAA comes up with a way to keep traditions in the major conferences viable through a NFL-style playoff system), then maybe there will be more growth. IMO, the only expansion I foresee in the near future is UConn moving into the ACC or the B1G and 2 teams joining the Big XII (maybe BYU and Cincinnati or Houston) if the NCAA forces a 12 team league on them.

Not trying to be a suck-up to you Huskies, but UConn is the prize school that both the ACC and B1G whiffed on. UConn has more National Titles than the majority of B1G or ACC schools in multiple sports. UConn is a school that learns how to win and wants to win. UConn is ranked very well in the USNWR (much much higher than Louisville and higher than a bunch of ACC schools). UConn has the #30 TV market and lies smack in between NYC and Boston. UConn is a real university (flagship and land grant)... not some little private school or city commuter school.

How both the ACC and B1G missed on this, I'll never know. Personally, I think BC has some hang-up (or is threatened by) with UConn and the B1G is trying disparately to hang on to their contiguous State and AAU status rule (although UConn may be AAU already or is on the cusp I think).

So as for UVa and UConn to the B1G, I'm not sold. The NCAA may require even numbered divisions, so the ACC is stuck until ND makes a move (which will never happen). And the B1G needs one other partner along with UConn to get to 16... and their ACC and Big XII options are all tied up in GORs. So UConn may be stuck in limbo for a while unless the NCAA allows for a 15 team league. I for one really wished the ACC would have invited WVU and UConn instead of Pitt and Syracuse back in 2011. Then when Maryland left, the ACC could have added Pitt or Syracuse (although Syracuse would have been locked into the B1G at that point IMO).

For someone who wasn't trying to suck up to us you did a damn fine job. Enough to even forgive your Syracuse to the B1G lunacy.

 

[NickyNewark]

For someone who wasn't trying to suck up to us you did a damn fine job. Enough to even forgive your Syracuse to the B1G lunacy.

I agree with you....SU is not near a B1G type school and isn't equipped for the research oriented B1G school's CIC nor offer anything the B1G doesn't already have!I'll never understand how some outside the NE can't understand how far SU's cache has fallen here!?! Pitt would even be a better B1G addition than SU but PSU would never allow it.

 

[Marty Jackson]

O.K., I'm a business lawyer and you lost me at the first bullet point. Who is to say that the purpose of a GOR is to protect a media partner? Why, nobody sherlock. In fact, you made clear about two pages ago that the purpose of the GOR, tied to a conferences's by-laws, is to restrain schools from leaving a conference, ending a business relationship and competing against its former business partners. That, in its simplest form, has many of the indicia of a per se violation of the Sherman Act because its entire purpose is to prohibit competition. And the more punitive it is (by, as you eloquently stated earlier, not letting a school share in the funds from a media contract even while their home games are included in it), the easier the argument is that a per se violation exists.

Do I know that a court won't uphold one of these? No. I'm an M&A lawyer, and I've learned in my field that you never know what a judge will say and anyone who pretends that they do is full of it. But if anyone has convinced you that these provisions are failsafe, and will prevent a school from leaving a conference, they are full of it as well because there are arguments on both sides and we won't know until it gets to a judge.

And, before Nelson or someone tells me why they are sure of the answer, I have a busy day today and unless someone wants to convince me both that they are a lawyer and that they have a real reputation where people actually value their opinion on complicated matters I'm just not going to debate you further. That is my point and people can take it for what it's worth or not.

Good day.

people always call me a Philadelphia Lawyer... Not sure what that means, but does that count?

 

[Calamitous]

Please remind me again why the ACC is far more stable than the Big 12? I mean, the Big 12 hosts 2 of the probably the top 5(in terms of power) football programs while the ACC has an inferior payout with no tv network. With time, the gap between the haves and have nots of the P5 will also widen with the ACC being a have not. If anyone gets restless over the next ten years, my guess is that it will be the FSUs and Clemsons of the world. Not Texas and Oklahoma.

With the GOR for both conferences, I'm not sure one conference is in better shape than the other. They're both somewhat protected right now. The ACC is in the highest populated (and growing) area of the United States... but the football product is weak sans FSU and Clemson. The B12 is in a lower populated area once you get outside of Texas, but the football product is much stronger with OU, UT, OSU, TT and now even Baylor. Since football is driving this, the perception is that the ACC is weak. However, there are ACC schools with a football pedigree that are down lately (VT, Miami, Pitt, GT and even BC to some degree). Heck, the same can be said about the B1G with Nebraska and Michigan being down.

The fact of the matter is: come 2026, the ACC may be ripe for the picking or maybe they are stronger. We'll have to wait and see. As for the B12, I'm not sure when their GOR is up, but I feel some schools in the B12 are growing tired on the "Texas and the 9 dwarfs" syndrome. But as an ACC affiliated person, the same can be said about ACC members growing tired of UNC and their Carolina contingent. And enter Notre Dame and it can get worse.

 

[Kolumbo]

With the GOR for both conferences, I'm not sure one conference is in better shape than the other. They're both somewhat protected right now. The ACC is in the highest populated (and growing) area of the United States... but the football product is weak sans FSU and Clemson. The B12 is in a lower populated area once you get outside of Texas, but the football product is much stronger with OU, UT, OSU, TT and now even Baylor. Since football is driving this, the perception is that the ACC is weak. However, there are ACC schools with a football pedigree that are down lately (VT, Miami, Pitt, GT and even BC to some degree). Heck, the same can be said about the B1G with Nebraska and Michigan being down.

The fact of the matter is: come 2026, the ACC may be ripe for the picking or maybe they are stronger. We'll have to wait and see. As for the B12, I'm not sure when their GOR is up, but I feel some schools in the B12 are growing tired on the "Texas and the 9 dwarfs" syndrome. But as an ACC affiliated person, the same can be said about ACC members growing tired of UNC and their Carolina contingent. And enter Notre Dame and it can get worse.

The more I think about it, the XII lost two premier programs in Nebraska and TAMU. What other conference could survive those kinds of hits? Makes me think eventually Texas-Oklahoma will move to another power conference of their choosing, being proactive. Which would be bad for UCONN because the XII remains would become prime pickings. Just another thought.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

The more I think about it, the XII lost two premier programs in Nebraska and TAMU. What other conference could survive those kinds of hits? Makes me think eventually Texas-Oklahoma will move to another power conference of their choosing, being proactive. Which would be bad for UCONN because the XII remains would become prime pickings. Just another thought.

Overall, I believe that UConn would be better off should the XII fall apart instead of the ACC in the quest for 18 or 20 members, which would likely be the target should 4 super conferences emerge.

If the XII fell apart, it appears that the B1G only has interest in 1) Kansas, 2) Oklahoma, and 3) Texas. The B1G for academic and money reasons would not be included to take each program’s little sister (Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech). That leaves between 1 and 3 additional openings for the B1G and the pool would likely be UConn, Missouri, ND, UNC, and VA. As I don’t see the logic to reducing to 3 conferences as 4 is a good number for a playoff structure and expanding past 20 members would be tough to manage, they maybe pressure to keep the ACC (or XII if flipped) in one piece and I do not think the ACC survives without the UNC/UVA duo. Thus, UConn would be competing with Missouri (if they view the B1G as a better fit that the SEC) and ND (who may finally have an interest, especially with Texas in place). That’s 3 schools for 1 to 3 openings.

If the ACC fell apart, it appears that the B1G would quickly grab UNC, UVA, and Georgia Tech. That also gets 17 schools. But, UConn may also face competition from Missouri (same as before), ND (if the ACC dies, ND is not going to the SEC, so the B1G is it), plus Duke (think of it as a stronger version of BC with no religious issues and much better basketball), Florida St (if the B1G wants Florida St, they are in this scenario), and Miami (same as Duke; but, for football instead of basketball). Pitt could also be in play; but, not with Penn State in place. BC would only get into the B1G is the B1G was desperate for ND and ND wanted its ugly sister in, too. Syracuse would be for the B1G and would use its ESPN connections to get in; but, they offer nothing that Rutgers or UConn can’t also offer. That would be 9 schools for 1 to 3 slots with Florida St almost a lock (B1G academics may not be happy; but, would be appeased with UVA and UNC in place) in my opinion.

 

[SouthronCross]

Please remind me again why the ACC is far more stable than the Big 12? I mean, the Big 12 hosts 2 of the probably the top 5(in terms of power) football programs while the ACC has an inferior payout with no tv network. With time, the gap between the haves and have nots of the P5 will also widen with the ACC being a have not. If anyone gets restless over the next ten years, my guess is that it will be the FSUs and Clemsons of the world. Not Texas and Oklahoma.

The ACC got $20.8M per school this past year. SEC schools got $20.9M from their contract.

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/71107/average-of-20-8m-to-each-in-acc

 

[woomba]

It's hard to make these types of analysis in a bubble given all the other conferences out there. Who would have imagined that a few schools from the Big XII moving around would end up in the Big East collapsing?

In fact, in the hypothetical world where the Big 12 ends up losing 2-3 more members to another conference (Big Ten or not) - that might actually end up killing the AAC and it'll be a 50/50 bet if UConn will end up in a P5 conference or not as an outcome.

The ACC destabilizing would be a better outcome for UConn fans but I agree that the Big 12 is more likely to bust eventually.

 

[Calamitous]

I have come to realize that the Dude Virus has infected many of us.

I'm still waiting for SUNY Buffalo to the B1G

 

[kyleslamb]

So Delaney said further realignment with the ACC is 'unlikely.' Twice before taking Maryland and Rutgers, he said the Big Ten was 'probably finished expanding.' The guy turns it on and off at a whim based on the PR strategy of the league. Whether he actually believes the ACC is stable enough to withstand invites or not wouldn't be known simply by him saying so.

But here's something the ACC folks pointing to Delaney's comments have still yet to reconcile in this thread or other places, and it's been asked several times:

If the GoR is such an impenetrable obstacle that "likely" staves off realignment, then why would the Big Ten have taken UMD/RU out of desperation for the ACC possibly poaching Penn State? They too are signed to a GoR. So why would the Big Ten fear the ACC if Penn State is under the same legal contract that supposedly makes the ACC schools out of reach?

 

[Kolumbo]

Like I said, UCONN brings the DC market...
https://www.facebook.com/UConn

 

[chitown76]

I don't believe the gor is unbreakable but I have not seen how it is worded. I have a hard time believing Texas Oklahoma and Kansas would sign a contract that they can not get out of same for the acc schools. The big 12 is one move away from no longer being relevant. If the big expands with Kansas and UConn they can expand either east with Virginia or southwest with Oklahoma and Texas money talks and bulls**t walks the big does have the money to get this done. I think the big expands with UConn and Kansas then they take Oklahoma and Texas. That makes for some exciting games. Imagine a basketball championship with UConn vs Kansas .Plus it balances out the divisions texas, Oklahoma,wisconsin, and Nebraska in the west Ohio St.,Penn ST., Michigan and mich st. That's some great matchups in football.

 

[bingethinker]

Eh, the ACC and the B1G currently share the DC market. They have not shut the ACC out of there. Not at all.

Virginia (and Va Tech for that matter) aren't really well-represented on TV in DC. You might catch their weekly sports show or a segment on CSN, but I wouldn't say that the ACC shares the DC market with Maryland/B1G at the moment. Could change, but right now a UVa fan in DC/MD might catch 5-6 games/matches per season on the regional sport networks.

 

[BC1978]

I don't believe the gor is unbreakable but I have not seen how it is worded. I have a hard time believing Texas Oklahoma and Kansas would sign a contract that they can not get out of same for the acc schools. The big 12 is one move away from no longer being relevant. If the big expands with Kansas and UConn they can expand either east with Virginia or southwest with Oklahoma and Texas money talks and bulls**t walks the big does have the money to get this done. I think the big expands with UConn and Kansas then they take Oklahoma and Texas. That makes for some exciting games. Imagine a basketball championship with UConn vs Kansas .Plus it balances out the divisions texas, Oklahoma,wisconsin, and Nebraska in the west Ohio St.,Penn ST., Michigan and mich st. That's some great matchups in football.

FWIW, I am think the broader issue is that 4 of the 5 P5 conferences have GORs. Assuming they are all more or less similar and they have been developed by sophisticated parties and legal counsel, it is hard to see a challenge based on a technicality. IMO, a challenge would have to be to the basic enforceability of the GOR itself. Forgetting for a minute that a school would be essentially reputing what it had voluntarily agreed to, the bigger issue, IMO, arises if a school challenges the enforceability of a GOR while, at the same time, intending to go to another conference with a GOR.

I would think that the departing conference would raise "clean hands" objections and claim the school was not acting in good faith in disputing the premise of a GOR in one conference while intending to sign a similar GOR in a new conference.

 

[kyleslamb]

FWIW, I am think the broader issue is that 4 of the 5 P5 conferences have GORs. Assuming they are all more or less similar and they have been developed by sophisticated parties and legal counsel, it is hard to see a challenge based on a technicality. IMO, a challenge would have to be to the basic enforceability of the GOR itself. Forgetting for a minute that a school would be essentially reputing what it had voluntarily agreed to, the bigger issue, IMO, arises if a school challenges the enforceability of a GOR while, at the same time, intending to go to another conference with a GOR.

I would think that the departing conference would raise "clean hands" objections and claim the school was not acting in good faith in disputing the premise of a GOR in one conference while intending to sign a similar GOR in a new conference.

There is little debate about the enforcement of the Grant of Rights. (Almost) everyone agrees that GoRs are enforceable where one entity leases its rights to a media partner on behalf of the conference. The concept itself has been around a long time and has always been enforceable when both parties are upholding their end of the bargain.

However, the reason there's debate is because the conferences have made a distinct forfeiture clause, separate from the Grant of Rights, trying to invalidate compensation for the rights (which was done since the Grant of Rights was not executed to protect the conference, rather as a condition of execution with the TV partners). In the recitals, from the Amended and Restated Grant of Rights Agreement, this is confirmed where it states:

WHEREAS, as a condition to the agreement of ESPN/ABC and FOX (collectively, the 'Telecast Partners") to execute the Telecast Rights Agreements, each of the Member Institutions is required to, and desires to, irrevocably grant to the Conference, and the Conference desires to accept from each of the Member Instituions, certain rights granted by the Conference to the Telecast Partners pursuant to the Telecast Rights Agreements, on the terms and conditions of this Agreement;

The enforcement of the GoR is really not up for debate. If a league member where to leave and the conference would continue paying for the rights as happens in every other walk of life that uses a GoR, it would be difficult to get out of. The only reason this is an issue is because unlike the music industry and publishing industry, these conferences are going to attempt to skirt actually paying for the rights they're being granted by member schools if they leave, despite still getting money from the media partners. The reason, of course, is because the conferences know that if the GoR was operating as normal, it would not do anything to stop schools from leaving since that isn't the purpose of the document. So it's really not the Grant of Rights that would be challenged, but rather the forfeiture clauses and whether they would be in breach of the GoR itself.

 

[chitown76]

There is no debate about the enforcement of the Grant of Rights. Everyone agrees that GoRs are enforceable where one entity leases its rights to a media partner on behalf of the conference. That's never been disputed. Ever.

However, the reason there's debate is because the conferences have made a distinct forfeiture clause, separate from the Grant of Rights, trying to invalidate compensation for the rights (which was done since the Grant of Rights was not executed to protect the conference, rather as a condition of execution with the TV partners). In the recitals, from the Amended and Restated Grant of Rights Agreement, this is confirmed where it states:



The enforcement of the GoR is really not up for debate. If a league member where to leave and the conference would continue paying for the rights as happens in every other walk of life that uses a GoR, it would be difficult to get out of. The only reason this is an issue is because unlike the music industry and publishing industry, these conferences are going to attempt to skirt actually paying for the rights they're being granted by member schools if they leave, despite still getting money from the media partners. The reason, of course, is because the conferences know that if the GoR was operating as normal, it would not do anything to stop schools from leaving since that isn't the purpose of the document. So it's really not the Grant of Rights that would be challenged, but rather the forfeiture clauses and whether they would be in breach of the GoR itself.

did the old big east have a gor the acc did not have a problem with taking Syracuse, bc ,Miami ,pitt ,va tech and notre dame what comes around goes around the acc was the first conference that started this and now they are crying foul

 

[billybud]

How about this Delaney interview of less than a month ago?

Q: What would it take for the Big Ten to expand again? What would you need to gain in order to be interested in expanding again?

A: If you're thinking of building a conference and keeping tradition alive, building fan bases and natural rivalries, movement beyond where we are probably needs to be looked at in a very suspicious kind of way. You dilute yourself the larger you get. … I don't know what would have to happen. … I think everybody is just trying to take what's occurred, live it, make it solid and it's very hard in the environment we're in over the next five-to-seven years, to see more change.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/2014/05/07/jim-delany-looks-big-tens-future/8826211/

 

[billybud]

I know that true believers will read Delaney's comments as a sure thing that expansion is around the corner...

It is the way of the true believer.

Everything is interpreted towards the belief....

 

[chitown76]

I guess my question is if the GOR is basically used to prevent schools from leaving why would the ACC try and get Penn St. to leave the big for the acc

 

[billybud]

So Delaney said further realignment with the ACC is 'unlikely.' Twice before taking Maryland and Rutgers, he said the Big Ten was 'probably finished expanding.' The guy turns it on and off at a whim based on the PR strategy of the league. Whether he actually believes the ACC is stable enough to withstand invites or not wouldn't be known simply by him saying so.

But here's something the ACC folks pointing to Delaney's comments have still yet to reconcile in this thread or other places, and it's been asked several times:

If the GoR is such an impenetrable obstacle that "likely" staves off realignment, then why would the Big Ten have taken UMD/RU out of desperation for the ACC possibly poaching Penn State? They too are signed to a GoR. So why would the Big Ten fear the ACC if Penn State is under the same legal contract that supposedly makes the ACC schools out of reach?

Kyle...you need to ask that question of Barry Alvarez who stated it unequivocally. It is a Big Ten insider who believed it...

The Big Ten rights go up for bid again in 2017...there has been some surmising that a new GOR must be signed and that there was a window open for defection by PSU.

 

[billybud]

Me? I think that Alvarez knew what he was talking about...Delaney was thinking a decade down the road where an isolated Penn State in the east may be vulnerable to the approach of an eastern based conference.

With Notre Dame moving towards the ACC, Delaney went to protective mode...IMHO.

 

[kyleslamb]

Kyle...you need to ask that question of Barry Alvarez who stated it unequivocally. It is a Big Ten insider who believed it...

The Big Ten rights go up for bid again in 2017...there has been some surmising that a new GOR must be signed and that there was a window open for defection by PSU.

As another poster pointed out to you, he didn't state anything 'unequivocally.' You completely and utterly took his comments out of context. He stated they wanted Penn State to feel secure. That's a far cry from doing it "out of desperation" and it doesn't mean they weren't interested in Maryland and/or Rutgers otherwise. They were always interested. The timing may have been a factor in when they acted, but they were always interested. Alvarez's comments in no way contradict that.

 

[pj]

I know that true believers will read Delaney's comments as a sure thing that expansion is around the corner...

It is the way of the true believer.

Everything is interpreted towards the belief....

He's just acknowledging the B1G presidents' position that expansion has to be clearly beneficial to the league. The B1G has always expanded in measured and careful fashion. If he weren't planning expansion, he wouldn't have qualified it with a short number of years. "5 to 7 years" beginning a year ago is much shorter than the period until GoR expiration at the ACC and B12 ... but is approximately equal to the time frame to signing of the new B1G TV deal plus exit periods for various leagues including the AAC. If expansion is announced at the signing of the next B1G TV deals in 2017, and includes teams like UConn that have 27 month exit clauses, then the timing works out exactly.

 

[Seaa Blue]

Jim felt that someday, if we didn't have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn't make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league," Alvarez told the board, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "That they would go into a league somewhere on the East Coast. By doing that, it keeps us in the Northeast corridor.".

And that just happens to be supportive of what Delany was already thinking once the Pac/B1G scheduling deal didn't happen.

 

[Kolumbo]

Regarding GOR: "It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another."
In other words, they are all a bunch of greedy b*st*rds and in the end, the likes of espn will be stealing from espn.

 

[upstater]

Kyle...you need to ask that question of Barry Alvarez who stated it unequivocally. It is a Big Ten insider who believed it...

The Big Ten rights go up for bid again in 2017...there has been some surmising that a new GOR must be signed and that there was a window open for defection by PSU.

You guys misinterpreted what he said.