Non-Key Tweets | Page 211 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

Expansion Crush ‏@Expansion_Crush · 10m10 minutes ago
@flugempire
Transcript below
http://www.greghallkc.com/index.php...ering-adding-ku-mu-will-isu-help-ksu-win-b12/ …

Greg Flugaur‏@flugempire 6m6 minutes ago
@Expansion_Crush Yeah that's it..not quite as complete as was given to me. Thank you sir. It tracks with what was said last night...

Expansion Crush ‏@Expansion_Crush · 3m3 minutes ago
@flugempire
NP
Kevin said he had two well respected sources confirm to him that the Big Ten would make a run for Missouri and Kansas in 4-5

Expansion Crush ‏@Expansion_Crush · 2m2 minutes ago
@flugempire @Expansion_Crush that Was February 2013. So that's around 2017/2018

Greg Flugaur
‏@flugempire @Expansion_Crush Yeah I see that now. Would have paid no attention to this before....and now a bit startling. Has Harlen said anything since

Expansion Crush ‏@Expansion_Crush · 1m1 minute ago
@flugempire He hasn't said anything new regarding expansion/realignment that I've found. I'm digging.

Expansion Crush ‏@Expansion_Crush · 1m1 minute ago
@flugempire it's possible he had that information for a while before divulging

Greg Flugaur @flugempire · 6m 6 minutes ago
@Expansion_Crush ...again...nothing on MIzzou possible interest. But B1G circling back to MIzzou to gauge...possibly negotiate is on table
 
Given that they have a fine home, Illinois may be the only school that would push for Mizzou. I just don't see a need to risk a turf war with the SEC.
 
If the B1G truly wanted Mizzou they should have taken them back when they would have crawled across broken glass for an invite. They made perfect sense as a B1G School then, and still do now. If the B1G is suddenly serious about adding them, I think they may need to overpay just to get them to consider the idea. Mizzou has found success in The SEC, and quite frankly there is no compelling reason for them to move.

I've always maintained that The Big 12 is the most vulnerable of The P5 Conferences, for a multitude of reasons. Those schools with better options will someday exercise them as others in the past had already done. Its not exactly going out on a limb to say that KU/OU would accept a B1G Offer. I believe that ESPN will act to protect the ACC, simply because they own it lock stock and barrel and are not in the business of watching their assets be devalued. All this analysis and I didn't even need to consult my "sources" to write it.
 
Ldandy said:
If the B1G truly wanted Mizzou they should have taken them back when they would have crawled across broken glass for an invite. They made perfect sense as a B1G School then, and still do now. If the B1G is suddenly serious about adding them, I think they may need to overpay just to get them to consider the idea. Mizzou has found success in The SEC, and quite frankly there is no compelling reason for them to move.
Expand ...

This is what makes me sick to my stomach. If ESPN is truly offering big bucks for B1G content in exchange for the B1G no longer raiding ESPN properties, the natural additions -- UConn and Va Tech -- are off the table, as is Texas. Then if Kansas and Oklahoma want to come in as a pair, 17 is an impossible scheduling number, so the B1G needs a partner for UConn, but there are none available.

It looks like the B1G really wants UConn but can't find a partner and, while 15 might be feasible, wants to add KU and OU when the B12 contract is up and 17 isn't feasible. This would explain the rumors about reaching out to Vanderbilt - not really a valuable addition, but AAU and no GoR, and the SEC/ESPN might not mind seeing them leave, so they could be a feasible partner for UConn. The trouble for us is that if we have to come in with a non-valuable partner like Vanderbilt, we have to carry more than our weight to justify the move financially. That's hard when each school's weight is $40 mn per year.
 
There is compelling reason to leave the SEC, the TV money and population numbers in the B1G locations is far superior to that of the SEC. SEC football competition is of course better, but there's more people and bigger cities in B1G land as opposed to the SEC.
 
Ldandy said:
If the B1G truly wanted Mizzou they should have taken them back when they would have crawled across broken glass for an invite. They made perfect sense as a B1G School then, and still do now. If the B1G is suddenly serious about adding them, I think they may need to overpay just to get them to consider the idea. Mizzou has found success in The SEC, and quite frankly there is no compelling reason for them to move.

I've always maintained that The Big 12 is the most vulnerable of The P5 Conferences, for a multitude of reasons. Those schools with better options will someday exercise them as others in the past had already done. Its not exactly going out on a limb to say that KU/OU would accept a B1G Offer. I believe that ESPN will act to protect the ACC, simply because they own it lock stock and barrel and are not in the business of watching their assets be devalued. All this analysis and I didn't even need to consult my "sources" to write it.
Expand ...

I think they did want them, but the timing was never right. Nebraska was, and still is the best choice. It just seems like the Big10 wanted to take things slowly and integrate Nebraska better than they did with PSU. They were only taking one at that time. It just happens that the SEC needed a partner with TAMU. Never had the opportunity to get them after Nebraska.

That being said, I find it hard to believe that Mizzou would bolt. I'm sure the academics would love it, but the investment they are making into the SEC just to change the course and leave would be ridiculous. Then again, Flugs never said they had interest in the Big10, just the Big10 had interest with Mizzou.

All of that being said, if Kansas and Oklahoma are in the picture, then Mizzou would be the perfect school to get. Built in rivalries with Kansas and Nebraska, along with renewing one with Illinois.

UConn and Mizzou now would give an additional team to either division if they stayed with two, or these pods if they went to four:

Pod A: Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa (with a protected Illinois/Northwestern crossover)
Pod B: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue
Pod C: Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana (protected Indiana/Purdue crossover)
Pod D: PSU, Rutgers, UConn, Maryland

You would have to add two more teams if/when Oklahoma and Kansas are added, but you could cross that bridge when you come to it.
 
TGeoffrey Mitchell ‏@geoffmitchell · 19m19 minutes ago
@flugempire So all this is to say once GOR in Big 12 is within seeing distance it's all over for them. KU OU hop and rest pray for best?



I never understood this idea that "once the GOR is close to expiring or expires there will be movement"

Why would a conference let the GOR or any other contractual agreement expire or come close to expiring given the climate.
Doesn't it stand to reason that if a GOR for a conference was from 2010 to 2020 that all the conference mates with no intentions of leaving would have a vested interest in lengthening the GOR many years prior to its expiration?

Do the GORS coincide with the length of the TV contracts?If so would it not be in the best interest of the ESPN'S of the world to circumvent defections by negotiating well before expiration.

All this talk about GORS expiring will open things up. Why would any conference members or media partners that want to stay together allow that to happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rewster said:
I never understood this idea that "once the GOR is close to expiring or expires there will be movement"

Why would a conference let the GOR or any other contractual agreement expire or come close to expiring given the climate.
Expand ...

If the conference has enough schools that want to leave, then they wouldn't have the votes to extend the GoR.

There's speculation that this is the case with the B12; and that the reason the B12 won't expand is that expansion would add 2 weak schools that would want to lock the powerful schools into the conference, and the powerful schools -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma -- want to keep their options open. If the B12 needs a 3/4 vote to extend the GoR, then with 10 schools UT/KU/OU can block extension and give themselves the chance to test the market, but with 12 schools the other 9 could impose a huge exit fee / GoR on them.
 
There have been 147,673 message board posts and 736,738 tweets about pods. Yet, still - no pods....
 
whaler11 said:
There have been 147,673 message board posts and 736,738 tweets about pods. Yet, still - no pods....
Expand ...
PODS_full.jpeg


We already have it ready for when we need to move to a better conference.
 
Durks07 said:
I think he was talking about an escape pod
Expand ...

You know the pod when you see it.

Nebraska signs up to play Iowa, Minnesota and Purdue every year.
 
Oklahoma doesn't want to abandon Oklahoma State. That's why they tried to move together to the PAC. If Texas had agreed to follow them the gambit would've worked. If this rumor of Mizzou has any legs this might present the SEC with a scenario where they could talk both Oklahoma schools to join them. As they already have A&M in the fold they wouldn't need UTA. UTA could go to the ACC with a similar deal to Notre Dame's. West Virginia could be their #16. The Big Ten would also be at 16 with Kansas and Missouri. Connecticut to the ACC.

But as I said before, I doubt it'd get to that stage.
 
If the B12 needs a 3/4 vote to extend the GoR, then with 10 schools UT/KU/OU can block extension and give themselves the chance to test the market, but with 12 schools the other 9 could impose a huge exit fee / GoR on them.

The act of asking colleges to re-up early on the GOR will make individual institutions intentions clearer for the conferences for sure. Has it ever been reported what the vote percentage would be needed to be to pass?

There is a lot of pressure to vote with the pack when you have 3-5 years left on an original GOR. I get the b-12 is vulnerable but it could also be argued that Texas has more reasons to want to keep the conference together.

I am just saying Evernote thinks the end of the GOR will start everything up again. The reality seems it is just as likely that a new GOR will be signed to extend everybody.
 
I know I can be well off base here but I believe that the B1G's not too distant goal is to add UConn and UVA (I know, supposedly UVA will never leave the ACC but I still don't buy it).

The coverage the B1G will then have of the northeast corridor (DC to Boston, a ridiculous population and affluence base) will be incomparable, the Mid-Atlantic and Northern eastern seaboard through to the Great Plains will be B1G territory (tying up basically every major population base north of the old Confederacy and east of the Rockies and providing considerable branding and major assets in all revenue sports and numerous non-revenue sports.
 
Rewster said:
If the B12 needs a 3/4 vote to extend the GoR, then with 10 schools UT/KU/OU can block extension and give themselves the chance to test the market, but with 12 schools the other 9 could impose a huge exit fee / GoR on them.

The act of asking colleges to re-up early on the GOR will make individual institutions intentions clearer for the conferences for sure. Has it ever been reported what the vote percentage would be needed to be to pass?

There is a lot of pressure to vote with the pack when you have 3-5 years left on an original GOR. I get the b-12 is vulnerable but it could also be argued that Texas has more reasons to want to keep the conference together.

I am just saying Evernote thinks the end of the GOR will start everything up again. The reality seems it is just as likely that a new GOR will be signed to extend everybody.
Expand ...

I don't understand. If Oklahoma wants out at the end of the GOR, they will not agree to grant their rights any further than they signed the original GoR. The conference only holds the schools rights for the agreement. Oklahoma can only extend their GoR if they agree to. Each individual school agrees to extend or they walk.
 
dayooper said:
I don't understand. If Oklahoma wants out at the end of the GOR, they will not agree to grant their rights any further than they signed the original GoR. The conference only holds the schools rights for the agreement. Oklahoma can only extend their GoR if they agree to. Each individual school agrees to extend or they walk.
Expand ...

As we just saw in the Maryland case, Maryland didn't agree to an increase in the ACC exit fee from $20 mn to $51 mn, yet they ended up paying over $30 mn to exit the ACC. So there is some sort of legal case that in joining a conference you submit to the bylaws which let a supermajority of other schools impose obligations on you.

No idea what the B12 contracts say but it's possible that the rights of OU/KU/UT would diminish if the conference expanded.
 
pj said:
As we just saw in the Maryland case, Maryland didn't agree to an increase in the ACC exit fee from $20 mn to $51 mn, yet they ended up paying over $30 mn to exit the ACC. So there is some sort of legal case that in joining a conference you submit to the bylaws which let a supermajority of other schools impose obligations on you.

No idea what the B12 contracts say but it's possible that the rights of OU/KU/UT would diminish if the conference expanded.
Expand ...

There is a difference between a GoR and an exit fee. The conferences don't own the schools media rights. They are leased. The conferences can impose an exit fee all they want, but as long as a school hasn't agreed to an extension of the GoR, they get control of their media rights back. If that were the case, then why would a school ever sign a GoR? They would be held to that conference forever. No, if a Big 12 school chooses to not sign the extension, they will get their rights back in 2025. There may be an exit fee assessed, but that school will be able to contract out their media rights with whomever they want.
 
dayooper said:
There may be an exit fee assessed, but that school will be able to contract out their media rights with whomever they want.
Expand ...

I think it's the fee that I think is of greater concern here and perhaps the poster was lumping the two together.

But as for contracting out media rights I can see the TV people wanting a GoR in place before discussing the bottom line with a conference. Otherwise they can't be sure of what they're getting as schools could take that number and shop around. Perhaps some schools would want out regardless, but last time around the networks came up with some crazy money to keep conferences together. All that to basically say that changing conferences is "complicated" because you don't know what you might get from your current conference without signing the GoR..
 
pj said:
As we just saw in the Maryland case, Maryland didn't agree to an increase in the ACC exit fee from $20 mn to $51 mn, yet they ended up paying over $30 mn to exit the ACC. So there is some sort of legal case that in joining a conference you submit to the bylaws which let a supermajority of other schools impose obligations on you.

No idea what the B12 contracts say but it's possible that the rights of OU/KU/UT would diminish if the conference expanded.
Expand ...

Not that simple. First, that is an exit fee, not a grant of rights. Only the owner of rights can transfer them -- not a conference. Second, in Maryland's case they objected to the exit fee increase but then elected to stay in the conference. There is zero doubt that if the conference raises the exit fee and you quit in a timely basis, you don't have to pay it.
 
Seaa Blue said:
I think it's the fee that I think is of greater concern here and perhaps the poster was lumping the two together.

But as for contracting out media rights I can see the TV people wanting a GoR in place before discussing the bottom line with a conference. Otherwise they can't be sure of what they're getting as schools could take that number and shop around. Perhaps some schools would want out regardless, but last time around the networks came up with some crazy money to keep conferences together. All that to basically say that changing conferences is "complicated" because you don't know what you might get from your current conference without signing the GoR..
Expand ...

That could be, but there is a clear difference between a GoR and an exit fee. One is you have to pay to leave. The other is the conference holds your media rights. Big difference. The reason The Big12 got such crazy numbers, in my opinion, was two fold. ESPN wanted to keep Texas in their inventory and Fox needed inventory. ESPN already has Texas and no one outside the region seems to care about any other Big12 football school sans Oklahoma.

Would Kansas and Oklahoma want to leave the Big12? Couldn't tell you. I think that there would be a couple of reasons for OU and KU to stay: tradition and, for OU, Texas recruiting. The issue with the tradition is that if The Big10 had Mizzou to go along with Nebraska, they would have more of their traditional rivals than the Big12 would. Half of the old Big8 would be in the Big1o. The exposure that would come with the Big10 would be great. Oklahoma games played on The BTN shown in NYC, Chicago, DC, and other densely populated places. The money would be outrageous.

Again, I think it's all moot anyway. Mizzou will stay in the SEC leaving this scenario out in Crazytown.
 
whaler11 said:
You know the pod when you see it.

Nebraska signs up to play Iowa, Minnesota and Purdue every year.
Expand ...
But UConn would sign up for that. We could be the Bad News Pod.
 
Waquoit said:
But UConn would sign up for that. We could be the Bad News Pod.
Expand ...

We'd sign up for a pod from the movie Cocoon if it came with Big 10 money.

Hey Penn State you can be in a pod with UConn, Maryland and Rutgers. That brings Michigan and Ohio State to Happy Valley less often than leap year.

Pods. LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
34
Guests online
1,280
Total visitors
1,314
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,115
Messages
4,382,967
Members
10,185
Latest member
aacgoast


.
..
Top Bottom