Non-Key Tweets | Page 904 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

Do nothing while waiting for a possible offer or drum our fingers while waiting for a possible offer?
Right? I sure hope DB and company are maxing out their contacts and relationships to get us the best end result. While I think CO and us make for a better Big XII, adding four flagships with AZ and OR to get to 16 would be much more appealing. But a PAC/ACC merger could be even more appealing.
 
Last edited:
I’d hope the governor’s office is involved, It is amazing that the one company that controls so much of realignment is in our state. And we’ve been treated the worst of any school. Just can’t make it up.
Disney purchased ABC in 1996. ESPN is not a Connecticut company.
 
Incoming tweets from Masters Burrner:



I wouldn't completely discount Oregon. If they haven't gotten a clear indication from the Big 10 they have an invite coming next year it would be a risk to stay in the PAC without USC, UCLA, CU, and AZ. Less money, less exposure, no life raft.
 
I wouldn't completely discount Oregon. If they haven't gotten a clear indication from the Big 10 they have an invite coming next year it would be a risk to stay in the PAC without USC, UCLA, CU, and AZ. Less money, less exposure, no life raft.
I could be wrong but I don't think Oregon (or Washington) would sign on to a GOR until 2031 unless the B1G informed them that under no circumstances would they expand again before 2030.
 
Are there people that still don’t understand that the ACC GOR is a contract between the league and the schools? They can expand and talk to ESPN all they want and it has no impact on the GOR whatsoever.

They would need to discuss expansion with ESPN if they want money for the new school. But that’s a way to also up the payout. It’s not a negative. The GOR is only ever a positive to the conference because it provides certainty in an uncertain landscape.

Meanwhile the ACC per school payout is more than the Big XII going forward not less. It goes up every year of the deal.
 
Are there people that still don’t understand that the ACC GOR is a contract between the league and the schools? They can expand and talk to ESPN all they want and it has no impact on the GOR whatsoever.

They would need to discuss expansion with ESPN if they want money for the new school. But that’s a way to also up the payout. It’s not a negative. The GOR is only ever a positive to the conference because it provides certainty in an uncertain landscape.

Meanwhile the ACC per school payout is more than the Big XII going forward not less. It goes up every year of the deal.
Wrong. The GOR is always tied to the media contract. It's why they are the same length. But go on believing your nonsense.
 
ESPN asked for the GOR as a condition to creating the conference network. But they aren’t tied together strictly speaking. One can open up the media contract without having to open up the GOR.
 
I think the key point re: GORs is that nobody knows definitively much about them. In the context of college sports rights they are a novelty not well tested or understood. Can they be broken? Can rights be parceled out to other entities without weakening their grip. Maybe, maybe not. Let’s not any of us pretend their limits are or should be well known.
 
Wrong. The GOR is always tied to the media contract. It's why they are the same length. But go on believing your nonsense.
Are you just being contrary? The GOR is to the conference. The media contract relies upon it. But they aren’t tied. Where did you get your law degree? Mine came from Green Hall in Lawrence.
 
I think the key point re: GORs is that nobody knows definitively much about them. In the context of college sports rights they are a novelty not well tested or understood. Can they be broken? Can rights be parceled out to other entities without weakening their grip. Maybe, maybe not. Let’s not any of us pretend their limits are or should be well known.
From my non-lawyering perspective, we don't "know much about them" because we know everything about them. It's a straightforward and simple contract and it hasn't been challenged or tested because it's so straightforward no one has bothered to try and wiggle out of it.
 

Online statistics

Members online
281
Guests online
3,405
Total visitors
3,686

Forum statistics

Threads
164,272
Messages
4,389,936
Members
10,197
Latest member
Whizzlerr


.
..
Top Bottom