TX AD on conference re-alignment

[RS9999X]

It's all just speculation anyway.

The only meaningful speculation at this point is the Big 12 adding 2 teams to get to a Conference Game.

Once the new playoff money distribution formula is announced and along with it will be the effective end of the Orange Bowl and the old major bowl system then the ACC teams have the financial incentive to leave or stay.

My 2 cents is the consolidation of money will be enough to force FSUs hand. FSU and Clemson will take the public approach they have a better chance to run the table in the ACC while performing due diligence. with the Big 12.

 

[junglehusky]

I appreciate your classy attempt to diffuse the situation, but your story about not having a favorite NBA team would only work as a good analogy towards describing Observer if you found yourself constantly on an NBA chatboard in the NBA off-season....without having a favorite NBA team. Please don't tell me you do that, do you?

I don't... there might be some boneyarders who follow UConn alums in the NBA and post on NBA boards, but that's a quite different situation too.

 

[baggerbob]

The Big 12 is still Texas and whoever else, the LHN is run by ESPN for the next 20 years, so Texas is not going to alienate their biggest benefactor. When the Big 12 invites someone, its going to be ESPN approved, not some bloggers dream scenario. The 5 x16 conference idea is the only one, that won't get congress involved, and multiple lawsuits. Uconn will end up in one of the 5, my hope is the ACC so the Uconn,Syr rivalry will continue.

 

[TuxedoYoda]

The Big 12 is still a house of cards, and Neinas knows it, which is why he's trying to keep everybody sitting tight for a while.

Why do people keep saying absolutely ignorant things like this?

EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE BIG 12 HAS SIGNED A GRANT OF RIGHTS. It is for 6 years and is about to be extended to 13 years with the length of the new TV deal. NO BIG 12 MEMBER CAN LEAVE FOR THE NEXT 13 YEARS. The Big 12 couldn't be more stable.

http://tuxedoyoda.blogspot.com/2012/05/attention-world-big-12-has-signed-grant.html

BECAUSE - to my knowledge, the new television contract is still just a handshake for the Big 12, and has been for two months, and doesn't appear to be in ink anytime soon.

Wrong......it will be signed any day now. Neinas talked about this at the Big 12 meetings, the financial terms are not in question, the brief delay is the agreement between Fox/ESPN over parsing out certain content.

The whole grant of rights. THe whole thing.....still not official, and doesn't look like it will be official soon,

WRONG - the grant of rights has already been signed:

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/45986/qa-big-12s-chuck-neinas-on-expansion

Dodds? Dodds sits on the throne of the largest economic structure in intercollegiate athletics, and with what he's spouting to the media....?

Dodds knows more about this than all of us combined. Nothing he says is without purpose. That you don't understand what he does is not a surprise to me. I have yet to see a person on any message board who has a worse grip on the facts than you.

 

[The Funster]

but the 13 year GOR has not been signed according to multiple quotes:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...tid=216&articleid=20120603_29_B1_KANSAS291766

I'm not sure how any lengthy GOR can be signed when the new TV hasn't even been ratified yet.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The conference pledge of rights that Neinas has, is no different than the word that Marinatto got from Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU leadership in fall 2011 that their respective universities were aligned with teh Big East moving forward.

I'll argue that what Neinas has done, is more risky than Marinatto, actually trusting the word of his constituents, b/c if this deal goes through that way, 13 years? Any university leadership in today's current day and age would be stupid to sign somethign like that over and away from their university.

I think that when the contracts are actually up for signing, the first thing OFF the table, is going to be the grant of rights.

It's a nice house of cards right now though, that Neinas has built.

 

[businesslawyer]

The conference pledge of rights that Neinas has, is no different than the word that Marinatto got from Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU leadership in fall 2011 that their respective universities were aligned with teh Big East moving forward.

I'll argue that what Neinas has done, is more risky than Marinatto, actually trusting the word of his constituents, b/c if this deal goes through that way, 13 years? Any university leadership in today's current day and age would be stupid to sign somethign like that over and away from their university.

I think that when the contracts are actually up for signing, the first thing OFF the table, is going to be the grant of rights.

It's a nice house of cards right now though, that Neinas has built.

You clearly do not understand how governments work in a democracy. Any normal governmental agency will sign something that gives them more money between now and the next election regardless of consequences after the next election. Republican or Democrat, that is simply how it works.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You clearly do not understand how governments work in a democracy. Any normal governmental agency will sign something that gives them more money between now and the next election regardless of consequences after the next election. Republic or Democrat, that is simply how it works.

Huh?

 

[TuxedoYoda]

but the 13 year GOR has not been signed according to multiple quotes

Of course.....like I said.....the 6 year GOR has been signed and the 13 year GOR will be signed any day now in conjunction with the signing of the new TV deal.

The conference pledge of rights that Neinas has, is no different than the word that Marinatto got from Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU leadership in fall 2011 that their respective universities were aligned with teh Big East moving forward.

It is COMPLETELY different.

Cuse, Pitt & WVU only were contractually obligated to pay a buyout fee and to give notice to leave the Big East.

In the Big 12, EVERY MEMBER HAS GRANTED THEIR TIER 1 AND TIER 2 RIGHTS TO THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE. Let's say that Texas decided to leave the Big 12 and go play football in the Pac 12 starting in 2013. For the first 5 years of the Longhorn's tenure in the Pac 12, all of their Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV money from the Pac 12 would be legally owned by the Big 12. Texas wouldn't see a penny of it. If Texas leaves after signing the extension, we are talking 12 years without Texas seeing TV money from the Pac 12, it would all go to the Big 12 to be divided up by its members. This is why the Big 12 has gone from being a mess to a desired destination. No athletic department would ever want to try to survive without the bulk of its TV money from football for that many years - not even one as wealthy as Texas. The Big 12 couldn't be more stable.

Spackler, you need to get the hell off this board and quit confusing people because you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[docsu]

Believing Texas (or even Oklahoma) will follow that agreement to the end is totally reasonable, and doesn't betray a laughable level of naivete in the least.

 

[lv99]

Believing Texas (or even Oklahoma) will follow that agreement to the end is totally reasonable, and doesn't betray a laughable level of naivete in the least.

How exactly do you think Texas would be able to get out of the contract? Do you think that the government makes special laws for them or something?

 

[Carl Spackler]

How does a contract get broken?

Ha! Conference re-alignment rookies.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Of course.....like I said.....the 6 year GOR has been signed and the 13 year GOR will be signed any day now in conjunction with the signing of the new TV deal.



It is COMPLETELY different.

Cuse, Pitt & WVU only were contractually obligated to pay a buyout fee and to give notice to leave the Big East.

In the Big 12, EVERY MEMBER HAS GRANTED THEIR TIER 1 AND TIER 2 RIGHTS TO THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE. Let's say that Texas decided to leave the Big 12 and go play football in the Pac 12 starting in 2013. For the first 5 years of the Longhorn's tenure in the Pac 12, all of their Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV money from the Pac 12 would be legally owned by the Big 12. Texas wouldn't see a penny of it. If Texas leaves after signing the extension, we are talking 12 years without Texas seeing TV money from the Pac 12, it would all go to the Big 12 to be divided up by its members. This is why the Big 12 has gone from being a mess to a desired destination. No athletic department would ever want to try to survive without the bulk of its TV money from football for that many years - not even one as wealthy as Texas. The Big 12 couldn't be more stable.

Spackler, you need to get the hell off this board and quit confusing people because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Funster posted this before, after what I wrote, maybe you missed it. You strike me as another one that bites on the media propoganda machines hook line and sinker....

unless you've got somethign that says different in the past 24 hours, this was in yesterday's Tulsa, OK Sunday papers, with the guys that would actually be signing stuff, talking.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...tid=216&articleid=20120603_29_B1_KANSAS291766

Nothing has been signed, between anyone of consequence.

 

[lv99]

How does a contract get broken?

Ha! Conference re-alignment rookies.

Perhaps you'd like to explain it to us then.

Let me guess... You're going to say Texas can get out of this the same way that West Virginia got out of the Big East.

 

[businesslawyer]

You could attack a 13 year grant of rights that your institution made on a number of theories. A disguised non-compete, and thus subject to tests of reasonableness put on non-competes. As punishment for a breach, which clauses are often unenforceable.

Without doing research I can't predict that these clauses will or won't stand the test of litigation when someone wants out. I think it's a clever way to strengthen the conferences hand, but I'm not willing to swear they would be enforced against state institutions either.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You could attack a 13 year grant of rights that your institution made on a number of theories. A disguised non-compete, and thus subject to tests of reasonableness put on non-competes. As punishment for a breach, which clauses are often unenforceable.

Without doing research I can't predict that these clauses will or won't stand the test of litigation when someone wants out. I think it's a clever way to strengthen the conferences hand, but I'm not willing to swear they would be enforced against state institutions either.

How do you like them apples? My friend is wicked smaht.

 

[TuxedoYoda]

Nothing has been signed, between anyone of consequence.

For the love of Zeus, the 6 year Grant of Rights is signed, the extension to 13 will be signed very soon. This is the 3rd time I have posted this ( conversation between Ubben & Neinas):

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/45986/qa-big-12s-chuck-neinas-on-expansion

CN: Good question. I'd say that No. 1, the board of directors charged our expansion committee to continue to monitor the landscape of college athletics. We've just gone through a rather interesting year, and so we now have 10 good, solid members. We're very stable for a lot of reasons, and you can't ignore the fact that every one of the 10 signed a grant of rights, which means that the conference now has their television rights, so that puts us in a very secure position going forward.

DU: That was officially executed, correct?

CN: Oh, yes.

DU: When were the official documents actually signed?

CN: It was done. I can't remember -- I can't give you the date, but of course West Virginia was the last one to sign it over, but they're all in.

There you have it. The 6 year Grant of Rights has been signed by every Big 12 member. Please quit saying it hasn't be signed. Please quit saying the GOR is no different that what the Big East has/had. You are wrong. You are a ****ing idiot and you are providing misinformation to people who, ponderously, believe you.

Believing Texas (or even Oklahoma) will follow that agreement to the end is totally reasonable, and doesn't betray a laughable level of naivete in the least.

I'm not an attorney.....all I can do is base things off of what I observe. Various legal experts have said the GOR is ironclad. The Big 12 members say the Big 12 conference is exponentially more secure because of the GOR. FSU, Clemson, Louisville and several other schools have all expressed interest in the Big 12 BECAUSE of the GOR. The ACC couldn't get a GOR signed because too many of their current conference members fear it would be ironclad and won't sign it because they are unhappy with the ACC TV deal and are unsure whether or not they want to stay in the conference.

Look, if you are an attorney and can explain how Texas or any school could easily skate around the GOR, I am open to hearing how this would happen. If you aren't an attorney, I challenge you to give stronger circumstantial evidence than I gave in the previous paragraph to support your belief that a GOR can be easily circumvented.

 

[TuxedoYoda]

You could attack a 13 year grant of rights that your institution made on a number of theories. A disguised non-compete, and thus subject to tests of reasonableness put on non-competes. As punishment for a breach, which clauses are often unenforceable.

Without doing research I can't predict that these clauses will or won't stand the test of litigation when someone wants out. I think it's a clever way to strengthen the conferences hand, but I'm not willing to swear they would be enforced against state institutions either.

"Without doing research"

There we go.....

Jesus christ, do some research or take of your lawyer hat but quit talking out of your a**.

Here is a quote from the University of Oklahoma President, who I am guessing HAS done his research, from right before the GOR was signed:

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/34294/big-12-headed-for-binding-tv-rights

Boren added: "That grant of rights really has teeth in it, because when you've granted your rights, it's very unlikely that a member would receive an invitation to another conference."

Here is Boren again:

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/big-12big-12s-beebe-out-binding-tv-rights-on-1873832.html

Oklahoma President David Boren said all nine remaining schools — all those except for Texas A&M — have "agreed" to give a six-year grant of their first- and second-tier television rights to the Big 12 for the next six years. That means all revenue from the top television games — shown currently on networks owned by ABC/ESPN and Fox — would continue to go to the Big 12 even if a school bolts to another league.​

The six-year term runs past the next negotiating period for the top-tier contract, currently with ABC/ESPN, in a bid to keep the nine schools together for the next contract.​

"These are very strong handcuffs," Boren said Thursday night. "The grant of rights really does bind the conference together and it shows that we fully intend to stay together."​

​

Buy the way, Boren IS a lawyer, a Yale graduate and also a Rhodes Scholar.

 

[TuxedoYoda]

Also, the president of Oklahoma State, who was an attorney for 3 decades, said:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/31/3636145/ncaa-president-emmert-praises.html

“The granting of rights is a foundation for stability,” said Burns Hargis, chairman of the Big 12 Board of Directors and Oklahoma State president. “Withdrawal fees are not necessarily an impediment to leaving. But leaving one’s TV revenues behind certainly is.​

A lot of very important lawyers seem confident in the enforceability of the GOR but I am sure that businesslawyer, without doing any research, trumps them all.

 

[epark88]

How exactly do you think Texas would be able to get out of the contract? Do you think that the government makes special laws for them or something?

C'mon, it's the University of Texas at Austin. Their grads and fans practically ARE the government down there.

If they want to leave, they're leaving. Simple as that...

 

[Carl Spackler]

A lot of very important lawyers seem confident in the enforceability of the GOR but I am sure that businesslawyer, without doing any research, trumps them all.

Good, I'm glad you got that straight.

 

[TuxedoYoda]

C'mon, it's the University of Texas at Austin. Their grads and fans practically ARE the government down there.

If they want to leave, they're leaving. Simple as that...

You are impervious to facts. There is no point in having this discussion any further.

 

[businesslawyer]

Also, the president of Oklahoma State, who was an attorney for 3 decades, said:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/31/3636145/ncaa-president-emmert-praises.html



A lot of very important lawyers seem confident in the enforceability of the GOR but I am sure that businesslawyer, without doing any research, trumps them all.

LMAO. Nothing like quoting the future litigants to be convinced that their point of view is the correct one.

I made a statement of general legal principals. It was labeled as such, and I did not say the grants would be held unenforceable. If you really need to react like that to my level of statement, you need to have your first already.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

LMAO. Nothing like quoting the future litigants to be convinced that their point of view is the correct one.

I made a statement of general legal principals. It was labeled as such, and I did not say the grants would be held unenforceable. If you really need to react like that to my level of statement, you need to have your first already.

You basically said they would be held unenforceable. Stand by your statement.

The non-compete comparison is weak, since these are institutions, not individuals. Court's will reverse individual non-competes all the time, and some jurisdictions simply won't enforce them at all. I do not recall a corporate non-compete ever getting reversed. Can you provide an example?

 

[businesslawyer]

You basically said they would be held unenforceable. Stand by your statement.

The non-compete comparison is weak, since these are institutions, not individuals. Court's will reverse individual non-competes all the time, and some jurisdictions simply won't enforce them at all. I do not recall a corporate non-compete ever getting reversed. Can you provide an example?

1. I most certainly did not say that. I said I hadn't looked but I did throw out some theories that, if I wanted to get out of it, I'd pursue.

2. Non-competes are most often thrown out relating to individuals. When buisnesses enter into them, they are usually in conjunction with a sale of a business and are generally (although not automatically) enforceable. When they are given outside the sale of a business, they raise antitrust concerns (as opposed to the public policy concerns when individuals are so bound). That is as good as I can do without putting work into it, and no, I could not cite you a case off the top of my head.