[QUOTE="Charleston Mountie
Don't get too lost in seeing your way as the only way just because others do not agree 100% with you. Everyone believes their points are based on what they see and it is poor form to discount the view of others while touting yours as the only true vision. Better to just explain your view and let others contrast it with their own. Just a suggestion.
B: You are missing the point. What I am talking about is not MY way, its the facts, figures and statements of the BIG 12 conference. That's what should be discussed in a discussion of what is actually happening, not hopes and wishes of something someone wants to be. Boren is certainly trying to get the BIG 12 membership to have discussion based on fact rather than emotions or opinions as it must be. If people can't deal with the base of facts, there's no point in having a discussion because you are talking fantasy.
There are two reason why I do not believe the GOR is an ironbound inviolate:
1: Contracts - and that is all the GOR is - are wrangled with in courts every day. There is an entire field of litigation devoted to just contract law. Better written contracts just mean more time and money to alter, nothing more - ever.
2: Boren, who has a vested interest in the integrity of the GOR is unsure how tight it is because it has not been challenged but also because he is aware of the conditions I alluded to in my first point. He is probably the best position to gauge the strength of the GOR and if he is not sure of the strength of the GOR, how can you be?
B: Once again -you don't believe the GOR is ironbound. But the leaders of the schools that signed them certainly believe that no one is going to try to get out of them. The conferences and networks are certainly going to honor them--so what you want to be true about a GOR doesn't matter. Boren stated that while no one has challenged a grant of rights, it is believed that they are solid and legally binding and no one at that level believes anyone is going to challenge them. I have the fact that not one school that is under a grant of rights is being approached by another league to switch conferences while under that grant. No conferences are trying to attract any school under a GOR and no school under a GOR is trying to leave their conferences. Every conference leader that speaks about (and knows about) the issue states that there won't be any movement until the ends of these contracts. Now, if GORs were so "breakable" as many message board posters want to portray, why isn't anyone taking them to court?
How do you know what he meant? He gave no date and the context makes it sound like near-term because everything he has stated has been in the near-term timeline. The more logical conclusion is that he is talking near-term and not suddenly tossing in outlier in the conversation, especially when he does not qualify that point with a date or projected time frame. To assume it is anything but a near-term timeframe is speculative.
B: Oklahoma has a grant of rights through 2025 and a buyout of a huge sum through the same time period. That's how I know. Where's he going to go i.e next year? The SEC isn't getting their contract reopened--its locked in through 2034 at least. The Big Ten is already negotiating new contracts and if they were going to try to lure Oklahoma they would have already tried. Their contract isn't going to be reopened right after signing a new deal. More importantly there simply isn't enough money to try to lure Oklahoma. The grant of rights alone is worth hundreds of millions of $$, not including the enormous buyout. Even if litigated to a semi successful outcome like UMD it would still be hundreds of millions lost for OU. But when the GOR and tv contract is up then they owe nothing.
Is it magic? No. It is determination and strength. Their conferences are where they are because they each have a track record of such leadership working hard consistently to improve the circumstances of their membership. The last round of realignment was about content because the media rights deals were based totally on content, so they both went out and raided the Big-12 to improve their content. In the process they were probably content to get as a perk, the possible destruction of the Big-12 as icing on the cake. That is better for both of them, less competition and more dollars available to ESPN just when ESPN is deciding how much to pay for their content.
B: The SEC and Big Ten can't lure whoever they want. They tried before and failed in that attempt. They have good financial stability, but you are mistaking that for endless sums that out do what schools make in the conferences they are in, and the enormous sums that would be required to change conferences while under contract. It isn't financially feasible for the SEC or Big Ten.
You are lost on what the schools are as a sports team. The last round was not just about the quality of the football team, it was so much more, it was about everything that made up each institution. I have not read that the SEC "wanted" any one. I have read that they invited Missouri and the Big Ten told Missouri to pound sand. Texas A&M got into the SEC much like VT got into the ACC, but politics and because that school was acting like Jan Brady to Texas' Marsha. It worked for them, but I do not think either school was what the SEC "wanted" both schools fell into their lap and they took advantage of it, especially as it seemed that the Big TEN was going for 16 and the SEC had to keep pace - do note that both stopped at 14, which has the look that they conferred and agree to halt the process in situ.
B: Not really sure what you are rambling about here. You said the SEC and B10 could snap at whoever they wanted and those schools would jump. I showed that wasn't the case and it isn't the case.
The rest of this section by you seems a bit "ranty" and your logic is really thin. The Big Ten did not bribe UMD. UMD wanted out of the shanty town that the ACC has become because it is poor and UMD needed money, same for Rutgers, as both were in the red for a long time. Both schools would have found a way to pay their exit fees in total if it meant getting into the Big Ten. All the Big Ten had to do was tell them "We have a spot open for you, you meet our rigid requirements and we have unanimously voted to invite you because we feel your membership would make our conference even better."
B: "ranty" and thin logic? Not at all. I didn't mention anything about "bribing" UMD, I stated accurately that neither they nor Rutgers were the schools desired. They were the schools that were able to be acquired and the conference was able to make the additions work financially.
You are looking at the math the wrong way. You see it as a negative when a more gifted investor sees it as a positive. You see either the Bi Ten or the SEC saving money by waiting until 2025 to grab an ACC school because it might cost as much as a 100 million each to grab one right now?
B: You are looking at the math the wrong way. You don't have accurate numbers and are making enormous leaps on actual numbers the SEC and Big Ten have to spend on expansion. They can't get whatever they want from the networks and they don't have unlimited sums of money. Most importantly it will take far more than $100 million to attract P5 teams and if they did that then all of their existing schools would lose money, among other legal issues.
All conferences have escalation clauses if their membership changes and at present, it is believed that each of the Big Ten schools have a media value of 27 million dollars to the Big Ten. This does not take into account all of the ancillary dollars generated by a new name on the schedule, possible new face in the CCG or the impact of such things as inter-related Tier 3 revenues. So, in 4 years, a school like UNC has earned the Big Ten the equivalent value of your 100 million dollar "snatch and grab" cost. There are still six more years that UNC would add to the bottom line above and beyond that cost. You can see this either an expense or an income. Investors see things as an income and write off the exit fee as the cost of doing business because in the long run the presence of UNC adds to the coffers and strengthens the Big Ten. The same holds true for the SEC.
B: There has to be a reason for the Big Ten or SEC to try and spend hundreds of millions which will subtract from the bottom line of existing members. There has to be a reason for a UNC to give up hundreds of millions of dollars and receive no revenues for years on end to move. Those reasons don't exist for anyone, and they aren't going to exist. If you are in the ACC and down $10 million per year to a Big Ten conference team, you aren't going to give up years of revenues and lose hundreds of millions of dollars to join them--what would the point be--you lose more by joining them than you would if you waited a few more years.
I believe the best approach for the Big-12 is to take on Cincinnati and some other partner to get to 12 right now and set up a CCG. This is not about making more money at all. It is ALL about real and perceived conference stability. Nothing else matters at this point, not even the LHN. That can all be sorted later.
B: Expansion is about money. It's why conferences expand. Money is what allows conferences to be stable. Its an arms race. The two conferences considered the most stable are also the two wealthiest.
Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC is going to wait ten years to expand, when one moves, they both will move. They just did that in 2011 and are both probably preparing to do it again all they need is a catalyst, such as the Big-12 going to 12. The schools in the ACC - FSU/GT/Clemson did not come before, because a last minute bit of theater and what has turned out to be a ton of empty promises by Swafford got them to pause long enough to plop a GOR done on their necks. Now the truth is coming out that there was never more than a suggested of an ACCN and that there will be none. That was what kept them in the ACC and now that is gone. The Big-12 does not make the most from its media rights deal and yet WVU is going to bring ~31 million in the latest year. I believe Clemson is the currently best paid ACC school for the same year and her revenues are going to be only 23 million. None of those three can watch a school like WVU out perform them by 8 million or more per year much less a school like Texas that makes more than twice what they make. Do they want out of the ACC? The money says they have to leave whether they want too or not - UMD went down that same road and they left.
B: If the Big Ten or SEC expand, and don't want to add G5 schools, they have no choice but to wait until 2024 when the Pac 12 contract is up, or 2025 when the BIG 12 contract is up. Even then the only way they could expand would be if someone wanted to leave their existing conferences and no one does. Neither conference is preparing to do anything of the sort however. There aren't any available P5 schools, the SEC just got a new contract and the SEC network launched succesfully. The Big Ten is finishing up negotiations and will soon have a new contract. Neither one is getting their contracts opened back up so soon, and neither has a need to expand. They are at the top of the money race and everything else.
You need to ask if it would be worth it for Clemson to give up hundreds of millions of dollars-over $200 million remaining in their grant of rights and another $50-$100 million for buyout fees because of some feeling that they should be ahead of this or that school financially? ACC schools have nearly always been behind several other conferences financially. It hasn't made them want to change conferences and they didn't sign grants of rights and buyout clauses because they want to leave. You also ignore that as long as the BIG 12 has internal issues, attracting others from a P5 conference will be difficult at best.
As for what is left over after the dissection of the ACC? Does it matter and more than the Big East or AAC matter now? No one gives either conference a second thought, not even in basketball. I expect that FSU/GT/Clemson/Louisville end up in the Big-12, Pitt and UVA in the Big Ten and VT and UNC in the SEC. Left behind are Wake Forest, Duke, NC State, Syracuse and Boston College - looks like a lot of small basketball schools to me. They can invite others of their kind in the east and call it a day and NO ONE will care.
B: Sorry but a conference of FSU, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Duke, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Louisville, Boston College-with a tie in to Notre Dame, maybe full membership by that point, and UConn or Cincinnati is as viable a conference as any. The point is that you make a giant leap that the BIG 12 cannot--that if the Big Ten or SEC make a move years from now (the only time they could do it) that the BIG 12 will then be more attractive to the remainder than where they are. The BIG 12 isn't going to wait until 2027 and none of those schools are trying to leave the ACC anyway.
Boren is looking at getting 12 and that is only going to happen with G5 schools, where have I said otherwise?[/QUOTE]
B: You just spent a lot of space speculating on ACC teams joining the BIG 12 that's where.
