Expansion

[michaelwalkerbr]

If you can find Tom Osborne's signature-then don't you suppose someone forging a document could as well?

The purported GOR didn't appear in any article or news organizations presentations. It's a product entirely of social media. Many reputable sports news sites have written about grants of rights and not one has referenced the supposed document in any way shape or form, or presented an ACC, Big Ten or Pac 12 grant of rights--yet they've written reports on the same.

Again, why hasn't anyone seen any of those? Why can't CBS or ESPN or FOX or Sports Illustrated or anyone else get these agreements to print or the conferences tv contracts? No such entities have ever been able to present even one of these documents, but somehow, someway an anonymous person on social media can?

Again, if its possible to get an ACTUAL BIG 12 grant of rights document then lets see the ACC, Big Ten and Pac 12 gors.

Anyone as mentioned can forward the document claimed as the BIG 12 gor to the BIG 12 office or the University of Oklahoma for verification as real or faked without any other questions asked.

I was seriously simply trying to contribute what I believe is a sample of pdf software from someone with a connection to BYU sports. Since no one is contesting the GOR, the substance is no more than a curiosity for me. I saw it as just one of three samples of 'boilerplate' legal contracts and how those who use them could benefit from his product. Back then it may have been no big deal. If it's real it's real, if it's not, it's not.

 

[topdecktiger]

This is completely false. The network partners cannot void the contract if a conference loses members. What they would do at some point if a conference loses members is reduce the contract- Bowlsby stated the BIG 12 has a composition clause for a pro rata share for defections written in the contracts. They cannot simply throw the contract away.

You haven't offered any proof the GOR document is real and you are claiming it is- the burden of proof is on you or anyone else claiming it is since the only knowledge and/ or presentation of it has been by anonymous posters on message boards. As I pointed out the proof should be simple- let's see the ACCs GOR for an example. Or the Big Tens or the PAC 12s. Otherwise there's no point in discussing the fake anymore. No news organization is going to do a write up on something that doesn't exist and it doesn't go unnoticed not one of them has presented a public version of a TV Contract from any conference or a grant of rights from any conference or school ever. They have certainly written articles about the matter and could put in FOIA requests for these with more weight than message board posters. No, the burden of proof is on those claiming this document is real when there is no verification of that anywhere.

No, it's completely true. The existing contract would be voided. I will agree with you that there is probably a clause which states that a new contract has to be reworked. However, that just proves my point. You said yourself:

What they would do at some point if a conference loses members is reduce the contract-

See, you just admitted what I was saying. If a team left Conference A, then the network would have the right to reduce the contract of Conference A. Then the network would be free to renegotiate a larger contract with Conference B.

Regarding the GOR, yes, you do have to offer proof. You haven't pointed out anything that makes the documents fake. You haven't pointed out an incorrect date, incorrect signature, incorrect terms, etc. You don't even offer circumstantial evidence they are fake. You just make the spurious conclusion that since no one else had printed it, therefore this copy is fake. Here's something you haven't considered. You linked to a story which said (paraphrasing) "within the contract is a grant of rights...". Ok, so tell me, how did the author of your link know that grant of rights was within the contract? If he can't see the contract, how does he know it's in there?

Another point. You linked to an article about the original GOR from the Big 12. Well, notice the date. That GOR was signed on 10/6/2011. Well, that was before the Big 12 signed its TV contract. The current TV contract was signed in 2012. The old contract was signed back in the mid 2000s. See the problem there? The GOR was created in between TV contracts, so it wasn't an actual part of either contract. That's because the GOR is between the conference and the schools, not the networks, as other posters and I have repeatedly told you.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I see nothing that detracts from the authenticity of the posted Big 12 GOR. If nothing else, that would be hours of work to create a false document that is so close to what we all believe it we be ludicrous to publish with a couple of changes.

As a Delaware corporation, the Big 12 can exempt any and all dealings with broadcast networks and others for financial or any other agreements from FOIA requests that WVU does not have to consent to.

I know that the section of the Big 12 GOR that WVU agreed to is public information by law. No public institution may enter into 'secret deals' with anyone when it involves the receipt of or expenditure of funds except in the case of an anonymous donor. The broadcast rights of WVU athletics has a monetary value that cannot be secretly given or traded away.

Many of the members here can file a FOIA request and receive the same document I linked to. I can't, I have no legal standing as a resident of South Carolina. Thanks in part to WV Civil Action No. 13 - C- 468, all financial transactions and agreements entered into by WVU are public record. No disrespect, Buck, but we disagree on this one.

You are correct Michael: The stories Buck posted is not relevant to the document you presented of being real. It does not matter what the board of the BIG12 agreed to, they can't bind a school to the GOR. Each program had sign a separate GOR document that seeded their rights to the conference.

 

[Buckaineer]

No, it's completely true. The existing contract would be voided. I will agree with you that there is probably a clause which states that a new contract has to be reworked. However, that just proves my point. You said yourself:

What they would do at some point if a conference loses members is reduce the contract-

See, you just admitted what I was saying. If a team left Conference A, then the network would have the right to reduce the contract of Conference A. Then the network would be free to renegotiate a larger contract with Conference B.

Regarding the GOR, yes, you do have to offer proof. You haven't pointed out anything that makes the documents fake. You haven't pointed out an incorrect date, incorrect signature, incorrect terms, etc. You don't even offer circumstantial evidence they are fake. You just make the spurious conclusion that since no one else had printed it, therefore this copy is fake. Here's something you haven't considered. You linked to a story which said (paraphrasing) "within the contract is a grant of rights...". Ok, so tell me, how did the author of your link know that grant of rights was within the contract? If he can't see the contract, how does he know it's in there?

Another point. You linked to an article about the original GOR from the Big 12. Well, notice the date. That GOR was signed on 10/6/2011. Well, that was before the Big 12 signed its TV contract. The current TV contract was signed in 2012. The old contract was signed back in the mid 2000s. See the problem there? The GOR was created in between TV contracts, so it wasn't an actual part of either contract. That's because the GOR is between the conference and the schools, not the networks, as other posters and I have repeatedly told you.

You don't comprehend things well so I'll explain it again.

On one hand you said that if a conference loses a member, the tv partner can then VOID the television contract with that conference.

I stated that is false because it is--what happens is they MAY reduce the amount they pay the conference--but that isn't guaranteed. The BIG 12's contract states that if a school leaves then the contract can be reduced by a certain amount.

That is completely different than VOIDING or tossing out the contract

Re: the GOR you and others are presenting something that came from an anonymous source on social media as something real. You are claiming it is what you claim it to be--therefore its up to you to prove that it is what you say it is--not me--that is idiotic. Its like you saying the moon is filled with purple living jellybeans and then saying its up to me to prove that's not true when there is 0 evidence to support anything you are saying.

Anyone can create a document on the internet and anonymously post it claiming to be anything. If you present it and say its this or that--then yes-YOU have to prove its real. That you don't want to do that just illustrates the point that its made up. Its easily provable or disprovable---you say its real--go straight to the BIG 12s office via email--send it to them and ask them if its real and post the response. You (and others) won't do that because you know it isn't real. The same reason you won't go to an ACC school and demand the ACC grant of rights-another sure sign the BIG 12 document is FALSE.

The grant of rights is embedded in the TV agreement and I've already provided links that prove that. You've provided nothing to disprove that it indeed is. In 2011 the BIG 12 signed a tv contract with FOX sports for 13 years.

As mentioned before, lets see the tv agreements and GORS of the ACC, Big Ten, Pac 12, SEC and BIG 12.

You can't provide these things because they are all linked and aren't subject to FOIA requests. Therefore there's no need for you to keep spouting off about it--either provide the documents or don't talk about something you know nothing about.

The burden of proof is on you or whoever is claiming that GORs and tv contracts are open. Next week should be plenty of time to email conferences and/or to put in an FOIA request.

 

[Buckaineer]

You are correct Michael: The stories Buck posted is not relevant to the document you presented of being real. It does not matter what the board of the BIG12 agreed to, they can't bind a school to the GOR. Each program had sign a separate GOR document that seeded their rights to the conference.

Everything I posted is relevant. As I posted the board approved the grant--and submitted documentation for signing to the organizations at the schools which approve such things.

Now, I've provided links. You saying that what I linked isn't valid is nothing.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

You are correct Michael: The stories Buck posted is not relevant to the document you presented of being real. It does not matter what the board of the BIG12 agreed to, they can't bind a school to the GOR. Each program had sign a separate GOR document that seeded their rights to the conference.

Bear with me for just a minute. At the time of these documents being published, including the Big 12 GOR, an agreement to play a future game between BYU and Nebraska, and an agreement for future game between BYU and Georgia Tech were offered for download for a price, a company named Scribd was a prescription service which provided legal document downloads, books, etc. Scribd is the website these available downloads are offered on.

At that same time, there was a law firm in California named UFan. The person who uploaded these three documents for sale went by the Scribd website name of UFan 02. I followed up on the Nebraska vs BYU agreement. The game was in indeed played on Sept 5, 2015 as the February 1, 2012 contract called for. BYU won on a last second Hail Mary pass. The signatures pass the 'smell test' and there was even two initialed corrections in the margin. Check it out here. You can also learn about the download subscription service called Scribd here. The BYU vs Nebraska contract proved to be legit, so there is no reason to believe the other two including the Big 12 GOR would not also.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Guess what I found! A request for a copy of the Big 12 GOR from an Ohio State fan and what he received: I have not compared it to my previous link, but this is damn sure the real deal:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8jb5kvZz0PcUzJpdV9YaVZHaFE/edit I do find this source to be reputable: http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/s...look-at-the-big-12-grant-of-rights-agreement/

You cannot reasonably conclude this is not credible. For what it's worth, Buck, the author of the column seems to mostly agree with you. But the real GOR is here for all to see. If you believe this is not authentic ask the author of the article on Twitter: @frankthetank111.

The GOR provided is exactly what you or I would receive in a request to the University of Oklahoma for public information.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Guess what I found! A request for a copy of the Big 12 GOR from an Ohio State fan and what he received: I have not compared it to my previous link, but this is damn sure the real deal:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8jb5kvZz0PcUzJpdV9YaVZHaFE/edit I do find this source to be reputable: http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/s...look-at-the-big-12-grant-of-rights-agreement/

You cannot reasonably conclude this is not credible. For what it's worth, Buck, the author of the column seems to mostly agree with you. But the real GOR is here for all to see. If you believe this is not authentic ask the author on Twitter: @frankthetank111.

The GOR provided is exactly what you or I would receive in a request to Oklahoma University for public information.

He can and he will? Because if it goes against his thoughts it automatically gets discredited

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

He can and he will? Because if it goes against his thoughts it automatically gets discredited

I don't know, Steve. But I do believe the meat of the GOR is the same as in my previous link, word for word. I'll print them both out and compare them tonight. I hate being so damned obsessive. It took me 2 1/2 hours to find that FOIA response. I used the Bing search engine and typed in 'Big 12 Grant of Rights copy'. Nothing else worked, on any search engine.

 

[vegaseer]

Top tier academics and athletics and $$$$ and you are referring to UNLV? Don't believe they rank particularly high in any of those categories.

And who would of thought Tesla stock was a bargain at $55? I surely didn't, but after going up to some people driving Tesla's and asking their opinions, I was sold. Being a native WV(1959), earning 3 degrees from and continuing to support WVU, I have a pretty good handle on WVU. Living in Las Vegas for the last 32 years, let's just say I'm the one telling you to buy UNLV at $55.

 

[Buckaineer]

And who would of thought Tesla stock was a bargain at $55? I surely didn't, but after going up to some people driving Tesla's and asking their opinions, I was sold. Being a native WV(1959), earning 3 degrees from and continuing to support WVU, I have a pretty good handle on WVU. Living in Las Vegas for the last 32 years, let's just say I'm the one telling you to buy UNLV at $55.

I don't believe the BIG 12 is going to consider UNLV regardless of perceptions of any of us.

They've already narrowed down their list and from indications it is UC, UConn, BYU, Houston, Memphis, UCF and USF that are in consideration. Maybe the Pac 12 will swoop in and add UNLV one day.

 

[LowFatMilk]

And who would of thought Tesla stock was a bargain at $55? I surely didn't, but after going up to some people driving Tesla's and asking their opinions, I was sold. Being a native WV(1959), earning 3 degrees from and continuing to support WVU, I have a pretty good handle on WVU. Living in Las Vegas for the last 32 years, let's just say I'm the one telling you to buy UNLV at $55.

Why stop there? I could tell you countless stories of people winning millions just by purchasing an over the counter piece of paper....

....yep, the Big 12 should start purchasing PowerBall tickets....

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Why stop there? I could tell you countless stories of people winning millions just by purchasing an over the counter piece of paper....

....yep, the Big 12 should start purchasing PowerBall tickets....

Unequal analogy. The poster you're addressing used critical thinking to gain an advantage but lottery is pure luck, minus the effort to purchase a ticket.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

One of the things I don't like about the B12 is the lack of quality road game destinations.

I'm over Las Vegas (mostly), but I wouldn't mind an additional reason to visit every few years. A B12 Tournament in Las Vegas would be balls.

 

[LowFatMilk]

Unequal analogy. The poster you're addressing used critical thinking to gain an advantage but lottery is pure luck, minus the effort to purchase a ticket.

I suppose. I habitually use analogies that really make no sense.

Ironically, they turn out to often be very on-topic. ...matching a theme. ...unless you actually think the purchase of Tesla stock (after talking to friends that drove one) is an impressive (and yet defined) investment.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

I suppose. I habitually use analogies that really make no sense.

Ironically, they turn out to often be very on-topic. ...matching a theme. ...unless you actually think the purchase of Tesla stock (after talking to friends that drove one) is an impressive (and yet defined) investment.

I find it more impressive than getting lucky on a lottery ticket.

 

[LowFatMilk]

I find it more impressive than getting lucky on a lottery ticket.

The 'lottery ticket' was an over the top shot at UNLV joining the Big 12. ...I think you already know it.

While you may invest in a company like Tesla would you lay a dime of your money on UNLV to the Big 12.? I'm fairly confident you'd purchase a lottery ticket first.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

The 'lottery ticket' was an over the top shot at UNLV joining the Big 12. ...I think you already know it.

While you may invest in a company like Tesla would you lay a dime of your money on UNLV to the Big 12.? I'm fairly confident you'd purchase a lottery ticket first.

I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.

There were better analogies to make. You just didn't think of them.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The 'lottery ticket' was an over the top shot at UNLV joining the Big 12. ...I think you already know it.

While you may invest in a company like Tesla would you lay a dime of your money on UNLV to the Big 12.? I'm fairly confident you'd purchase a lottery ticket first.

I think it's much more likely that Cincy and USF get an invite. Unless those in charge at UConn finally say,"OK, if we MUST play football we had better do whatever it takes to be good at it."

 

[LowFatMilk]

I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.

There were better analogies to make. You just didn't think of them.

If you know the point I was attempting to make... ...then it must have been made...

 

[Darth_VadEER]

I think it's much more likely that Cincy and USF get an invite. Unless those in charge at UConn finally say,"OK, if we MUST play football we had better do whatever it takes to be good at it."

What we're the odds, say in 2008, that WVU would be in the B12?

Probably not as high as BYU, or Lousiville.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

If you know the point I was attempting to make... ...then it must have been made...

Dude, that's deep! I'm impressed.

 

[LowFatMilk]

I think it's much more likely that Cincy and USF get an invite. Unless those in charge at UConn finally say,"OK, if we MUST play football we had better do whatever it takes to be good at it."

Despite anything Tesla has done... ...it's laughable that UNLV is even a consideration.

Maybe an Anal-ogy would make it seem reasonable.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

If you know the point I was attempting to make... ...then it must have been made...

Nope. At this point, all I have is a bad analogy. I can make assumptions.

 

[LowFatMilk]

Dude....

....well you missed with that one.

 

[topdecktiger]

You don't comprehend things well so I'll explain it again.

On one hand you said that if a conference loses a member, the tv partner can then VOID the television contract with that conference.

I stated that is false because it is--what happens is they MAY reduce the amount they pay the conference--but that isn't guaranteed. The BIG 12's contract states that if a school leaves then the contract can be reduced by a certain amount.

That is completely different than VOIDING or tossing out the contract

Re: the GOR you and others are presenting something that came from an anonymous source on social media as something real. You are claiming it is what you claim it to be--therefore its up to you to prove that it is what you say it is--not me--that is idiotic. Its like you saying the moon is filled with purple living jellybeans and then saying its up to me to prove that's not true when there is 0 evidence to support anything you are saying.

Anyone can create a document on the internet and anonymously post it claiming to be anything. If you present it and say its this or that--then yes-YOU have to prove its real. That you don't want to do that just illustrates the point that its made up. Its easily provable or disprovable---you say its real--go straight to the BIG 12s office via email--send it to them and ask them if its real and post the response. You (and others) won't do that because you know it isn't real. The same reason you won't go to an ACC school and demand the ACC grant of rights-another sure sign the BIG 12 document is FALSE.

The grant of rights is embedded in the TV agreement and I've already provided links that prove that. You've provided nothing to disprove that it indeed is. In 2011 the BIG 12 signed a tv contract with FOX sports for 13 years.

As mentioned before, lets see the tv agreements and GORS of the ACC, Big Ten, Pac 12, SEC and BIG 12.

You can't provide these things because they are all linked and aren't subject to FOIA requests. Therefore there's no need for you to keep spouting off about it--either provide the documents or don't talk about something you know nothing about.

The burden of proof is on you or whoever is claiming that GORs and tv contracts are open. Next week should be plenty of time to email conferences and/or to put in an FOIA request.

You are backtracking. You clearly said that if a conference lost teams, the networks would still be on the hook to pay that conference the amount in the contract. Your quote:

The networks signed agreements with each of the conferences. In those agreements they are legally contractually obligated to pay a certain amount of money over a certain period of time to those conferences.

If instead of paying the money to conference A, they paid it to conference B--they would be breaking the contract they made with conference A and effectively voiding it --leaving conference A free to move to another partner and sign a new deal. They would also open themselves to lawsuits for failing to meet terms of the contract.

Ok, so what you said there is that if ESPN signed a deal to pay Conference A $1 billion over 10 years, ESPN would have to pay the $1 billion, even if Conference A lost teams.

Well as I pointed out, that's not at all true. If Conference A lost teams, ESPN could legally restructure the contract and pay less money to Conference A. That was the point I was making, and I'm 100% correct in my point. You even admitted it.

You are still wrong on this GOR business. The Big 12 signed the deal with Fox in April of 2011.http://www.cyclones.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205136040 The original GOR was signed in October of 2011. http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205311928 So, the GOR wasn't signed until six months after the Fox contract was signed. But, you keep insisting to me that the GOR is in the TV contract. So explain that. Explain how this GOR was part of the TV contract, yet the TV contract was signed six months before the GOR was ever created.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

You are backtracking. You clearly said that if a conference lost teams, the networks would still be on the hook to pay that conference the amount in the contract. Your quote:



Ok, so what you said there is that if ESPN signed a deal to pay Conference A $1 billion over 10 years, ESPN would have to pay the $1 billion, even if Conference A lost teams.

Well as I pointed out, that's not at all true. If Conference A lost teams, ESPN could legally restructure the contract and pay less money to Conference A. That was the point I was making, and I'm 100% correct in my point. You even admitted it.

You are still wrong on this GOR business. The Big 12 signed the deal with Fox in April of 2011.http://www.cyclones.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205136040 The original GOR was signed in October of 2011. http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205311928 So, the GOR wasn't signed until six months after the Fox contract was signed. But, you keep insisting to me that the GOR is in the TV contract. So explain that. Explain how this GOR was part of the TV contract, yet the TV contract was signed six months before the GOR was ever created.

The final GOR between the Big 12 and it's current members was signed on September 7, 2012 and made effective retroactively to July 1, 2012. Section 5 of the GOR may be helpful in your debate.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Is BYU's no-Sunday policy insurmountable for the Big 12?

Other than geography, two things always have popped about BYU. 1) Its reputation as hard to deal with; and 2) Its refusal to compete on Sundays,

http://newsok.com/article/5479852

 

[steeleer]

Please let this topic die a quick and peaceful death.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Is BYU's no-Sunday policy insurmountable for the Big 12?

Other than geography, two things always have popped about BYU. 1) Its reputation as hard to deal with; and 2) Its refusal to compete on Sundays,

http://newsok.com/article/5479852

It could be that BYU Broadcasting is the primary obstacle, just speculating.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Please let this topic die a quick and peaceful death.

Again if you don't like the thread, why do you bother opening the thread and making stupid response?

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

It could be that BYU Broadcasting is the primary obstacle, just speculating.

Yea, that is another obstacle, I would imagine is the responsibility (buyout) of BYU to deal with.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Just to get Bucks blood boiling, I present you with the following

Inaction on expansion, football title game could work for the Big 12 Conference

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/sp...1660477.html?platform=hootsuite#storylink=cpy

 

[Buckaineer]

You are backtracking. You clearly said that if a conference lost teams, the networks would still be on the hook to pay that conference the amount in the contract. Your quote:



Ok, so what you said there is that if ESPN signed a deal to pay Conference A $1 billion over 10 years, ESPN would have to pay the $1 billion, even if Conference A lost teams.

Well as I pointed out, that's not at all true. If Conference A lost teams, ESPN could legally restructure the contract and pay less money to Conference A. That was the point I was making, and I'm 100% correct in my point. You even admitted it.

You are still wrong on this GOR business. The Big 12 signed the deal with Fox in April of 2011.http://www.cyclones.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205136040 The original GOR was signed in October of 2011. http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205311928 So, the GOR wasn't signed until six months after the Fox contract was signed. But, you keep insisting to me that the GOR is in the TV contract. So explain that. Explain how this GOR was part of the TV contract, yet the TV contract was signed six months before the GOR was ever created.

What I stated clearly is that if ESPN signs a contract to pay conference A $1 billion over ten years with a clause in it that they can reopen the contract and reduce the amount paid by a pro rata share if someone leaves, and then someone does leave, ESPN can reopen the contract and reduce by a pro rata share.

What you said is that if ESPN signs a contract with conference A for $1 billion over ten years and then someone in conference A leaves, ESPN can tear up the contract and doesn't owe anyone anything.

What you stated is ridiculous and not possible. Then of course when I once again blew up your phony statement, you switched your argument to exactly what I stated and tried to twist what I stated to something else.

Everyone can go back and read what I clearly stated and see that you stated that the contract would be voided if a team left. As evidence to how foolish your statements are look at the ACC and BIG 12--both lost teams in the last decade, neither had their tv contract voided as you stated they would be.

As for GORs I've already provided links proving the GORs are embedded in the tv contracts. You continue to argue when that's not necessary--just present the GORs of the ACC, Big Ten and Pac 12 which according to you should be easy enough to obtain. Or contact the BIG 12 office or the University of Oklahoma, present them with the document you are so desperate to claim is a real grant of rights for Oklahoma--ask them if its real and present the response unedited here for everyone to see. Case closed.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

What I stated clearly is that if ESPN signs a contract to pay conference A $1 billion over ten years with a clause in it that they can reopen the contract and reduce the amount paid by a pro rata share if someone leaves, and then someone does leave, ESPN can reopen the contract and reduce by a pro rata share.

What you said is that if ESPN signs a contract with conference A for $1 billion over ten years and then someone in conference A leaves, ESPN can tear up the contract and doesn't owe anyone anything.

What you stated is ridiculous and not possible. Then of course when I once again blew up your phony statement, you switched your argument to exactly what I stated and tried to twist what I stated to something else.

Everyone can go back and read what I clearly stated and see that you stated that the contract would be voided if a team left. As evidence to how foolish your statements are look at the ACC and BIG 12--both lost teams in the last decade, neither had their tv contract voided as you stated they would be.

As for GORs I've already provided links proving the GORs are embedded in the tv contracts. You continue to argue when that's not necessary--just present the GORs of the ACC, Big Ten and Pac 12 which according to you should be easy enough to obtain. Or contact the BIG 12 office or the University of Oklahoma, present them with the document you are so desperate to claim is a real grant of rights for Oklahoma--ask them if its real and present the response unedited here for everyone to see. Case closed.

The public information response by the University of Oklahoma is real. It came from a longtime reputable sports columnist and is the same response you or I would get. Big 12 GOR

 

[topdecktiger]

What I stated clearly is that if ESPN signs a contract to pay conference A $1 billion over ten years with a clause in it that they can reopen the contract and reduce the amount paid by a pro rata share if someone leaves, and then someone does leave, ESPN can reopen the contract and reduce by a pro rata share.

What you said is that if ESPN signs a contract with conference A for $1 billion over ten years and then someone in conference A leaves, ESPN can tear up the contract and doesn't owe anyone anything.

What you stated is ridiculous and not possible. Then of course when I once again blew up your phony statement, you switched your argument to exactly what I stated and tried to twist what I stated to something else.

Everyone can go back and read what I clearly stated and see that you stated that the contract would be voided if a team left. As evidence to how foolish your statements are look at the ACC and BIG 12--both lost teams in the last decade, neither had their tv contract voided as you stated they would be.

As for GORs I've already provided links proving the GORs are embedded in the tv contracts. You continue to argue when that's not necessary--just present the GORs of the ACC, Big Ten and Pac 12 which according to you should be easy enough to obtain. Or contact the BIG 12 office or the University of Oklahoma, present them with the document you are so desperate to claim is a real grant of rights for Oklahoma--ask them if its real and present the response unedited here for everyone to see. Case closed.

No, that's not what you said at all. This is how the conversation went. Another poster asked the question:

A GOR between the members of a conference and any broadcast entity would do nothing to solidify the strength of the conference. The same networks own the broadcast rights to nearly all of the power 5 conferences. If the GOR was between the schools and broadcasters, why would they care who moved where?

So his point was, under your GOR scenario, a network could just shift the rights/payments from one conference to another if a team moved. Then you said:

The networks signed agreements with each of the conferences. In those agreements they are legally contractually obligated to pay a certain amount of money over a certain period of time to those conferences.

If instead of paying the money to conference A, they paid it to conference B--they would be breaking the contract they made with conference A and effectively voiding it --leaving conference A free to move to another partner and sign a new deal. They would also open themselves to lawsuits for failing to meet terms of the contract.

Ok, well here you clearly stated that a network (like ESPN) is going to be on the hook to pay the amount of the contract, even if a team leaves.

Well, after I challenged you, you said this:

This is completely false. The network partners cannot void the contract if a conference loses members. What they would do at some point if a conference loses members is reduce the contract

So yes, you changed. You at first said the network would still have to pay the same amount to a conference, even if a team left. Now, you have changed and admitted that the network could reduce the amount paid to a conference if a team left.

Well, that goes against your whole point about the GOR. If the GOR was between the network and conference, then the networks wouldn't care if a team left one conference for another. They could just reduce the contract for Conference A, and increase it for Conference B, just as the other poster indicated. That's why the GOR is between the schools and the conference.

You still haven't proven that the GOR is in the TV contract. You ignored the point I raised. The Fox contract was signed in April of 2011. The original GOR wasn't signed until October of 2011. Well, in that case, the GOR can't be in the Fox contract, because the GOR didn't even exist when Fox contract was signed.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

SIR:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...pansion-possible-if-uc-joins-big-12/80405222/

No, that's not what you said at all. This is how the conversation went. Another poster asked the question:


So his point was, under your GOR scenario, a network could just shift the rights/payments from one conference to another if a team moved. Then you said:


Ok, well here you clearly stated that a network (like ESPN) is going to be on the hook to pay the amount of the contract, even if a team leaves.

Well, after I challenged you, you said this:



So yes, you changed. You at first said the network would still have to pay the same amount to a conference, even if a team left. Now, you have changed and admitted that the network could reduce the amount paid to a conference if a team left.

Well, that goes against your whole point about the GOR. If the GOR was between the network and conference, then the networks wouldn't care if a team left one conference for another. They could just reduce the contract for Conference A, and increase it for Conference B, just as the other poster indicated. That's why the GOR is between the schools and the conference.

You still haven't proven that the GOR is in the TV contract. You ignored the point I raised. The Fox contract was signed in April of 2011. The original GOR wasn't signed until October of 2011. Well, in that case, the GOR can't be in the Fox contract, because the GOR didn't even exist when Fox contract was signed.

Even with you showing proof Buck will deny any of this actually happened. Instead of Buckaineer he needs to go by Bagdad Bob

 

[Buckaineer]

By the avoidance of presenting an ACC or Big Ten or PAC 12 GOR, or the simple measure of a written response from either the BIG 12 office or the University of Oklahoma re as to a document purported to be a BIG 12 GOR, it's clear that the document is false.

Rather than provide the documents asked for all manner of spin and running around is being done.

So if someone wants to believe these people it's on you, I'd advise you to check it with the BIG 12 office or the University of Oklahoma, or to put in an FOIA request for the goes of other conferences from your school of choice. You won't get one.

As to spinning nonsense about tv contracts being voided if a team leaves- everything I stated is clear as day in this thread, I don't have time to argue stupidity with someone that is dishonest and changes their story when proven wrong over and over again, or tries to spin what I wrote into something completely different,

 

[LowFatMilk]

.

I don't have time to argue (about expansion)........,

Made me chuckle.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

A Big 12 roundtable on the league's big summer: What's next?
"Boren has leverage to push others into his camp by the summer. But I think if they took a vote today, expansion would fail."

To me the burden of proof is on him (Boren) to prove that the Big 12 will profit financially from adding a program like Cincinnati.

So then, if you're Florida State, Clemson and Miami, and the Big 12 is offering, say, $8 million in additional revenue ... does that give you pause?

http://espn.go.com/college-football...oundtable-big-12-big-summer-hey-florida-state