Texas governor trying to force in Houston

[michaelwalkerbr]

Can I guess?

If will be BYU and UH and the B12 is trying to work a deal where WVU will be let out of it's GOR commitment to join the SEC or ACC....realizing that that move would otherwise erode any long-term relationship between WVU and the rest of the B12.

Obviously ND is tied to the ACC now for 20 years. If WVU is added there, then ND going all in would make it even conference set up. They obviously have softened their disdain for WVU when they offered WVU an ACC spot (after it was too late) in 2012.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

That's my point. They can use the leverage of extending the GOR to get the networks to give a longer deal, bigger deal, etc.



I'm not arguing that. The other poster ways saying media partners are forcing conferences to sign GORs.



The Big 12 signed the contract with Fox first, back in April of 2011. It runs for 13 years. There wasn't even a GOR then. (We know that because A&M vote to leave in August of 2011.) So, the contract with Fox was signed without a GOR period, let alone one for 6 years.

Your link is dated April 2011. That's before WVU and TCU joined the conference and as you know, just prior to TAMU departing. Obviously, GOR's haven't been around forever. The GOR came included with their current deal, not after and I think that was probably favored by their TV partners.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox

Dated Sept. 7 2012

Excerpt:

"The Big 12 Conference announced Friday it has reached an agreement on a 13-year media rights deal with ABC/ESPN and Fox.

The deal is worth $2.6 billion, an average of $200 million per year and worth $20 million per school, industry sources told ESPN.

The package will run through the 2024-25 school year. ABC/ESPN and Fox will share the league's football inventory, while ABC/ESPN will be the exclusive provider for Big 12 men's basketball.

ESPN spokesperson Josh Krulewitz declined comment.

"The stability of the Big 12 Conference is cemented," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said. "We are positioned with one of the best media rights arrangements in collegiate sports, providing the conference and its members unprecedented revenue growth, and sports programming over two networks."


The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference."

End Excerpt.

 

[topdecktiger]

Your link is dated April 2011. That's before WVU and TCU joined the conference and as you know, just prior to TAMU departing. Obviously, GOR's haven't been around forever.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox

Dated Sept. 7 2012

Excerpt:

"The Big 12 Conference announced Friday it has reached an agreement on a 13-year media rights deal with ABC/ESPN and Fox.

The deal is worth $2.6 billion, an average of $200 million per year and worth $20 million per school, industry sources told ESPN.

The package will run through the 2024-25 school year. ABC/ESPN and Fox will share the league's football inventory, while ABC/ESPN will be the exclusive provider for Big 12 men's basketball.

ESPN spokesperson Josh Krulewitz declined comment.

"The stability of the Big 12 Conference is cemented," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said. "We are positioned with one of the best media rights arrangements in collegiate sports, providing the conference and its members unprecedented revenue growth, and sports programming over two networks."


The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference."

End Excerpt.

You're missing my point. The contract with Fox was already signed in 2011. The contract with ESPN wasn't signed until 2012. When the Fox contract was signed in 2011, there wasn't even a GOR. In between the Fox contract in 2011 and the ESPN contract in 2012, the conference signed an initial GOR for 6 years. Then when the ESPN contract was signed in 2012, the GOR was extended.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

The Big 12 signed the contract with Fox first, back in April of 2011. It runs for 13 years. There wasn't even a GOR then. (We know that because A&M vote to leave in August of 2011.) So, the contract with Fox was signed without a GOR period, let alone one for 6 years.

You're kinda proving my point. There was no GOR back in 2011, then the conference suffered a major loss with TAMU. So it would make sense for the media partners to start pushing a GOR while negotiating new TV deals, like the one they signed in 2012, to protect themselves from that very same thing happening.

 

[topdecktiger]

You're kinda proving my point. There was no GOR back in 2011, then the conference suffered a major loss with TAMU. So it would make sense for the media partners to start pushing a GOR while negotiating new TV deals, like the one they signed in 2012, to protect themselves from that very same thing happening.

No, it doesn't prove your point. In 2011, when the Fox contract was signed, the Big 12 had already lost Colorado and Nebraska. By your logic, Fox would have demanded a GOR before they signed the contract in 2011.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

No, it doesn't prove your point. In 2011, when the Fox contract was signed, the Big 12 had already lost Colorado and Nebraska. By your logic, Fox would have demanded a GOR before they signed the contract in 2011.

Sure, but then they lost TAMU and Mizz, leaving the conference with 8 teams. Once they back-filled and got back 10 they could start their new deal talks. That's when I think the TV partners started a pushing the GOR.

IMO, this makes total sense and the only reason you don't agree is because you're too stubborn. A GOR protects them from loss. You think it's just coincidence that the GOR was included in their new deal?

You think they wanted to give them that new deal, just to see Oklahoma/Texas walk out the door? Of course not.

 

[topdecktiger]

Sure, but then they lost TAMU and Mizz, leaving the conference with 8 teams. Once they back-filled and got back 10 they could start their new deal talks. That's when I think the TV partners started a pushing the GOR.

IMO, this makes total sense and the only reason you don't agree is because you're too stubborn. A GOR protects them from loss. You think it's just coincidence that the GOR was included in their new deal?

You think they wanted to give them that new deal, just to see Oklahoma/Texas walk out the door? Of course not.

When they lost Nebraska and Colorado, they went from 12 to 10 teams. They didn't even backfill, like the did after A&M and Missouri left. That would actually give Fox more incentive to demand a GOR back in 2011.

No, it doesn't make perfect sense, and no, I'm not being stubborn. What I'm doing is objecting to your characterization that the networks are "forcing" conferences to sign a GOR. You think ESPN is going to tell the Big 12, "Sign a GOR or we won't give you a contract!" Foolishness. They would still sign a contract either way. They pay a little more for having a GOR, but they aren't "forcing" conferences to sign

The GORs are more for the conferences than the media partners. Here is one glaring thing you are overlooking. If Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference, ESPN can renegotiate the deal. Just as conferences can renegotiate contracts for more money when they add teams, media partners can renegotiate contracts for less money when conferences lose teams. If Texas and Oklahoma left, ESPN isn't screwed. They can renegotiate the contract down for less money. Does that mean the networks don't want a GOR? No, they would prefer one. However, they aren't "forcing" the conferences to sign GORs as a condition of the TV contracts. The conferences desire the GOR just as much (if not more) than the media partners. The conferences also want the GOR to run the length of the contract so nobody will leave early and cost them money.

I will agree with one point, that media partners want a GOR for a conference network. That's because they can't renegotiate a network channel, like they could a simple broadcast contract.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

When they lost Nebraska and Colorado, they went from 12 to 10 teams. They didn't even backfill, like the did after A&M and Missouri left. That would actually give Fox more incentive to demand a GOR back in 2011.

No, it doesn't make perfect sense, and no, I'm not being stubborn. What I'm doing is objecting to your characterization that the networks are "forcing" conferences to sign a GOR. You think ESPN is going to tell the Big 12, "Sign a GOR or we won't give you a contract!" Foolishness. They would still sign a contract either way. They pay a little more for having a GOR, but they aren't "forcing" conferences to sign

First, I never used the word force (at least I don't think). I believe the word I used was "pushed", and if you agree that media partners are incentivizing their contracts with a signed GOR, then I believe my argument holds true.

The GORs are more for the conferences than the media partners. Here is one glaring thing you are overlooking. If Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference, ESPN can renegotiate the deal. Just as conferences can renegotiate contracts for more money when they add teams, media partners can renegotiate contracts for less money when conferences lose teams. If Texas and Oklahoma left, ESPN isn't screwed. They can renegotiate the contract down for less money. Does that mean the networks don't want a GOR? No, they would prefer one. However, they aren't "forcing" the conferences to sign GORs as a condition of the TV contracts. The conferences desire the GOR just as much (if not more) than the media partners. The conferences also want the GOR to run the length of the contract so nobody will leave early and cost them money.

Again, I don't believe I ever used the word "force". But if a network prefers a conference to have one, and as you say they are willing to pay extra for it, and a conference has just seen rapid departure, it would make total sense for a network to urge them to sign one. Wouldn't it?

Regarding, "The conferences desire the GOR", yes I believe they do. The Conference. The Institution. However, I don't think the individual universities do, at least not all of them, and if you go back through this thread, you'll see that was my main point. I'm sure Iowa State enjoys the GOR, but I don't think Texas, Oklahoma or even WVU does. Same with Wake Forest and Florida State (or Virginia/UNC).

Yes, ESPN can renegotiate the deal, but they are still dealing with a product that lost value, which they had investment in. That's my point.

I don't think a conference like the SEC or B1G needs a GOR to get a deal, but I think in this climate, yes, the B12 and the ACC probably knew it would be important during their future negotiations.

I will agree with one point, that media partners want a GOR for a conference network. That's because they can't renegotiate a network channel, like they could a simple broadcast contract.

IMO, I think the ACC GOR extension was probably a necessity to get the network.

Response embedded. We might be at an impasse, and I'm not Buck.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

When they lost Nebraska and Colorado, they went from 12 to 10 teams. They didn't even backfill, like the did after A&M and Missouri left. That would actually give Fox more incentive to demand a GOR back in 2011.

No, it doesn't make perfect sense, and no, I'm not being stubborn. What I'm doing is objecting to your characterization that the networks are "forcing" conferences to sign a GOR. You think ESPN is going to tell the Big 12, "Sign a GOR or we won't give you a contract!" Foolishness. They would still sign a contract either way. They pay a little more for having a GOR, but they aren't "forcing" conferences to sign

The GORs are more for the conferences than the media partners. Here is one glaring thing you are overlooking. If Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference, ESPN can renegotiate the deal. Just as conferences can renegotiate contracts for more money when they add teams, media partners can renegotiate contracts for less money when conferences lose teams. If Texas and Oklahoma left, ESPN isn't screwed. They can renegotiate the contract down for less money. Does that mean the networks don't want a GOR? No, they would prefer one. However, they aren't "forcing" the conferences to sign GORs as a condition of the TV contracts. The conferences desire the GOR just as much (if not more) than the media partners. The conferences also want the GOR to run the length of the contract so nobody will leave early and cost them money.

I will agree with one point, that media partners want a GOR for a conference network. That's because they can't renegotiate a network channel, like they could a simple broadcast contract.

Damn. You're scaring me, Tiger. I agree with most of that.

 

[topdecktiger]

Response embedded. We might be at an impasse, and I'm not Buck.

I'll make simple. Here's the problem with your entire argument.

GOR's were probably pushed on to the conferences by their media partners to avoid paying on a long contract without the proper inventory to fulfill it.

Well, your initial premise is wrong. The media partners don't have to pay on a long contract without the proper inventory to fill it. If schools leave a conference, the media partners can renegotiate the contract down as low as they need to go to make up for the loss.

Let's just say Texas and Oklahoma both left the Big 12. Well, there would still be some value to the Big 12, even if it's AAC-level value. ESPN could simply renegotiate down to that point.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

I'll make simple. Here's the problem with your entire argument.



Well, your initial premise is wrong. The media partners don't have to pay on a long contract without the proper inventory to fill it. If schools leave a conference, the media partners can renegotiate the contract down as low as they need to go to make up for the loss.

Let's just say Texas and Oklahoma both left the Big 12. Well, there would still be some value to the Big 12, even if it's AAC-level value. ESPN could simply renegotiate down to that point.

I assume they could renegotiate the contract, but they are still left with a de-valued product. Pushing a GOR prevents that scenario. Why would they want to invest in a product, then see it de-valued and forced to enter a new, less lucrative deal?

For example, Fox (hypothetical) wouldn't want to lose Texas to the ACC, which is all ESPN. Sure, they make a new deal, but absent it's beat product.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

It is pretty much a given that simply by rotation the Big 12 broadcast contract is undervalued. The oldest one usually is. Bob Bowlsby would be remiss to enter into talks with any school without prior concurrence from ESPN/FoxSports. He would surely want to be assured that the addition of any particular school would meet with their approval, thereby enhancing the chance of renegotiating and extending the current contract.

If broadcast executives tell him, "Not if you bring them in." you can bet that school will not be considered. All he needs is a simple, "They may enhance your product." regarding any school to push for inclusion into any expansion. A pro quo increase is going to happen anyway, a renegotiation is likely with the right schools, whether it is two or four.

I don't believe conference networks are a dying entity, I think the broadcasters would simply like to call timeout to see which technology prevails in future presentation of the broadcasts. I'll bet that is the reason for the delay until 2019 for ESPN's linear broadcasts of the ACC Network. The originating media form may prove so successful that traditional cable and satellite broadcasts of ACC Network programming may end up being ill advised for all parties concerned.

You can bet that if the Big 12 expands and if the broadcast contract would be renegotiated and extended, the expiration of the GOR would coincidentally be revised to match the expiration of the broadcast contract.

 

[Buckaineer]

The BIG 12 obviously can't have a network without Texas. They also couldn't have a network without expansion.

Texas didn't want either- convinced enough to wait for " better" options,

Suddenly no expansion and no network. the ACC got theirs- solidifying their league long term and possibly boosting their revenues past the BIG 12s. - suddenly it was expansion is a good idea and it just a matter of who and how many.

Once expansion has been done, a conference network can again become part of the equation because the territory covered will have grown enough to make it worthwhile.

 

[topdecktiger]

I assume they could renegotiate the contract, but they are still left with a de-valued product. Pushing a GOR prevents that scenario. Why would they want to invest in a product, then see it de-valued and forced to enter a new, less lucrative deal?

For example, Fox (hypothetical) wouldn't want to lose Texas to the ACC, which is all ESPN. Sure, they make a new deal, but absent it's beat product.

They wouldn't want to. However, they still aren't pushing a GOR. Like I said, Fox didn't push for one at all for the Big 12 contract. Your premise is just flawed. The networks simply aren't pushing for GORs. I'm sure they prefer one. I'm sure they pay more for one. They still aren't pushing for them. Otherwise, Fox wouldn't have signed the Big 12 deal without a GOR, ESPN wouldn't have signed the ACC deal without a GOR. There are too many instances where the networks have signed deals without a GOR to support your hypothesis.

 

[Buckaineer]

When the BIG 12 got an early re- signing with ESPN, they also resigned with FOX.

The FOX deal that had been agreed upon earlier was reworked a bit to accommodate ESPN and FOX selection order and picks and also expanded which games both networks could carry.

A grant of rights signing was part of that deal and commissioner Bowlsby commented publicly at that time that was one of the reasons the signing took longer than expected because the conference and its lawyers, the schools and their lawyers and the networks and their lawyers had to comb over the details of these agreements.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

So your argument is that the existence of a GOR represents proof of universities wanting GOR's?

I'm not so sure about that. GOR's were probably pushed on to the conferences by their media partners to avoid paying on a long contract without the proper inventory to fulfill it.

I think the ACC extended their GOR in part to get their network. Again, it's a situation where they were probably pushed into it. IMO, it doesn't display any affection for the agreement by any individual university.

I suppose a GOR provides the illusion of solidarity, but it doesn't address any fractures within the conference, in fact, it probably worsens them because neither side get leverage from outside options.

Regardless what the GOR does or does not do, it WILL keep a conference in tact. If I were WVU I would be pushing for an extension just like the ACC did.

 

[steeleer]

Wow.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Once expansion has been done, a conference network can again become part of the equation because the territory covered will have grown enough to make it worthwhile.

Expanding the territory is why UH should NOT be considered, unless BIG12 goes to 16, which isn't likely to happen.

 

[Rootmaster]

Houston and Cincinnati are a lock...two more up for grabs.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Houston and Cincinnati are a lock...two more up for grabs.

Even with all the rhetoric on UH, I still don't see them as a look.

There are 6 schools outside of Texas, and I can't see them wanting voting for a 5 Texas school. Now if Texas really wants Houston, (which is debatable), they may strong arm the conference.