(10-02-2012 05:42 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't think there is anything that will keep BE teams from jumping to bigger conferences, if they get an invitation. Heck, I doubt there is anything that would keep FSU from jumping to the SEC, if invited.

Fine, but let the selfish "adulterous spouses" pay the "alimony".

(10-03-2012 09:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 09:33 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I've talked about a GoR with Terry Holland personally and he said there's pretty much no way we'd do that. Trust me, it ain't happening. A GOR for CUSA has surfaced in a handful of articles and I'm sure it's been brought up a time or 2 in CUSA meetings but I can promise you ECU would bail before we'd sign that. However, I don't think it could come to a school being "forced out" of a conference for refusing to sign it though.

Your conversations with Holland are more along what I would have expected the ECU positiion to be with respect to a GOR. What I think the position of CUSA should have been was that new schools coming in sign a GOR. At least no new schools would be passing up existing schools. I doubt any would have passed on the invite due to that requirement---especially if the GOR provision was only 10-15 years. I dont think its unreasonable to require that a new invitee pledge to stay in a conference a reasonable amount of time as a conditon of the invitation.

The CUSA bylaws already sort of cover that by requesting 5 years of TV rights as an exit fee. That's not really that much different than the buyout of a 5-year GoR. And I would think the legality of requiring new members to sign a GoR while existing members are not required to do so would be questioned.

(10-03-2012 10:32 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 09:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 09:33 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I've talked about a GoR with Terry Holland personally and he said there's pretty much no way we'd do that. Trust me, it ain't happening. A GOR for CUSA has surfaced in a handful of articles and I'm sure it's been brought up a time or 2 in CUSA meetings but I can promise you ECU would bail before we'd sign that. However, I don't think it could come to a school being "forced out" of a conference for refusing to sign it though.

Your conversations with Holland are more along what I would have expected the ECU positiion to be with respect to a GOR. What I think the position of CUSA should have been was that new schools coming in sign a GOR. At least no new schools would be passing up existing schools. I doubt any would have passed on the invite due to that requirement---especially if the GOR provision was only 10-15 years. I dont think its unreasonable to require that a new invitee pledge to stay in a conference a reasonable amount of time as a conditon of the invitation.

The CUSA bylaws already sort of cover that by requesting 5 years of TV rights as an exit fee. That's not really that much different than the buyout of a 5-year GoR. And I would think the legality of requiring new members to sign a GoR while existing members are not required to do so would be questioned.

Yes, I agree it could be challenged. In reality, conference GOR's are pretty new. So its not a matter of if the legality of one of these conference GOR's will be challenged---its just a question of when.

(10-02-2012 09:30 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 08:10 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:56 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 05:42 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't think there is anything that will keep BE teams from jumping to bigger conferences, if they get an invitation. Heck, I doubt there is anything that would keep FSU from jumping to the SEC, if invited.

Clemson, FSU and any other ACC team would go to the SEC in a heartbeat if they could. It's just the reality of it all.

I disagree with that completely. VT had their chance to go to the SEC and decided they were right at home (where they always wanted to be) in the ACC. Mizzouri got pretty lucky because of this.

I'm sure some of the ACC schools are happy to stay, but they didn't raise the exit fees to $50 million for no reason.

An exit fee is a form of liquidated damages designed to protect the interests of the group as a whole. If a team leaves, it affects the earning potential of the group as a whole. It allows anyone to leave and compensates the schools remaining behind.

A GOR is holding your kid hostage so you can't leave. It protects those left behind by ensuring no one can leave. Schools that assign their rights to a conference without receiving something tangible in return are foolish. The Big 10 schools received an equity stake in the B10 Network. The B12 schools have an IOU from the league office. Which would you rather have?

The other problem with a GOR is that it is less punitive as it reaches the end. If you are really trying to protect the interests of the whole, an exit fee tied to the revenue stream is preferable. At some point towards the end of the GOR, the cost of exit drops to a level where the remaining schools are no longer protected against losses.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

(10-03-2012 12:27 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Schools that assign their rights to a conference without receiving something tangible in return are foolish.

Of course they are. Fortunately, they are receiving all the benefits of conference membership (organization, security, recognition, exposure, cooperation, bowl access, revenue, etc.).

(10-03-2012 02:11 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 12:27 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Schools that assign their rights to a conference without receiving something tangible in return are foolish.

Of course they are. Fortunately, they are receiving all the benefits of conference membership (organization, security, recognition, exposure, cooperation, bowl access, revenue, etc.).

But, weren't those schools already in that conference and receiving those things BEFORE they signed the GOR?

(10-03-2012 12:27 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:30 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 08:10 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:56 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 05:42 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't think there is anything that will keep BE teams from jumping to bigger conferences, if they get an invitation. Heck, I doubt there is anything that would keep FSU from jumping to the SEC, if invited.

Clemson, FSU and any other ACC team would go to the SEC in a heartbeat if they could. It's just the reality of it all.

I disagree with that completely. VT had their chance to go to the SEC and decided they were right at home (where they always wanted to be) in the ACC. Mizzouri got pretty lucky because of this.

I'm sure some of the ACC schools are happy to stay, but they didn't raise the exit fees to $50 million for no reason.

An exit fee is a form of liquidated damages designed to protect the interests of the group as a whole. If a team leaves, it affects the earning potential of the group as a whole. It allows anyone to leave and compensates the schools remaining behind.

A GOR is holding your kid hostage so you can't leave. It protects those left behind by ensuring no one can leave. Schools that assign their rights to a conference without receiving something tangible in return are foolish. The Big 10 schools received an equity stake in the B10 Network. The B12 schools have an IOU from the league office. Which would you rather have?

The other problem with a GOR is that it is less punitive as it reaches the end. If you are really trying to protect the interests of the whole, an exit fee tied to the revenue stream is preferable. At some point towards the end of the GOR, the cost of exit drops to a level where the remaining schools are no longer protected against losses.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Where I see the GOR faltering is that its going to be difficult to defend taking a schools TV rights and giving them nothing in return if they leave. If challenged, the conference will likely end up having to give the leaving team a share of earnings. So for example, if Louisville left the BE after signing a GOR and challenged the GOR successfully---they may end up simply moving to the Big-12 and recieving no share of the Big-12 media package (since the BE maintains controll of Louisiville home games). Instead, Louisville would get a share of BE media revenue. Not really a big issue. From the other side, the Big-12 would still profit despite Louisville's exclusion from the Big-12 media package because of the added value of a championship game (25 million dollar estimated value). To avoid contract disputes a CCG would be held at a nuetral site until the Louisville GOR expired--but it would it certainly fatten the Big-12 wallet.

If you believe MHver (the schizo WV insider), ESPN is not requiring a GOR

(10-03-2012 06:38 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  If you believe MHver (the schizo WV insider), ESPN is not requiring a GOR

First, MHver is a fraud. Second, a TV network cannot require a GoR. Any TV deal will include clauses that allow renegotiation in the event of any membership change, so the TV network isn't going to change their payout based on a GoR. The XII wanted a GoR to insure TX and OK (by far their 2 largest brands) don't leave. The B1G and PAC have GoRs in exchange for shares in their networks. Unless the Big East is getting a network, a GoR really won't do much TV contract-wise.