(08-05-2014 03:30 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:26 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  ESPN didn't HAVE to do anything to keep them there. There was a shorter GOR in effect already and they had several years remaining on the ABC/ESPN deal. They renegotiated it early.

hey no fair using actual facts and reality because when you do that their argument falls apart completely

ahem,
too bad said "facts" were incorrect." The Big 12 signed a deal with ESPN in September of 2012. That same deal actually formalized the Grant of Rights. In fact, CBS had even reported that as of July, 2012, the GOR had not been signed

Quote: The Big 12 disputed a report Sunday that conference schools had formally agreed to a 13-year grant of media rights. Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby was quoted by the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette-Mail as saying that the anticipated deal “has been extended to 13 years and it has been signed.”

Bowlsby was en route Sunday to Morgantown, W.Va. for a Big 12 celebration. However, a league spokesman said, “The grant of rights has not been executed. What [Bowlsby] told the reporter is, it will be executed upon completion of current television negotiations.”

But yeah, don't let "facts" get in the way.

Oh, sorry, I forgot

adcorbett-

There was a shorter GOR (either 5 or 6 years) already in place that was signed by the 9 programs (TCU+8 original members) in the league prior to Mizzou officially joining the SEC. The 13 year one was an extension IIRC.

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205311928


So back at ya!

Ahem, did you bother to read that?

"The Big 12 Conference Board of Directors agreed to a formal grant of television rights for a minimum of six years during a teleconference today."

As stated above, it was never signed by all parties until the new TV contracts were made, which was what was stated above.

So, I guess

[note, before anyone else responds, can we agree to either cease with the nut kicking, or allow a five minute recess for some ice and to install cups?]

I know I'm going on nothing but memory, but I remember being curious that there was never an announcement of the signing of the original Grant of Rights in the fall of 2011, until sometime in winter or spring of 2012 the Big 12 commish answered some other question and revealed that the GOR had been signed "months ago".

What I _think_ happened is:
Fall 2011: GOR Classic is proposed, negotiated and signed.
2012: GOR Extension is agreed to, pending completion of the TV deals.
2012: TV deals, GOR are completed and signed at the same time.

Which would mean ESPN had secure access to some UT and OU games for the 3-4 years left on the old Big 12 deal.

Internet is also the spread of more ignorance than any technology in history (I'm thinking in general terms, not about any particular board or blog or topic). Self-proclaimed experts on any topic repeat nonsense that continually gets repeated. Big companies have to monitor the internet to counter false information about themselves and their product.

(08-05-2014 03:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  That logic is unassailable, IMO. Every negotiation involves using whatever leverage you have - positive or negative. What seems to me to be the most striking thing about this negotiation is that it seems to strongly disprove, or at least dispute, the idea that the networks are trying hellbent to shrink the P5 to the P4. If that were true, why would they go to great lengths to keep that goal from happening on its own, and sooner, without intervention?

I'm not saying your logic here is flawed, it's not. But there is another possible explanation, timing. The property involved "the Big 12" had its rights more or less equally divided between FOX and ESPN. A move to the PAC by Texas and Oklahoma destabilizes ESPN and potentially FOX's investment since the PACN is the property of the PAC. In that case maintaining the Big 12 contract is in the interest of both FOX and ESPN. Both only lease rights from the PAC.

I found it interesting that in the immediate aftermath of the Big 12's survival that both FOX and ESPN put the rush on to sign T3 deals with key properties. FOX landed Oklahoma and ESPN of course landed the LHN for Texas and signed a T3 deal with Kansas.

While what has happened plays into the logic you put forth, it could also simply be that FOX and ESPN, given the uncertainty of so many factors involving college sports and conference realignment, were not yet ready to commit to a given strategy for future profits and that the existing contract was paid and bumped slightly to simply hold things as they are until present issues were decided and the future a bit clearer. To gain advantages with the schools they really wanted they utilized T3 as an instrument of leverage.

I would guess that this - uncertainty - may be the most important factor of all. So, while some internet posters may want to proclaim that one outcome or another is inevitable, the people who will actually make those decisions don't agree with them. Since there are a lot of conflicting opinions circulating on the web, it is a near certainty that one of them will turn out to be right. And the ones who guessed correctly will no doubt crow about their intelligence and perspicacity, even though they probably had about a one in four chance based on dumb luck alone.

As long as the cost for expressing one of those opinions is zero, forums like this one will thrive.

Ken D forums like this one thrive because in a world in which people feel like they have so little control the illusion of figuring things out is essential to the psyche. If we all truly recognized that we had no control over what might happen next things would really be insane and horrific. Even government itself is an illusion of control. They may control us but they can't control Yellowstone, asteroids, the sun, or even other governments.

My theory is that since the backyard fence is no longer utilized to air opinions with neighbors that the internet (with even less regard for the other guy's input than the fence between neighbors) is now one of the most important bleed off valves in our society. After 20 years of social work, 15 years of corporate sales, and various other endeavors I now realize that people are more on edge than at any time in my life. They are isolated and separated from others by electronic fences now. The society in which they exist is overly sensitive and reactive and treats new ideas frequently as some kind of hostile affront and they confuse feelings with facts. If not for the internet chat room the carbonation of their souls would burst forth from the shaking of their uncertain worlds leaving only a sticky mess where a persona once lived.

Realignment at its zenith essentially coincided with the effects (about a 2 year lag from the actual event) of the last economic collapse. I think it became a social phenomenon because it had skullduggery, it assaulted peoples cherished memories of beloved institutions, and it was a perfect foil for the expression of extraneous discontent over something they knew their personal opinion couldn't touch, the economy. The passion expressed over realignment has been both legitimate and a projection of feelings over issues where no other appropriate or communal outlets existed. It has both galvanized some fan bases and alienated others.

I say this because recognizing the need for people to feel that they have some sway over the events of their world is important. For that reason I have entertained all manner of notions and tried to give most of them equal respect. But you are 100% correct in that nobody knows where this thing goes. But, it is a pass time so does it really matter? And if some poor schmo thinks he or she figured it out when really they just made a lucky guess and that motivates them to tackle other issues in life that count then isn't it a good thing in a weird sort of way?

When this is over the networks, commissioners and presidents will have decided. But if the public owns it, debates it, or even crows about it, all I've got to say is thank God for a great distraction from a really volatile era of history.

They better not control Yellowstone. That hour and a half traffic jam better have been random. Remarkable place (even traffic jams in the middle of nowhere). Took a long time to convince my wife to go but she was impressed.

That's hilarious! Thanks for a good laugh.

(08-05-2014 03:43 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  1- The 6 year agreement was done prior to the ESPN deal being finalized in 2012. I can't find the link right now but remember it being confirmed in radio interviews. Either way it was a formality delayed only by giving the respective BOR's and legal teams time for due dillegence.

2-
Five minutes is up....

You miss the point. The agreement was "pending" the agreement of TV contracts. Straight from the mouth of the Big 12. So saying that ESPN had to still make it worth their time to stay, which was Underdogs point, is true. Saying the GOR was already there and the teams could not leave, as you are, is false. I work in real estate. People propose and write up contracts to buy houses all the time. Doesn't mean shit until it is signed by both parties. That was his point. And it's true.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to get more ice. Damn cup didn't work.

(08-05-2014 03:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  What I _think_ happened is:
Fall 2011: GOR Classic is proposed, negotiated and signed.
2012: GOR Extension is agreed to, pending completion of the TV deals.
2012: TV deals, GOR are completed and signed at the same time.

Which would mean ESPN had secure access to some UT and OU games for the 3-4 years left on the old Big 12 deal.

Remember in 2011, Missouri was still involved. For reference

' Wrote:Boren said the grant of rights was much stronger than an exit fee as a device to keep the league together. “We feel extremely good about the results of this meeting,” he said.

But the Missouri chancellor, Brady Deaton, the chairman of the Big 12 presidents, told reporters in Missouri that there was no agreement on a grant of rights.

A Missouri spokesman said in an e-mail, “It’s my understanding that there was no agreement, the agreement was to pursue that as a potential outcome.” The spokesman later confirmed with Deaton that “there was no agreement.”

While there was much confusion on the grant of rights issue, it was clear that Missouri had not signed its rights over yet and the door is left ajar for it to go to the Southeastern Conference.

This was where the six year agreement came from. They were the ones pushing the GOR at that point, before the left for the SEC in November. Obviously that agreement wasn't signed, seeing as how Missouri left a month and a half later. It was agreed to well after that, no earlier than 2012. But never signed. The formal signed GOR was the 13 year one that matched the length of the TV contract.



I am not sure all of this matters in the end. All that means, that the contracts were signed to secure the Big 12 as opposed to the true assessed market value calculated independently, is the question of whether or not the conference was overpaid is a valid question.

It does not mean the answer is yes. Just that the question is valid.

(08-05-2014 04:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  What I _think_ happened is:
Fall 2011: GOR Classic is proposed, negotiated and signed.
2012: GOR Extension is agreed to, pending completion of the TV deals.
2012: TV deals, GOR are completed and signed at the same time.

Which would mean ESPN had secure access to some UT and OU games for the 3-4 years left on the old Big 12 deal.

Remember in 2011, Missouri was still involved. For reference

' Wrote:Boren said the grant of rights was much stronger than an exit fee as a device to keep the league together. “We feel extremely good about the results of this meeting,” he said.

But the Missouri chancellor, Brady Deaton, the chairman of the Big 12 presidents, told reporters in Missouri that there was no agreement on a grant of rights.

A Missouri spokesman said in an e-mail, “It’s my understanding that there was no agreement, the agreement was to pursue that as a potential outcome.” The spokesman later confirmed with Deaton that “there was no agreement.”

While there was much confusion on the grant of rights issue, it was clear that Missouri had not signed its rights over yet and the door is left ajar for it to go to the Southeastern Conference.

This was where the six year agreement came from. They were the ones pushing the GOR at that point, before the left for the SEC in November. Obviously that agreement wasn't signed, seeing as how Missouri left a month and a half later. It was agreed to well after that, no earlier than 2012. But never signed. The formal signed GOR was the 13 year one that matched the length of the TV contract.



I am not sure all of this matters in the end. All that means, that the contracts were signed to secure the Big 12 as opposed to the true assessed market value calculated independently, is the question of whether or not the conference was overpaid is a valid question.

It does not mean the answer is yes. Just that the question is valid.

Radio interviews with our AD months later confirmed things were signed after that point.

If the Big 12 is overpaid it isn't by much. The contract it would apply to is much less per game than the one with the current roster at the time of it's signing.

(08-05-2014 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:43 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  1- The 6 year agreement was done prior to the ESPN deal being finalized in 2012. I can't find the link right now but remember it being confirmed in radio interviews. Either way it was a formality delayed only by giving the respective BOR's and legal teams time for due dillegence.

2-
Five minutes is up....

You miss the point. The agreement was "pending" the TV contract. So saying that ESPN had to still make it worth their time to stay, which was Underdogs point, is true. You can't debate it.

I work in real estate. People propose and write up contracts all the time. Doesn't mean **** until it is signed. That was his point.

and you miss the point

this thread is about the Big 12 being over or under paid

that was already thoroughly debunked based on the fact that ESPN signed a new deal with the Big 12 3 years earlier than they had to and that was with the current 10 team configuration in place

there was no dire threat for ESPN to lose the Big 12 first tier deal with the Big 12 to Fox because ESPN already owned that deal for another three years beyond when ESPN renegotiated a new agreement with the Big 12 in the current configuration

so now once some have their arguments thoroughly trashed and tossed on the waste heap of "thought" they go to the next attempt to make that claim and that is that ESPN had to make Texas and Texas and Texas and OU happy or they would leave the conference

but of course the laughable aspect of that specious claim is that it does not prove in any way shape or form that the Big 12 is over paid what it proves in fact is that ESPN wanted the Big 12 content and they were willing to pay for it and they were willing to sign a new deal three years early to retain that content and to have the Big 12 in the current form

so again ESPN was willing to pay the money and to do so three years before they needed to and they were willing to do so because that was what they wanted to do and that was the VALUE they placed on the Big 12

so again trying to talk about ESPN bribing Texas and Texas and UT and Texas and OU to stay in the Big 12 is not a valid argument to support that the Big 12 is over paid because market makers/market forces and those that PAY THE MONEY wanted to pay that money for the Big 12 in the current form

the money was willingly paid 3 years early when ESPN already had the first tier rights and more importantly when it was too late for UT and Texas and The University of Texas and OU to say they were going to move conferences immediately and ESPN had at least one season where they could have said "we prefer to wait a season to see how the current configuration of the Big 12 does before we renegotiate a new contract several years early"

but of course ESPN did not do that they immediately renegotiated a deal willingly with the big 12 in the current configuration when they had 3 years remaining on their current first tier deal with the Big 12

so again there is nothing at all that suggest that because ESPN wanted Texas and UT and Texas The University of to remain in the big 12 with OU that they had to over pay to do so.......because the mere fact that they were actually WILLING to renegotiate the deal and to do so three years early means that THEY VALUED THE BIG 12 IN THE CURRENT FORMAT AND WERE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT

if ESPN did not value the Big 12 in the current format at the price that they paid to retain and extend the tier 1 agreement with the Big 12 then they would not have made that deal......but they did make that deal much earlier than they needed to......because THEY WANTED THAT CONTENT......which means they placed a value on that content that they were willing to retain and obtain an extension of ownership for it......and thus because a market maker/buyer/group that pays for the rights to something was willing to pay for something when they were under nu duress to do so that simply and very clearly means that the market placed a value on the Big 12 and the Big 12 was paid that value

and again to make clear.....if ESPN only wanted Texas and UT and University Texas of and OU and their content then ESPN could have tried to act to obtain that content or to have those teams move elsewhere and ESPN could then obtain that content or pay for that content wherever those two schools landed

but instead ESPN wanted the content of Texas and UT and Of Texas University and OU when Texas Of University and UT and Texas and OU were in the Big 12 with the teams in the Big 12 and with the teams that are in the Big 12 that are in the Big 12 now and not the teams that were in the Big 12 before or teams that might have been in the Big 12 or teams that Texas and UT and Of University Texas and OU might have been with in a different conference or having admitted to the Big 12

so again no one that has an ounce of logic or reason or even a limited amount of intelligence would try and make the argument that ESPN renegotiated a deal 3 years early that some claim was done to keep UT and Texas and Texas Of University and OU in the Big 12 with the current teams in the Big 12 and not the past teams in the Big 12 or the teams that might have been in the Big 12 or teams in another conference because ESPN in fact wanted Texas of UT and University and Texas and OU elsewhere or because ESPN did not value the content of Texas and University Texas of and UT when those schools were playing other members of the Big 12 that are currently in the Big 12 and that were not in the Big 12 before other teams left the Big 12 and new teams were added to the Big 12

again what type of stupid idiotic fool would try and claim that ESPN does not value the Big 12 in the current configuration at the amount they were willing to pay when ESPN willingly paid that and did so three years early

and trying to say that ESPN only did so because they wanted t keep two particular teams in the Big 12 is not a valid argument......because making a claim that ESPN paid a sum of money three years early to keep two particular schools in a configuration of a conference is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the claim that the Big 12 is over paid

because ESPN WANTED THESE TWO TEAMS IN THE CONFERENCE THAT IS CONFIGURED THE WAY THE CONFERENCE IS CONFIGURED NOW.....if they did not want that they would not have paid for that three years early

again what kind of moronic argument is it that ESPN wanted Texas of University and UT and Texas and OU to stay in the Big 12 so they over paid for that.....THEY WANTED THEM TO STAY IN THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE BIG 12.......that alone means the wanted that content as it is NOW not as it was in the past or how it could have been or what it would be if two teams moved elsewhere......it means THEY WANTED WHAT THEY PAID FOR

and TO GET WHAT THEY WANTED THEY PAID FOR IT and they paid for it three years early

why would ESPN pay for content three years early if they did not want it.....how on earth could anyone with a brain claim that ESPN wanted Texas and University of Texas and UT and OU in the Big 12 and they were willing to pay for that three years early yet for some reason that has people that are logically and intellectually challenged claiming that somehow ESPN over paid for that

because somehow when you want something, you prefer something to remain how it is currently configured, you prefer that the members that are together in a group remain together instead of some of them leaving and when you pay for that to be so and you do so three years early we are all suppose to put our dunce caps on and think that means that you over paid for that.....even though that is what you wanted, that is what you paid for, you paid what you were willing to pay and you did so three years early.....so again what in that points to anything that would show any evidence that ESPN over paid for something

and then when you add in the fact that after ESPN paid for the Big 12 to remain in the current configuration and they did so three years early because that is what they wanted and that is what they wanted to pay for and they willingly paid for that ESPN went ahead and further showed their desire to have Big 12 content in the current configuration of the Big 12 by paying $40 million dollars to a 10 team league to square off in The Sugar Bowl against a 14 team league that they are also paying $40 million dollars in a bowl game that ESPN 100% controls and when ESPN had other options like the ACC, AAC, MWC, MAC, Sunbelt or CUSA that they could have offered $40 million to, $30 million to or even $27,5 million to in order to have their top team outside any team that makes the playoffs appear in The Sugar Bowl

but ESPN did not call any of those other conferences and make them an offer and they did not try and offer the Big 12 less for having only 10 members.....instead they offered the Big 12 $40 million and then AFTER that went and offered the ACC with 14 members $27.5 million to face a rotating team from the PAC 12, Big 10 or SEC that comes after any playoff teams and after those conferences send a team to The Sugar Bowl and The Rose Bowl

so again clearly ESPN wanted the Big 12 content because they stepped up and paid for the Big 12 content three years early and even if someone can't accept that and tries to toss out the strawman argument that it was paid to keep Texas and UT and University Texas of and OU from leaving the Big 12 that is in fact not in support of the claim that the Big 12 is over paid it is further proof that the Big 12 is paid what ESPN values them at because ESPN wanted the Big 12 and they wanted the Big 12 as it is configured now and that means with Texas and UT and Of Texas University and OU being members of a conference called the Big 12 with the other members of the Big 12 that are currently members

and along with that they gave a 10 team Big 12 12.5 million more to face the SEC in The Sugar Bowl VS what they gave an 14 team ACC of the Orange Bowl

so unless someone is brain dead, logically challenged, does not understand how market forces work, does not understand basic math or fails to realize that if you want two teams in a conference with 8 other teams instead of elsewhere and you pay three years early to have that happen it means you actually value that at what you paid for it and then when you make a second lucrative deal that surpasses a deal that you could have offered to others you simply can't reasonably argue that the Big 12 is over paid

Sorry, I did not read your 8000 word thesis. However, ESPN did not want FOX to get the PAC16 and be locked out of 2 time zones - it really is as simple as that.

If the Big12 is currently overpaid or not will be determined at the next round of negotiations. However, the fact that posters are presenting an argument that ESPN signed a bad deal based on available markets (5 states) and inventory (10 teams) is not as unreasonable as you suggest.

(08-05-2014 05:09 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Sorry, I did not read your 8000 word thesis. However, ESPN did not want FOX to get the PAC16 and be locked out of 2 time zones - it really is as simple as that.

If the Big12 is actually overpaid or not will be be determined until the next round of negotiations. However, to suggest that ESPN signed a bad deal based on available markets (5 states) and inventory (10 teams) is not as unreasonable as you suggest.

it is as simple as you not having a clue

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6471380

the PAC 10/12 signed their TV deal with ESPN and Fox in 2011

so fail #1 for you.....ESPN would not be locked out of two time zones because ESPN is a part of the PAC 12 deal

fail #2 for you ESPN signed that deal with the PAC 12 when it was the PAC 10 and was moving to the PAC 12.....so even if the PAC 12 had added 4 more teams to go to the PAC 16 ESPN was still a part of that deal

fail #3 for you.....the Big 12 did not renegotiate their TV deal with ESPN 3 years early until after ESPN already had a part of the deal with the PAC 12 so if ESPN had only wanted Texas and UT and Of University Texas and OU and two hanger on ers and did not want the other 6 teams that would have been left in the Big 12 ESPN still would have had that content if Texas and Texas University Of and and OU would have gone to the PAC 12 because ESPN already had an agreement in place with the PAC 10/12 that would have still been in place if they were the PAC 16

so you simply have no point it is as simple as that

and PS perhaps if you would actually read something you would actually know what you are talking about instead of making arguments that are easily refuted in 10 seconds or less and that clearly show you have no grasp of what is being discussed because you do not even know the basics f who the PAC 10/12 has a TV deal with or when it was signed

(08-05-2014 05:09 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Sorry, I did not read your 8000 word thesis. However, ESPN did not want FOX to get the PAC16 and be locked out of 2 time zones - it really is as simple as that.

If the Big12 is currently overpaid or not will be determined at the next round of negotiations. However, the fact that posters are presenting an argument that ESPN signed a bad deal based on available markets (5 states) and inventory (10 teams) is not as unreasonable as you suggest.

At a minimum, we cannot know if ESPN and FOX overpaid for the B12 unless we saw their financial statements associated with the deals.



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Are the punctuation keys on your computer broken?

(08-05-2014 05:09 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Sorry, I did not read your 8000 word thesis. However, ESPN did not want FOX to get the PAC16 and be locked out of 2 time zones - it really is as simple as that.

If the Big12 is currently overpaid or not will be determined at the next round of negotiations. However, the fact that posters are presenting an argument that ESPN signed a bad deal based on available markets (5 states) and inventory (10 teams) is not as unreasonable as you suggest.

PS one other laughable note to your claim about two time zones

if ESPN actually did not have an agreement with the PAC 10/12 and it was only Fox that had an agreement with the PAC 10/12

keeping UT and OU in the Big 12 would still not prevent ESPN from being locked out of two time zones because last time I checked Oklahoma and Texas are in the central time zone and there are two time zones for the continental USA still west of the central time zone they are called the mountain time zone and the pacific time zone

so even if ESPN was not a part of the agreement with the PAC 10/12 (and they are) keeping Texas and Oklahoma in the Big 12 still would not have prevented ESPN from being locked out of two time zones

so even if you don't read this.....consider reading a geography book instead

(08-05-2014 04:54 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 04:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  What I _think_ happened is:
Fall 2011: GOR Classic is proposed, negotiated and signed.
2012: GOR Extension is agreed to, pending completion of the TV deals.
2012: TV deals, GOR are completed and signed at the same time.

Which would mean ESPN had secure access to some UT and OU games for the 3-4 years left on the old Big 12 deal.

Remember in 2011, Missouri was still involved. For reference

' Wrote:Boren said the grant of rights was much stronger than an exit fee as a device to keep the league together. “We feel extremely good about the results of this meeting,” he said.

But the Missouri chancellor, Brady Deaton, the chairman of the Big 12 presidents, told reporters in Missouri that there was no agreement on a grant of rights.

A Missouri spokesman said in an e-mail, “It’s my understanding that there was no agreement, the agreement was to pursue that as a potential outcome.” The spokesman later confirmed with Deaton that “there was no agreement.”

While there was much confusion on the grant of rights issue, it was clear that Missouri had not signed its rights over yet and the door is left ajar for it to go to the Southeastern Conference.

This was where the six year agreement came from. They were the ones pushing the GOR at that point, before the left for the SEC in November. Obviously that agreement wasn't signed, seeing as how Missouri left a month and a half later. It was agreed to well after that, no earlier than 2012. But never signed. The formal signed GOR was the 13 year one that matched the length of the TV contract.



I am not sure all of this matters in the end. All that means, that the contracts were signed to secure the Big 12 as opposed to the true assessed market value calculated independently, is the question of whether or not the conference was overpaid is a valid question.

It does not mean the answer is yes. Just that the question is valid.

Radio interviews with our AD months later confirmed things were signed after that point.

If the Big 12 is overpaid it isn't by much. The contract it would apply to is much less per game than the one with the current roster at the time of it's signing.

Then he wasn't being truthful or the big 12 spokesman was lying. But since Missouri left 45 days later, I think it's safe to say it wasn't signed then. Very safe. And thanks for not kicking this time. I'm running out of ice bags.

(08-05-2014 05:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 04:54 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 04:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  What I _think_ happened is:
Fall 2011: GOR Classic is proposed, negotiated and signed.
2012: GOR Extension is agreed to, pending completion of the TV deals.
2012: TV deals, GOR are completed and signed at the same time.

Which would mean ESPN had secure access to some UT and OU games for the 3-4 years left on the old Big 12 deal.

Remember in 2011, Missouri was still involved. For reference

' Wrote:Boren said the grant of rights was much stronger than an exit fee as a device to keep the league together. “We feel extremely good about the results of this meeting,” he said.

But the Missouri chancellor, Brady Deaton, the chairman of the Big 12 presidents, told reporters in Missouri that there was no agreement on a grant of rights.

A Missouri spokesman said in an e-mail, “It’s my understanding that there was no agreement, the agreement was to pursue that as a potential outcome.” The spokesman later confirmed with Deaton that “there was no agreement.”

While there was much confusion on the grant of rights issue, it was clear that Missouri had not signed its rights over yet and the door is left ajar for it to go to the Southeastern Conference.

This was where the six year agreement came from. They were the ones pushing the GOR at that point, before the left for the SEC in November. Obviously that agreement wasn't signed, seeing as how Missouri left a month and a half later. It was agreed to well after that, no earlier than 2012. But never signed. The formal signed GOR was the 13 year one that matched the length of the TV contract.



I am not sure all of this matters in the end. All that means, that the contracts were signed to secure the Big 12 as opposed to the true assessed market value calculated independently, is the question of whether or not the conference was overpaid is a valid question.

It does not mean the answer is yes. Just that the question is valid.

Radio interviews with our AD months later confirmed things were signed after that point.

If the Big 12 is overpaid it isn't by much. The contract it would apply to is much less per game than the one with the current roster at the time of it's signing.

Then he wasn't being truthful or the big 12 spokesman was lying. But since Missouri left 45 days later, I think it's safe to say it wasn't signed then. Very safe. And thanks for not kicking this time. I'm running out of ice bags.

Not to nitpick but the press releases said that the 9 other than Mizzou (TCU+8) agreed so it wouldn't have applied to them.

It was signed in the months after the announcement but before any ESPN deal was done in mid 2012. BOR's take time and so do lawyers which is why it wasn't done at the announcement but was considered enough of a formality to where it made sense to announce.

(08-05-2014 05:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 04:54 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 04:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  What I _think_ happened is:
Fall 2011: GOR Classic is proposed, negotiated and signed.
2012: GOR Extension is agreed to, pending completion of the TV deals.
2012: TV deals, GOR are completed and signed at the same time.

Which would mean ESPN had secure access to some UT and OU games for the 3-4 years left on the old Big 12 deal.

Remember in 2011, Missouri was still involved. For reference

' Wrote:Boren said the grant of rights was much stronger than an exit fee as a device to keep the league together. “We feel extremely good about the results of this meeting,” he said.

But the Missouri chancellor, Brady Deaton, the chairman of the Big 12 presidents, told reporters in Missouri that there was no agreement on a grant of rights.

A Missouri spokesman said in an e-mail, “It’s my understanding that there was no agreement, the agreement was to pursue that as a potential outcome.” The spokesman later confirmed with Deaton that “there was no agreement.”

While there was much confusion on the grant of rights issue, it was clear that Missouri had not signed its rights over yet and the door is left ajar for it to go to the Southeastern Conference.

This was where the six year agreement came from. They were the ones pushing the GOR at that point, before the left for the SEC in November. Obviously that agreement wasn't signed, seeing as how Missouri left a month and a half later. It was agreed to well after that, no earlier than 2012. But never signed. The formal signed GOR was the 13 year one that matched the length of the TV contract.



I am not sure all of this matters in the end. All that means, that the contracts were signed to secure the Big 12 as opposed to the true assessed market value calculated independently, is the question of whether or not the conference was overpaid is a valid question.

It does not mean the answer is yes. Just that the question is valid.

Radio interviews with our AD months later confirmed things were signed after that point.

If the Big 12 is overpaid it isn't by much. The contract it would apply to is much less per game than the one with the current roster at the time of it's signing.

Then he wasn't being truthful or the big 12 spokesman was lying. But since Missouri left 45 days later, I think it's safe to say it wasn't signed then. Very safe. And thanks for not kicking this time. I'm running out of ice bags.

I remember the talk at the time was it was signed by everybody-but-Missouri/WVU, plus maybe WVU. Mainly because I was following the issue, wondering why there hadn't been a big hoopla about the formal signing, until the commish said "oh, yeah, that got signed months ago"

But I dont have a source and am way too lazy to try to hunt it up with google.

2 things I disagree with TodgeRodge
U said ESPN had other options if TexOkla went to Pac
AAC does not replace Tex & Okla
U also said Espn did not have enough data on Fox to evalulate
I believe ESPN does stratatic & long range planning
and chose to keep B-12 intact

(08-05-2014 10:50 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  2 things I disagree with TodgeRodge
U said ESPN had other options if TexOkla went to Pac
AAC does not replace Tex & Okla
U also said Espn did not have enough data on Fox to evalulate
I believe ESPN does stratatic & long range planning
and chose to keep B-12 intact

I only said that ESPN had other options in relation to The Sugar Bowl specifically and The Big 12 being the ones that ESPN PICKED as the conference they wanted to match up against the SEC and to pay $40 million dollars to for those rights and that match up instead of going with any of the other available conferences that included the ACC, AAC, MWC, MAC, Sunbelt or CUSA......of course the ACC would be considered by most to be the only other option, but with that option available to ESPN ESPN still decided to pay The Big 12 $40 million dollars per year with 10 teams while paying the ACC $27.5 million per year for The Orange Bowl

ESPN owned the rights to both bowl games and had all the options available to them and they valued a 10 team Big 12 at $4 million per team for The Sugar Bowl while they valued a 14 team ACC at $1.965 million per team for The Orange Bowl

I mentioned nothing about other options for ESPN in relation to Texas and OU going to the PAC 12

and in fact ESPN would not need other options in Texas and OU went to the PAC 12 because ESPN is a participant in the PAC 12 media deal

I mentioned nothing about ESPN having data on Fox I mentioned ESPN having 3 years left on their first tier Big 12 media rights deal and OU and Texas were not going to be able to leave the Big 12 even if they wanted to before the 2013 season when it was Sept. of 2012 when ESPN and The Big 12 were negotiating the rights agreement renewal and extension several years early so ESPN had the ability to sit and wait and see how The Big 12 did in the 2013 season before renegotiating that agreement at what would have been 2 years early

instead without having even a single season of football played by the new configuration of The Big 12 to evaluate ESPN went ahead and renegotiated and renewed their first tier rights agreement 3 years early when there was really no major compelling reason for them to do so especially if they felt they were looking at over paying for those rights