(12-23-2014 07:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 06:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 02:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 08:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 10:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I don't think I'm looking at it all wrong at all. When ND agreed to the deal they WANTED to come to the ACC as it was constituted, unlike the SEC-lite version of 2003.

If Texas comes and says they must have a particular Texas team, then they are basically saying they don't want the ACC without so-and-so team or simply another Texas team. It's not ND's fault that Texas isn't as enamored of the ACC as presently constituted as it was.

So, it is a demand that ND didn't have. The ACC would have to at least ask. ND may not care and probably would not care. But if they didn't care I doubt the football schools, (including Texas and ND behind the scenes) will want Kansas as #16. If anything Texas would want another Texas school or Oklahoma.

Now Oklahoma would be welcomed by the ACC football schools, but I'd bet they'd vote down Kansas and would insist upon WVU over any other B12 school outside of Oklahoma. All one has to do is look at Louisville vs UConn to see there is a precedent for this.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe things have changed a lot, and Oklahoma would be welcomed now. But when Dodds "talked" to the ACC before re: Texahoma finding a landing spot, the boys at Grandover were only interested in Texas alone.

If you are referring to the talks the ACC had with Texas back in the late summer of 2011, the ACC was only going to take two of Texas, Syracuse, and Pitt because they still hadn't gotten ND on board yet at that time. The problem with Texas was TTU, not Oklahoma.

http://www.statefansnation.com/2011/09/o...as-to-acc/

Besides, Texas was using the ACC at that time to block Oklahoma and Oklahoma State's move to the Pac-12 more than anything.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/huskies/2011/0...port-says/

The only source that I can find that reported Kansas as the target of the ACC was at this same time with Texas. And that was reported through a Kansas sports blog four days later via a headline that referred to a source and no real article after the headline, and a day or two prior to the ACC choosing SU and Pitt.

Cheers,
Neil

The big difference now though is that everyone is open and available. Back then the choices were much more limited. Now, the situation is able to be leveraged. Oklahoma could likely leverage themselves a position in either the Big Ten or SEC depending upon their tastes. Obviously you guys know whom I think they favor and I know some of you would disagree but we can all agree that neither the Big Ten nor the SEC were at all connected with any of that fiasco.

I don't think Oklahoma would care to follow Texas to the ACC, not at all. They don't need to be in the same conference with Texas. That rivalry game will persist no matter what.

Not following your reasoning here. Precisely how could Oklahoma "leverage" an invite to the BiG? They couldn't do it to the PAC in 2011, why would the BiG be more susceptible to this leveraging when the BiG has way more power than the PAC?

Not saying that Oklahoma isn't an excellent 'get' for the BiG, just not sure how much 'leverage' they have in bringing an invite about.

Cheers,
Neil

Because of what is possible should The Big Ten, SEC, ACC and PAC all move to 16 teams. They would most likely vote in new rules immediately allowing them to move to having four divisions, having their own tournaments and also being able to renegotiate their tv deals due to there only being four major conferences instead of five.

The Big Ten was looking East at the time before when Oklahoma was feeling around. That door has been closed. The options are more limited. Oklahoma is the best option for the Big Ten if they want to improve their football pedigree.

Keep in mind that if Texas waits out the GOR then Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma will all gain a lot more in their moves. Why? They won't be wasting their leverage as the best remaining targets by using it to gain entry for little brothers. Instead I would think that there would be a kind of a bidding war for them. I would also think that in a bidding war that the Big 10 and SEC would be best positioned to get them. After Rutgers was added to the Big 10 several in positions of conference leadership remarked that realignment was over with for about 14 years. While that figure was stated just to reflect the end of the lives of this current set of GOR's and it has been over 2 years since the remarks were made, and that all of that was prior to stipends and autonomy, it is very likely that the Big 12 who will stand a vote for extension of those rights in just a few years now, could still be the first to go. Let's say that by 2016 the three schools named above issue a formal statement that they will leave after serving a 2 year notice then tacitly they are saying there will be no extension of the GOR. The scramble would be on. West Virginia, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State might well find new homes at that point. Perhaps Iowa State does as well. It then takes only 1 to immediately end it. Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma would owe no exit fees as they would have served their two years of notice. If the result of their announcement is that 6 others find homes on their own there wouldn't even be a GOR penalty to be paid.

In that kind of setting, since these would likely be the last expansion possibilities for the other P4 I do think niche market values would go higher and that will be good for a couple of the Texas schools, perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State, but definitely for West Virginia. Also the only school truly hampered contractually in 4 years will be Texas. They would likely move to an ESPN friendly conference because of it. Oklahoma and Kansas would truly be free agents in 4 years as both would only have 1 year left on their T3 contracts at that time. It will get interesting.

(12-24-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Keep in mind that if Texas waits out the GOR then Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma will all gain a lot more in their moves. Why? They won't be wasting their leverage as the best remaining targets by using it to gain entry for little brothers. Instead I would think that there would be a kind of a bidding war for them. I would also think that in a bidding war that the Big 10 and SEC would be best positioned to get them. After Rutgers was added to the Big 10 several in positions of conference leadership remarked that realignment was over with for about 14 years. While that figure was stated just to reflect the end of the lives of this current set of GOR's and it has been over 2 years since the remarks were made, and that all of that was prior to stipends and autonomy, it is very likely that the Big 12 who will stand a vote for extension of those rights in just a few years now, could still be the first to go. Let's say that by 2016 the three schools named above issue a formal statement that they will leave after serving a 2 year notice then tacitly they are saying there will be no extension of the GOR. The scramble would be on. West Virginia, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State might well find new homes at that point. Perhaps Iowa State does as well. It then takes only 1 to immediately end it. Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma would owe no exit fees as they would have served their two years of notice. If the result of their announcement is that 6 others find homes on their own there wouldn't even be a GOR penalty to be paid.

In that kind of setting, since these would likely be the last expansion possibilities for the other P4 I do think niche market values would go higher and that will be good for a couple of the Texas schools, perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State, but definitely for West Virginia. Also the only school truly hampered contractually in 4 years will be Texas. They would likely move to an ESPN friendly conference because of it. Oklahoma and Kansas would truly be free agents in 4 years as both would only have 1 year left on their T3 contracts at that time. It will get interesting.

I still think a lot of this speculation appears to based upon a misreading of the GOR obtained by kslamb, the Ohio State fan. The old GOR signed in 2011 would have expired on June 30, 2018. The one they drew up on September 7, 2012 and retroactive to July 1, 2012, says the new GOR is in effect for the duration of the Term, with the Term clearly being defined as through June 30, 2025.

Am I missing something else?

Cheers,
Neil

(12-24-2014 05:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Keep in mind that if Texas waits out the GOR then Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma will all gain a lot more in their moves. Why? They won't be wasting their leverage as the best remaining targets by using it to gain entry for little brothers. Instead I would think that there would be a kind of a bidding war for them. I would also think that in a bidding war that the Big 10 and SEC would be best positioned to get them. After Rutgers was added to the Big 10 several in positions of conference leadership remarked that realignment was over with for about 14 years. While that figure was stated just to reflect the end of the lives of this current set of GOR's and it has been over 2 years since the remarks were made, and that all of that was prior to stipends and autonomy, it is very likely that the Big 12 who will stand a vote for extension of those rights in just a few years now, could still be the first to go. Let's say that by 2016 the three schools named above issue a formal statement that they will leave after serving a 2 year notice then tacitly they are saying there will be no extension of the GOR. The scramble would be on. West Virginia, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State might well find new homes at that point. Perhaps Iowa State does as well. It then takes only 1 to immediately end it. Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma would owe no exit fees as they would have served their two years of notice. If the result of their announcement is that 6 others find homes on their own there wouldn't even be a GOR penalty to be paid.

In that kind of setting, since these would likely be the last expansion possibilities for the other P4 I do think niche market values would go higher and that will be good for a couple of the Texas schools, perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State, but definitely for West Virginia. Also the only school truly hampered contractually in 4 years will be Texas. They would likely move to an ESPN friendly conference because of it. Oklahoma and Kansas would truly be free agents in 4 years as both would only have 1 year left on their T3 contracts at that time. It will get interesting.

I still think a lot of this speculation appears to based upon a misreading of the GOR obtained by kslamb, the Ohio State fan. The old GOR signed in 2011 would have expired on June 30, 2018. The one they drew up on September 7, 2012 and retroactive to July 1, 2012, says the new GOR is in effect for the duration of the Term, with the Term clearly being defined as through June 30, 2025.

Am I missing something else?

Cheers,
Neil

No you are not missing anything and I never heard of the guy from Ohio State that you are mentioning. The new GOR does (at least to my understanding) stand for an extension vote in about 7 years (and that is a few years prior to the actual end of the GOR). Notification by August 15th of 2016, plus two years of served notification, leaves about 6 years remaining (since a notifying school would start play in a new conference in September of 2019) in the official time remaining before a move to a new conference would occur and would come about a year before the extension vote. With the exit fee being waived with the Big 12's procedure being met, the remaining buyout of the last 6 years of the television contract would be the penalty for leaving early. But, since we are in untested waters here, the announcement of the three best properties exiting would likely bring about the immediate exodus of any remaining programs with options of which there are several. So in the end it will come down to a network making a path for the remaining one or two needed to obtain 8 and that would be a lot cheaper for them than having to place 8 all on their own.

Let's say hypothetically that the Big 10 wins the contract bidding over the SEC for Oklahoma and Kansas. Texas would choose between the ACC and SEC because they are under obligation to ESPN until June of 2031. So let's say they pick the ACC and that T.C.U./Baylor comes with them and N.D. remains independently associated. A sixteen full member division of the ACC could be drawn up so that Texas and T.C.U./Baylor have a flight across the Gulf and could be placed into a division with Miami and F.S.U. Well the SEC still wants a presence in DFW and Oklahoma State delivers that and Oklahoma. West Virginia delivers a slither of the beltway. They are in. Now all the networks have to do is place two of Texas Tech, Kansas State, T.C.U./Baylor and Iowa State to get it done. Would having the main presence in Texas be worth T.C.U./Baylor and Texas Tech to the SEC? Would having an entrance into Texas be worth T.C.U./Baylor and Texas Tech to the PAC? Maybe not with Baylor but if it could be worked for Baylor to go with Texas to the ACC then Texas Tech and T.C.U. might be worth it to the PAC. Iowa State might be worth it to the Big 10 to pair with Connecticut in a broader move. Kansas State may be the toughest to place unless the SEC opted for Kansas State and a second Texas school instead of two additional Texas schools.

But the point remains it would be the best way for the networks to work the breakup from a cost perspective. It is much cheaper for them, and much more profitable for the top schools to have the conferences bid on the top schools and take the niche markets they desire, and then only pay the piper on one or two properties. And by that I mean to compensate a conference with a value beyond what the final two schools could add. I think 6 could safely find placement where their value was fair enough to pay their own way.

Since the Big 10 contract will be concluded by the Fall of 2016 the catalyst for such a scenario (especially with regards to Kansas and Oklahoma) is in place. It would be a gamble with regards to having 6 claimed on their own, but one with good odds. Then compensating the conferences for the other two needed would in the great scheme of things become the cheapest option out of the problem and it would get the networks off the hook for the final two because the market will have made the selections.

(12-24-2014 05:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 05:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Keep in mind that if Texas waits out the GOR then Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma will all gain a lot more in their moves. Why? They won't be wasting their leverage as the best remaining targets by using it to gain entry for little brothers. Instead I would think that there would be a kind of a bidding war for them. I would also think that in a bidding war that the Big 10 and SEC would be best positioned to get them. After Rutgers was added to the Big 10 several in positions of conference leadership remarked that realignment was over with for about 14 years. While that figure was stated just to reflect the end of the lives of this current set of GOR's and it has been over 2 years since the remarks were made, and that all of that was prior to stipends and autonomy, it is very likely that the Big 12 who will stand a vote for extension of those rights in just a few years now, could still be the first to go. Let's say that by 2016 the three schools named above issue a formal statement that they will leave after serving a 2 year notice then tacitly they are saying there will be no extension of the GOR. The scramble would be on. West Virginia, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State might well find new homes at that point. Perhaps Iowa State does as well. It then takes only 1 to immediately end it. Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma would owe no exit fees as they would have served their two years of notice. If the result of their announcement is that 6 others find homes on their own there wouldn't even be a GOR penalty to be paid.

In that kind of setting, since these would likely be the last expansion possibilities for the other P4 I do think niche market values would go higher and that will be good for a couple of the Texas schools, perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State, but definitely for West Virginia. Also the only school truly hampered contractually in 4 years will be Texas. They would likely move to an ESPN friendly conference because of it. Oklahoma and Kansas would truly be free agents in 4 years as both would only have 1 year left on their T3 contracts at that time. It will get interesting.

I still think a lot of this speculation appears to based upon a misreading of the GOR obtained by kslamb, the Ohio State fan. The old GOR signed in 2011 would have expired on June 30, 2018. The one they drew up on September 7, 2012 and retroactive to July 1, 2012, says the new GOR is in effect for the duration of the Term, with the Term clearly being defined as through June 30, 2025.

Am I missing something else?

Cheers,
Neil

No you are not missing anything and I never heard of the guy from Ohio State that you are mentioning. The new GOR does (at least to my understanding) stand for an extension vote in about 7 years (and that is a few years prior to the actual end of the GOR). Notification by August 15th of 2016, plus two years of served notification, leaves about 6 years remaining (since a notifying school would start play in a new conference in September of 2019) in the official time remaining before a move to a new conference would occur and would come about a year before the extension vote. With the exit fee being waived with the Big 12's procedure being met, the remaining buyout of the last 6 years of the television contract would be the penalty for leaving early. But, since we are in untested waters here, the announcement of the three best properties exiting would likely bring about the immediate exodus of any remaining programs with options of which there are several. So in the end it will come down to a network making a path for the remaining one or two needed to obtain 8 and that would be a lot cheaper for them than having to place 8 all on their own.

Let's say hypothetically that the Big 10 wins the contract bidding over the SEC for Oklahoma and Kansas. Texas would choose between the ACC and SEC because they are under obligation to ESPN until June of 2031. So let's say they pick the ACC and that T.C.U./Baylor comes with them and N.D. remains independently associated. A sixteen full member division of the ACC could be drawn up so that Texas and T.C.U./Baylor have a flight across the Gulf and could be placed into a division with Miami and F.S.U. Well the SEC still wants a presence in DFW and Oklahoma State delivers that and Oklahoma. West Virginia delivers a slither of the beltway. They are in. Now all the networks have to do is place two of Texas Tech, Kansas State, T.C.U./Baylor and Iowa State to get it done. Would having the main presence in Texas be worth T.C.U./Baylor and Texas Tech to the SEC? Would having an entrance into Texas be worth T.C.U./Baylor and Texas Tech to the PAC? Maybe not with Baylor but if it could be worked for Baylor to go with Texas to the ACC then Texas Tech and T.C.U. might be worth it to the PAC. Iowa State might be worth it to the Big 10 to pair with Connecticut in a broader move. Kansas State may be the toughest to place unless the SEC opted for Kansas State and a second Texas school instead of two additional Texas schools.

But the point remains it would be the best way for the networks to work the breakup from a cost perspective. It is much cheaper for them, and much more profitable for the top schools to have the conferences bid on the top schools and take the niche markets they desire, and then only pay the piper on one or two properties. And by that I mean to compensate a conference with a value beyond what the final two schools could add. I think 6 could safely find placement where their value was fair enough to pay their own way.

Since the Big 10 contract will be concluded by the Fall of 2016 the catalyst for such a scenario (especially with regards to Kansas and Oklahoma) is in place. It would be a gamble with regards to having 6 claimed on their own, but one with good odds. Then compensating the conferences for the other two needed would in the great scheme of things become the cheapest option out of the problem and it would get the networks off the hook for the final two because the market will have made the selections.

Even though you may never have heard of the Ohio State fan, it does appear to me that what you have heard about the GOR may be a misinterpretation the copy of the GOR which was obtained by KSLamb and put out on the internet to be reviewed by internet posters who then come away with their own interpretation of what it says.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8jb5kvZ...ZHaFE/edit

I think this part is what is likely being misinterpreted by some:

Whereas the Conference as members became parties to, that certain Grant of Rights Agreement dated November 1, 2011 (the “Original Grant of Rights Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, each of the Current Members irrevocably granted to the Conference certain of their rights through June 30, 2018;

This clause appears to me to be referring to the old GOR that was signed on November 1, 2011 and went through June 30, 2018. Perhaps this is why you heard the Big 12's GOR expires in a couple of years from other internet posters who misinterpreted this part of the contract?

What pertains to the new GOR being signed off on is basically the stuff after the NOW THEREFORE of the linked document.

That appears to grant the conference all TV rights retroactively from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2025.

I don't see anything in this document about a renewal 7 years down the road. Maybe there is something hidden in this document that I don't see?

Also, if the conference were to add any additional members, that additional member must agree to being bound to the GOR prior to being admitted. So the additional members cannot be added and then a new vote on the GOR takes place.

It appears the only thing that can possibly void the GOR is if the TV partners either reduce the contract (not going to happen) or the TV partners try to impose obligations or restrictions on ANY member institution (without written consent) than what was laid out at the time the TV rights deal was signed off on.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-24-2014 06:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 05:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 05:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Keep in mind that if Texas waits out the GOR then Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma will all gain a lot more in their moves. Why? They won't be wasting their leverage as the best remaining targets by using it to gain entry for little brothers. Instead I would think that there would be a kind of a bidding war for them. I would also think that in a bidding war that the Big 10 and SEC would be best positioned to get them. After Rutgers was added to the Big 10 several in positions of conference leadership remarked that realignment was over with for about 14 years. While that figure was stated just to reflect the end of the lives of this current set of GOR's and it has been over 2 years since the remarks were made, and that all of that was prior to stipends and autonomy, it is very likely that the Big 12 who will stand a vote for extension of those rights in just a few years now, could still be the first to go. Let's say that by 2016 the three schools named above issue a formal statement that they will leave after serving a 2 year notice then tacitly they are saying there will be no extension of the GOR. The scramble would be on. West Virginia, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State might well find new homes at that point. Perhaps Iowa State does as well. It then takes only 1 to immediately end it. Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma would owe no exit fees as they would have served their two years of notice. If the result of their announcement is that 6 others find homes on their own there wouldn't even be a GOR penalty to be paid.

In that kind of setting, since these would likely be the last expansion possibilities for the other P4 I do think niche market values would go higher and that will be good for a couple of the Texas schools, perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State, but definitely for West Virginia. Also the only school truly hampered contractually in 4 years will be Texas. They would likely move to an ESPN friendly conference because of it. Oklahoma and Kansas would truly be free agents in 4 years as both would only have 1 year left on their T3 contracts at that time. It will get interesting.

I still think a lot of this speculation appears to based upon a misreading of the GOR obtained by kslamb, the Ohio State fan. The old GOR signed in 2011 would have expired on June 30, 2018. The one they drew up on September 7, 2012 and retroactive to July 1, 2012, says the new GOR is in effect for the duration of the Term, with the Term clearly being defined as through June 30, 2025.

Am I missing something else?

Cheers,
Neil

No you are not missing anything and I never heard of the guy from Ohio State that you are mentioning. The new GOR does (at least to my understanding) stand for an extension vote in about 7 years (and that is a few years prior to the actual end of the GOR). Notification by August 15th of 2016, plus two years of served notification, leaves about 6 years remaining (since a notifying school would start play in a new conference in September of 2019) in the official time remaining before a move to a new conference would occur and would come about a year before the extension vote. With the exit fee being waived with the Big 12's procedure being met, the remaining buyout of the last 6 years of the television contract would be the penalty for leaving early. But, since we are in untested waters here, the announcement of the three best properties exiting would likely bring about the immediate exodus of any remaining programs with options of which there are several. So in the end it will come down to a network making a path for the remaining one or two needed to obtain 8 and that would be a lot cheaper for them than having to place 8 all on their own.

Let's say hypothetically that the Big 10 wins the contract bidding over the SEC for Oklahoma and Kansas. Texas would choose between the ACC and SEC because they are under obligation to ESPN until June of 2031. So let's say they pick the ACC and that T.C.U./Baylor comes with them and N.D. remains independently associated. A sixteen full member division of the ACC could be drawn up so that Texas and T.C.U./Baylor have a flight across the Gulf and could be placed into a division with Miami and F.S.U. Well the SEC still wants a presence in DFW and Oklahoma State delivers that and Oklahoma. West Virginia delivers a slither of the beltway. They are in. Now all the networks have to do is place two of Texas Tech, Kansas State, T.C.U./Baylor and Iowa State to get it done. Would having the main presence in Texas be worth T.C.U./Baylor and Texas Tech to the SEC? Would having an entrance into Texas be worth T.C.U./Baylor and Texas Tech to the PAC? Maybe not with Baylor but if it could be worked for Baylor to go with Texas to the ACC then Texas Tech and T.C.U. might be worth it to the PAC. Iowa State might be worth it to the Big 10 to pair with Connecticut in a broader move. Kansas State may be the toughest to place unless the SEC opted for Kansas State and a second Texas school instead of two additional Texas schools.

But the point remains it would be the best way for the networks to work the breakup from a cost perspective. It is much cheaper for them, and much more profitable for the top schools to have the conferences bid on the top schools and take the niche markets they desire, and then only pay the piper on one or two properties. And by that I mean to compensate a conference with a value beyond what the final two schools could add. I think 6 could safely find placement where their value was fair enough to pay their own way.

Since the Big 10 contract will be concluded by the Fall of 2016 the catalyst for such a scenario (especially with regards to Kansas and Oklahoma) is in place. It would be a gamble with regards to having 6 claimed on their own, but one with good odds. Then compensating the conferences for the other two needed would in the great scheme of things become the cheapest option out of the problem and it would get the networks off the hook for the final two because the market will have made the selections.

Even though you may never have heard of the Ohio State fan, it does appear to me that what you have heard about the GOR may be a misinterpretation the copy of the GOR which was obtained by KSLamb and put out on the internet to be reviewed by internet posters who then come away with their own interpretation of what it says.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8jb5kvZ...ZHaFE/edit

I think this part is what is likely being misinterpreted by some:

Whereas the Conference as members became parties to, that certain Grant of Rights Agreement dated November 1, 2011 (the “Original Grant of Rights Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, each of the Current Members irrevocably granted to the Conference certain of their rights through June 30, 2018;

This clause appears to me to be referring to the old GOR that was signed on November 1, 2011 and went through June 30, 2018. Perhaps this is why you heard the Big 12's GOR expires in a couple of years from other internet posters who misinterpreted this part of the contract?

What pertains to the new GOR being signed off on is basically the stuff after the NOW THEREFORE of the linked document.

That appears to grant the conference all TV rights retroactively from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2025.

I don't see anything in this document about a renewal 7 years down the road. Maybe there is something hidden in this document that I don't see?

Also, if the conference were to add any additional members, that additional member must agree to being bound to the GOR prior to being admitted. So the additional members cannot be added and then a new vote on the GOR takes place.

It appears the only thing that can possibly void the GOR is if the TV partners either reduce the contract (not going to happen) or the TV partners try to impose obligations or restrictions on ANY member institution (without written consent) than what was laid out at the time the TV rights deal was signed off on.

Cheers,
Neil

No it isn't Neil. I said the renewal vote would be in about 7 years (2021 so obviously not the old GOR) but even if that clause was non existent the point is moot. It doesn't mean teams can't withdraw. Should they withdraw with 6 years remaining on the GOR and after serving their 2 year notification the remainder of the GOR simply becomes the penalty for doing so. But that doesn't alter the fact that in the Big 12 bylaws a vote of 75% is required for dissolution. Dissolution negates the GOR. That means 8 of the 10 schools would have to support it and should Texas and or Oklahoma and Kansas choose to give notice by 2016 the scramble would be on by the rest to find new digs. Placing 6 of them would be fairly realistic. Placing 8 very likely would require the networks paying some conference to take two more. It certainly is possible with 8. And not having to carry over the other two on contract would split the difference on the overhead of the getting to 8 from 6. That is what I'm referring to. Your insistence that I am under the delusion that the first GOR was replaced is irksome. But since I told you the truth in my response, and your initial assertion was not only refuted but explained then I must just consider the possibility that you are either being intentionally obtuse, or are condescending. As to the math it makes it apparent that I am not talking about the first grant. It's 2014 now. August 2016 was cited for notification of withdrawal with a two year requirement prior to leaving being necessitated in the Big 12. The earliest a school could be finished with that is at the completion of the 2018-9 season. Fall of 2019 would be the earliest that anyone could move under those circumstances and that is past the original GOR. Obviously we aren't talking about the first grant here.

The GOR's will be binding, but there are also some things we don't yet know about them. For instance, most grants do not acknowledge anything but actual damages, unlike exit fees. Should a network (the same network) be involved in both the contracts of the conference a team was leaving and the conference a team was moving to, how would damages be proven if initial contracts are kept enforced in spite of the departure. If there is no monetary loss there may be no damages for leaving early. Remember the television rights in that case are retained by the same network. That might work for Oklahoma and Kansas moving to the Big 10, but certainly could work for them moving to the ACC or SEC. The fly in that ointment would be the 50% of the T1 & T2 rights owned by FOX. But if schools whose T3 rights were owned by ESPN left for ESPN conferences the total of their damages for the rights that FOX possessed would be 50% of their present contract so roughly a little over 60 million for the remaining 6 years of the Grant. That's not much considering how much Maryland paid. Most receiving conferences would simply spread that amount out over 10 years worth of their new addition's revenue. Let's say the payouts in the Big 10 and SEC were actually 40 million. If a school making 24 million plus their T3 left the Big 12 (Kansas or Oklahoma for instance who make 7 million a year for T3 rights) then whether they went to the Big 10 or SEC they would simply have a reduction in compensation by 6 million a year for a decade to pay back the 60 million in damages from the unfulfilled GOR that their new conference home would have fronted them. They would still be making 4-5 million more a year for the next 10 years in their new conference home than they would have been making by remaining in the Big 12.

In the case of Texas it's a bit more complicated since they earn 12 million a year presently for T3 rights. However if their move was to the ACC and the LHN network was reborn as the ACCN then they could easily get paid 15 million a year (the upside of the present LHN contract) until 2031 by simply withholding 1 million per ACC school per year until the LHN contract was payed off. That 1 million would be very nominal if each school got an additional 8 million over and above their present contract for having the ACCN (and that is a relatively conservative figure). So to leave the Big 12 by 2019, Texas would suffer roughly the same 60 million in grant damages. But all of that is only if 8 schools haven't found new homes and actual damages can be proven. FOX would be the likely claimant and as long as ESPN benefits either way they can simply waive their portion and honor the existing Big 12 contract to the remainder of the schools until the contract ends. Should those schools find themselves in new conferences the old contract would simply be reduced by the amount they earn in the new conference. And should they earn more then there are no damages.

BTW should Texas move to the SEC the easiest thing would be for the SECN to be relocated in Dallas and the Charlotte site handed over solely to the ACCN. Then the SEC schools would be docked 1 million out of their increases until the Texas LHN contract was paid off.

All the GORs have really accomplished is that they have placed the ability to move schools mostly in the hands of the networks since they are the ones who can determine actual damages, or simply honor existing contracts with remaining schools so no damages are actually sustained for the contracts duration. For instance should there ever be any movement between the ACC and SEC in either direction ESPN would simply handle it in house. They hold both grants. CBS would simply adjust their contracts up or down with the SEC depending upon who moved where.

And Neil the same thing is true of the ACC that is true of the present Big 12 situation, only to dissolve the ACC it requires placing 12 schools. But the process is the same. It's just much more likely to place 8 from the Big 12 than it is to place 12 from the ACC. Mild irritation aside, I hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas!

(12-25-2014 12:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 06:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 05:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 05:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Keep in mind that if Texas waits out the GOR then Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma will all gain a lot more in their moves. Why? They won't be wasting their leverage as the best remaining targets by using it to gain entry for little brothers. Instead I would think that there would be a kind of a bidding war for them. I would also think that in a bidding war that the Big 10 and SEC would be best positioned to get them. After Rutgers was added to the Big 10 several in positions of conference leadership remarked that realignment was over with for about 14 years. While that figure was stated just to reflect the end of the lives of this current set of GOR's and it has been over 2 years since the remarks were made, and that all of that was prior to stipends and autonomy, it is very likely that the Big 12 who will stand a vote for extension of those rights in just a few years now, could still be the first to go. Let's say that by 2016 the three schools named above issue a formal statement that they will leave after serving a 2 year notice then tacitly they are saying there will be no extension of the GOR. The scramble would be on. West Virginia, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State might well find new homes at that point. Perhaps Iowa State does as well. It then takes only 1 to immediately end it. Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma would owe no exit fees as they would have served their two years of notice. If the result of their announcement is that 6 others find homes on their own there wouldn't even be a GOR penalty to be paid.

In that kind of setting, since these would likely be the last expansion possibilities for the other P4 I do think niche market values would go higher and that will be good for a couple of the Texas schools, perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State, but definitely for West Virginia. Also the only school truly hampered contractually in 4 years will be Texas. They would likely move to an ESPN friendly conference because of it. Oklahoma and Kansas would truly be free agents in 4 years as both would only have 1 year left on their T3 contracts at that time. It will get interesting.

I still think a lot of this speculation appears to based upon a misreading of the GOR obtained by kslamb, the Ohio State fan. The old GOR signed in 2011 would have expired on June 30, 2018. The one they drew up on September 7, 2012 and retroactive to July 1, 2012, says the new GOR is in effect for the duration of the Term, with the Term clearly being defined as through June 30, 2025.

Am I missing something else?

Cheers,
Neil

No you are not missing anything and I never heard of the guy from Ohio State that you are mentioning. The new GOR does (at least to my understanding) stand for an extension vote in about 7 years (and that is a few years prior to the actual end of the GOR). Notification by August 15th of 2016, plus two years of served notification, leaves about 6 years remaining (since a notifying school would start play in a new conference in September of 2019) in the official time remaining before a move to a new conference would occur and would come about a year before the extension vote. With the exit fee being waived with the Big 12's procedure being met, the remaining buyout of the last 6 years of the television contract would be the penalty for leaving early. But, since we are in untested waters here, the announcement of the three best properties exiting would likely bring about the immediate exodus of any remaining programs with options of which there are several. So in the end it will come down to a network making a path for the remaining one or two needed to obtain 8 and that would be a lot cheaper for them than having to place 8 all on their own.

Let's say hypothetically that the Big 10 wins the contract bidding over the SEC for Oklahoma and Kansas. Texas would choose between the ACC and SEC because they are under obligation to ESPN until June of 2031. So let's say they pick the ACC and that T.C.U./Baylor comes with them and N.D. remains independently associated. A sixteen full member division of the ACC could be drawn up so that Texas and T.C.U./Baylor have a flight across the Gulf and could be placed into a division with Miami and F.S.U. Well the SEC still wants a presence in DFW and Oklahoma State delivers that and Oklahoma. West Virginia delivers a slither of the beltway. They are in. Now all the networks have to do is place two of Texas Tech, Kansas State, T.C.U./Baylor and Iowa State to get it done. Would having the main presence in Texas be worth T.C.U./Baylor and Texas Tech to the SEC? Would having an entrance into Texas be worth T.C.U./Baylor and Texas Tech to the PAC? Maybe not with Baylor but if it could be worked for Baylor to go with Texas to the ACC then Texas Tech and T.C.U. might be worth it to the PAC. Iowa State might be worth it to the Big 10 to pair with Connecticut in a broader move. Kansas State may be the toughest to place unless the SEC opted for Kansas State and a second Texas school instead of two additional Texas schools.

But the point remains it would be the best way for the networks to work the breakup from a cost perspective. It is much cheaper for them, and much more profitable for the top schools to have the conferences bid on the top schools and take the niche markets they desire, and then only pay the piper on one or two properties. And by that I mean to compensate a conference with a value beyond what the final two schools could add. I think 6 could safely find placement where their value was fair enough to pay their own way.

Since the Big 10 contract will be concluded by the Fall of 2016 the catalyst for such a scenario (especially with regards to Kansas and Oklahoma) is in place. It would be a gamble with regards to having 6 claimed on their own, but one with good odds. Then compensating the conferences for the other two needed would in the great scheme of things become the cheapest option out of the problem and it would get the networks off the hook for the final two because the market will have made the selections.

Even though you may never have heard of the Ohio State fan, it does appear to me that what you have heard about the GOR may be a misinterpretation the copy of the GOR which was obtained by KSLamb and put out on the internet to be reviewed by internet posters who then come away with their own interpretation of what it says.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8jb5kvZ...ZHaFE/edit

I think this part is what is likely being misinterpreted by some:

Whereas the Conference as members became parties to, that certain Grant of Rights Agreement dated November 1, 2011 (the “Original Grant of Rights Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, each of the Current Members irrevocably granted to the Conference certain of their rights through June 30, 2018;

This clause appears to me to be referring to the old GOR that was signed on November 1, 2011 and went through June 30, 2018. Perhaps this is why you heard the Big 12's GOR expires in a couple of years from other internet posters who misinterpreted this part of the contract?

What pertains to the new GOR being signed off on is basically the stuff after the NOW THEREFORE of the linked document.

That appears to grant the conference all TV rights retroactively from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2025.

I don't see anything in this document about a renewal 7 years down the road. Maybe there is something hidden in this document that I don't see?

Also, if the conference were to add any additional members, that additional member must agree to being bound to the GOR prior to being admitted. So the additional members cannot be added and then a new vote on the GOR takes place.

It appears the only thing that can possibly void the GOR is if the TV partners either reduce the contract (not going to happen) or the TV partners try to impose obligations or restrictions on ANY member institution (without written consent) than what was laid out at the time the TV rights deal was signed off on.

Cheers,
Neil

No it isn't Neil. I said the renewal vote would be in about 7 years (2021 so obviously not the old GOR) but even if that clause was non existent the point is moot. It doesn't mean teams can't withdraw. Should they withdraw with 6 years remaining on the GOR and after serving their 2 year notification the remainder of the GOR simply becomes the penalty for doing so. But that doesn't alter the fact that in the Big 12 bylaws a vote of 75% is required for dissolution. That means 8 of the 10 schools would have to support it and should Texas and or Oklahoma and Kansas choose to give notice by 2016 the scramble would be on by the rest to find new digs. Placing 6 of them would be fairly realistic. Placing 8 would require the networks paying some conference to take two more. It certainly is possible with 8. And not having to carry over the other two on contract would split the difference on the overhead of the getting to 8 from 6. That is what I'm referring to. Your condescension however is quite noticeable. But since I told you the truth in my response, and your initial assertion was not only refuted but explained then I must just consider the possibility that you are either intentionally obtuse, or don't bother to read the responses, or don't comprehend them. Since I do not believe you to be a dolt it must me one of the first two. Also your math skills need revamping. It's 2014 now. August 2016 was cited for notification of withdrawal with a two year requirement prior to leaving being required in the Big 12. The earliest a school could be finished with that is at the completion of the 2018-9 season. And I also said that the vote for renewal would come up in 7 years (2021) so obviously I wasn't referring to the initial GOR. Fall of 2019 would be the earliest that anyone could move under those circumstances and that is past the original GOR. Obviously we aren't talking about the first grant here. It's just that claiming that on your part fit the picture you wished to paint so you chose to ignore all statements to the contrary and the math involved in the timelines I presented.

Well, perhaps I am being dense, but I focused on this renewal date you said you "heard about", which doesn't appear to exist in the document, at least not that I could ascertain. And I was very careful in what I wrote in my reply so as to actually give you a potential out by showing where this 7 year renewal date came about, by showing me where I missed it in said document, or by even saying maybe what you "heard" was confused. I could have been smug and just flat out said, no such 7 year renewal date of the GOR exists and left it at that.

But since you chose to go on the offensive...

Where do you see anything that indicates in this document about a renewal date 7 years down the road? And if it is in there, and I missed it, wouldn't it be 2019, not 2021 since this new GOR was effective July 1, 2012? So please, don't lecture me on math.

As for a two year notification requirement, that I suspect is part of the Conference By-Laws and being familiar with past Conference By-Laws, they tend not to have a set date in them, but rather simply what is required of an institution if they wish to withdraw at any point in the future. So at any point, 2016, 2019, 2021, 2023, etc. UT or OU or any Big12 team can say they want to withdraw two years down the road. If they want to honor the GOR but not renew, it seems to me they would likely give notice two years prior to June 2025.

If, however, you want to claim that Texas and Oklahoma want out earlier than that and would be willing to risk lawsuits and having their TV dollars go to the conference for a 6-year period even though they themselves would not be part of that conference, then fine. What conference would take them knowing that they might not be able to televise the homes games of the Longhorns or the Sooners that would be considered Tier 1 or Tier 2 product until a settlement is reached and said conference also risk being a co-party of several lawsuits is beyond me. But in this age of greed anything is possible. However, Slive already has shown with the A&M expansion that the SEC is deathly afraid of such lawsuits.

Still it appeared to me, you were not intimating the above so much but rather hinging a lot of this scenario on a 7 year renewal date of the GOR, which doesn't appear to exist moreso than on the clout of UT and OU and their ability/willingness to create chaos if they chose to give notice at any point during the GOR. In the future, you might want to consider taking out the part about the GOR needing to be renewed or show where in this document I have missed the mention of a 7 year renewal date or link an addendum to the GOR that included it at a later date.

Otherwise, you might want to consider sticking with the fact that UT and OU might use their perceived power to get out of the Big 12 by creating panic and chaos at some point in the future and forcing a dissolution. But unlike you and some others, I don't see more than 4 (Kansas, two Texas schools of the three, and Oklahoma State) of the rest of the league guaranteed to wind in a safe haven to bring a quick and easy dissolution about. But even with said dissolution the lawsuits will fly fast and furiously.

Good evening.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-25-2014 01:47 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 12:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 06:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 05:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 05:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I still think a lot of this speculation appears to based upon a misreading of the GOR obtained by kslamb, the Ohio State fan. The old GOR signed in 2011 would have expired on June 30, 2018. The one they drew up on September 7, 2012 and retroactive to July 1, 2012, says the new GOR is in effect for the duration of the Term, with the Term clearly being defined as through June 30, 2025.

Am I missing something else?

Cheers,
Neil

No you are not missing anything and I never heard of the guy from Ohio State that you are mentioning. The new GOR does (at least to my understanding) stand for an extension vote in about 7 years (and that is a few years prior to the actual end of the GOR). Notification by August 15th of 2016, plus two years of served notification, leaves about 6 years remaining (since a notifying school would start play in a new conference in September of 2019) in the official time remaining before a move to a new conference would occur and would come about a year before the extension vote. With the exit fee being waived with the Big 12's procedure being met, the remaining buyout of the last 6 years of the television contract would be the penalty for leaving early. But, since we are in untested waters here, the announcement of the three best properties exiting would likely bring about the immediate exodus of any remaining programs with options of which there are several. So in the end it will come down to a network making a path for the remaining one or two needed to obtain 8 and that would be a lot cheaper for them than having to place 8 all on their own.

Let's say hypothetically that the Big 10 wins the contract bidding over the SEC for Oklahoma and Kansas. Texas would choose between the ACC and SEC because they are under obligation to ESPN until June of 2031. So let's say they pick the ACC and that T.C.U./Baylor comes with them and N.D. remains independently associated. A sixteen full member division of the ACC could be drawn up so that Texas and T.C.U./Baylor have a flight across the Gulf and could be placed into a division with Miami and F.S.U. Well the SEC still wants a presence in DFW and Oklahoma State delivers that and Oklahoma. West Virginia delivers a slither of the beltway. They are in. Now all the networks have to do is place two of Texas Tech, Kansas State, T.C.U./Baylor and Iowa State to get it done. Would having the main presence in Texas be worth T.C.U./Baylor and Texas Tech to the SEC? Would having an entrance into Texas be worth T.C.U./Baylor and Texas Tech to the PAC? Maybe not with Baylor but if it could be worked for Baylor to go with Texas to the ACC then Texas Tech and T.C.U. might be worth it to the PAC. Iowa State might be worth it to the Big 10 to pair with Connecticut in a broader move. Kansas State may be the toughest to place unless the SEC opted for Kansas State and a second Texas school instead of two additional Texas schools.

But the point remains it would be the best way for the networks to work the breakup from a cost perspective. It is much cheaper for them, and much more profitable for the top schools to have the conferences bid on the top schools and take the niche markets they desire, and then only pay the piper on one or two properties. And by that I mean to compensate a conference with a value beyond what the final two schools could add. I think 6 could safely find placement where their value was fair enough to pay their own way.

Since the Big 10 contract will be concluded by the Fall of 2016 the catalyst for such a scenario (especially with regards to Kansas and Oklahoma) is in place. It would be a gamble with regards to having 6 claimed on their own, but one with good odds. Then compensating the conferences for the other two needed would in the great scheme of things become the cheapest option out of the problem and it would get the networks off the hook for the final two because the market will have made the selections.

Even though you may never have heard of the Ohio State fan, it does appear to me that what you have heard about the GOR may be a misinterpretation the copy of the GOR which was obtained by KSLamb and put out on the internet to be reviewed by internet posters who then come away with their own interpretation of what it says.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8jb5kvZ...ZHaFE/edit

I think this part is what is likely being misinterpreted by some:

Whereas the Conference as members became parties to, that certain Grant of Rights Agreement dated November 1, 2011 (the “Original Grant of Rights Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, each of the Current Members irrevocably granted to the Conference certain of their rights through June 30, 2018;

This clause appears to me to be referring to the old GOR that was signed on November 1, 2011 and went through June 30, 2018. Perhaps this is why you heard the Big 12's GOR expires in a couple of years from other internet posters who misinterpreted this part of the contract?

What pertains to the new GOR being signed off on is basically the stuff after the NOW THEREFORE of the linked document.

That appears to grant the conference all TV rights retroactively from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2025.

I don't see anything in this document about a renewal 7 years down the road. Maybe there is something hidden in this document that I don't see?

Also, if the conference were to add any additional members, that additional member must agree to being bound to the GOR prior to being admitted. So the additional members cannot be added and then a new vote on the GOR takes place.

It appears the only thing that can possibly void the GOR is if the TV partners either reduce the contract (not going to happen) or the TV partners try to impose obligations or restrictions on ANY member institution (without written consent) than what was laid out at the time the TV rights deal was signed off on.

Cheers,
Neil

No it isn't Neil. I said the renewal vote would be in about 7 years (2021 so obviously not the old GOR) but even if that clause was non existent the point is moot. It doesn't mean teams can't withdraw. Should they withdraw with 6 years remaining on the GOR and after serving their 2 year notification the remainder of the GOR simply becomes the penalty for doing so. But that doesn't alter the fact that in the Big 12 bylaws a vote of 75% is required for dissolution. That means 8 of the 10 schools would have to support it and should Texas and or Oklahoma and Kansas choose to give notice by 2016 the scramble would be on by the rest to find new digs. Placing 6 of them would be fairly realistic. Placing 8 would require the networks paying some conference to take two more. It certainly is possible with 8. And not having to carry over the other two on contract would split the difference on the overhead of the getting to 8 from 6. That is what I'm referring to. Your condescension however is quite noticeable. But since I told you the truth in my response, and your initial assertion was not only refuted but explained then I must just consider the possibility that you are either intentionally obtuse, or don't bother to read the responses, or don't comprehend them. Since I do not believe you to be a dolt it must me one of the first two. Also your math skills need revamping. It's 2014 now. August 2016 was cited for notification of withdrawal with a two year requirement prior to leaving being required in the Big 12. The earliest a school could be finished with that is at the completion of the 2018-9 season. And I also said that the vote for renewal would come up in 7 years (2021) so obviously I wasn't referring to the initial GOR. Fall of 2019 would be the earliest that anyone could move under those circumstances and that is past the original GOR. Obviously we aren't talking about the first grant here. It's just that claiming that on your part fit the picture you wished to paint so you chose to ignore all statements to the contrary and the math involved in the timelines I presented.

Well, perhaps I am being dense, but I focused on this renewal date you said you "heard about", which doesn't appear to exist in the document, at least not that I could ascertain. And I was very careful in what I wrote in my reply so as to actually give you a potential out by showing where this 7 year renewal date came about, by showing me where I missed it in said document, or by even saying maybe what you "heard" was confused. I could have been smug and just flat out said, no such 7 year renewal date of the GOR exists and left it at that.

But since you chose to go on the offensive...

Where do you see anything that indicates in this document about a renewal date 7 years down the road? And if it is in there, and I missed it, wouldn't it be 2019, not 2021 since this new GOR was effective July 1, 2012? So please, don't lecture me on math.

As for a two year notification requirement, that I suspect is part of the Conference By-Laws and being familiar with past Conference By-Laws, they tend not to have a set date in them, but rather simply what is required of an institution if they wish to withdraw at any point in the future. So at any point, 2016, 2019, 2021, 2023, etc. UT or OU or any Big12 team can say they want to withdraw two years down the road. If they want to honor the GOR but not renew, it seems to me they would likely give notice two years prior to June 2025.

If, however, you want to claim that Texas and Oklahoma want out earlier than that and would be willing to risk lawsuits and having their TV dollars go to the conference for a 6-year period even though they themselves would not be part of that conference, then fine. What conference would take them knowing that they might not be able to televise the homes games of the Longhorns or the Sooners that would be considered Tier 1 or Tier 2 product until a settlement is reached and said conference also risk being a co-party of several lawsuits is beyond me. But in this age of greed anything is possible. However, Slive already has shown with the A&M expansion that the SEC is deathly afraid of such lawsuits.

Still it appeared to me, you were not intimating the above so much but rather hinging a lot of this scenario on a 7 year renewal date of the GOR, which doesn't appear to exist moreso than on the clout of UT and OU and their ability/willingness to create chaos if they chose to give notice at any point during the GOR. In the future, you might want to consider taking out the part about the GOR needing to be renewed or show where in this document I have missed the mention of a 7 year renewal date or link an addendum to the GOR that included it at a later date.

Otherwise, you might want to consider sticking with the fact that UT and OU might use their perceived power to get out of the Big 12 by creating panic and chaos at some point in the future and forcing a dissolution. But unlike you and some others, I don't see more than 4 (Kansas, two Texas schools of the three, and Oklahoma State) of the rest of the league guaranteed to wind in a safe haven to bring a quick and easy dissolution about. But even with said dissolution the lawsuits will fly fast and furiously.

Good evening.

Cheers,
Neil

Most of your issues are in the cited posts revision which I was undertaking at the time of your posting. The 7 years came from a discussion at Landthieves (Oklahoma's site) but most of the posters there have proven to be thorough over the last few years and not too excitable. In the revision what I said was that even if the renewal in 7 years was non existent the point is still moot. The rest of the redaction covers most of the reasons why.

I do count 6 as being easily placed, a network would likely have to pay for the placement of two more to get a move accomplished. And by "pay for" I mean pay more than what the addition of those two would be worth to their new conference homes. However if the network was reducing their overhead by the two left behind then even that is doable and that doesn't account for the cumulative values of the moves which might well pay the way for the additional two schools.

My point all along is that the GOR is not what people make it out to be. It is binding, but is solely dependent upon actual damages, at least the vast majority of GOR's have been interpreted by courts that way so I have no reason to believe it would be otherwise for football. And in reality damages are determined by contract value loss which networks have many ways to work around.

Have a Merry Christmas! JR