Why BYU remains the Big 12's best option for expansion

“I’m speaking as an outsider here, but I think the enthusiasm for independence has waned in the last few years,” Hale said. “There’s a much stronger desire on the part of coaches and administrators to see BYU end up in one of the Power Five conferences than there has been.
....
BYU teams do not compete on Sundays, and a variety of Big 12 sports play on Sundays, including some championships. BYU also has developed a reputation, fair or not, for being difficult to deal with in a conference.

But OU president David Boren recently said that “I don’t know that that is accurate. That’s kind of always what’s been said … for me, I wouldn’t close the door on them. It’s a quality program.”

http://m.newsok.com/why-byu-remains-the-...22/?page=2

The simple solution to the Sunday competition problem is to bring in BYU as a football-only member. Assuming of course that the Big 12 were expanding. Which we know it isn't. Right?

N/A. If Texas closed the door, the Big 12 closed the door. It doesn't matter what Oklahoma or the other 8 think...

"I wouldn't close the door on them"

Translation: "We need you guys to keep talking about this subject so I am going to say something that cant be used against me in the future but will be enough to keep everyone talking about this."

Unfortunately, the BYU coaches and administration in Provo don't make the decisions regarding conference membership or independence. Those decisions are made by the church leadership in Salt Lake City.

(12-23-2014 06:21 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  N/A. If Texas closed the door, the Big 12 closed the door. It doesn't matter what Oklahoma or the other 8 think...

There's some truth to that, undoubtedly. However, besides Texas, Oklahoma is the only other Big 12 school with real options. With options comes leverage.

As I predicted two weeks ago, it was only a matter of time that President Boren made his feelings known.

(12-23-2014 08:11 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 06:21 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  N/A. If Texas closed the door, the Big 12 closed the door. It doesn't matter what Oklahoma or the other 8 think...

There's some truth to that, undoubtedly. However, besides Texas, Oklahoma is the only other Big 12 school with real options. With options comes leverage.

As I predicted two weeks ago, it was only a matter of time that President Boren made his feelings known.

Really? That is a prediction that you are proud of? That a man that is constantly piping up about this topic would say something again? Congratulations.....

If one goes back to the talk before TCU was added I think you will find comments from Ninas basically saying that the 12 wasnt interested in adding another Texas program then came TCU so the talk that they are leaning or would be looking east if they expanded doesnt rule BYU IMO.

Sounds like the Big 12 is playing BYU, Cincy, Memphis, maybe UConn, UCF, against each other. Trying to get each school to make desperate concsessions just to get into the G5 club.

BYU for football only sounds like a good deal for everybody, but sounds like there is still a gap that needs closing in negotiations.

WVU will NEVER vote for any hybrid members, and they will make their point and the reasons for it very public among the other Big XII schools. BYU as a football only member is a dead issue. The Big XII will not go that route. That's following the Big East recipe for failure.

(12-24-2014 12:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  WVU will NEVER vote for any hybrid members, and they will make their point and the reasons for it very public among the other Big XII schools. BYU as a football only member is a dead issue. The Big XII will not go that route. That's following the Big East recipe for failure.

West Virginia is like Boston College...

West Virginia is vehemently against hybrid members for conference expansion (like BC was vehemently against UCONN for conference expansion).

In the end though, the only thing that matters is what Texas wants (like what the Southern ACC football schools wanted).

I don't think the Big 12 will ever attempt the hybrid route, but to think West Virginia's opinion is going to be the be-all, end-all is very flawed (and also why it's dumb for UCONN fans to point the finger at BC as to why they were passed over).

(12-24-2014 12:27 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  WVU will NEVER vote for any hybrid members, and they will make their point and the reasons for it very public among the other Big XII schools. BYU as a football only member is a dead issue. The Big XII will not go that route. That's following the Big East recipe for failure.

West Virginia is like Boston College...

West Virginia is vehemently against hybrid members for conference expansion (like BC was vehemently against UCONN for conference expansion).

In the end though, the only thing that matters is what Texas wants (like what the Southern ACC football schools wanted).

I don't think the Big 12 will ever attempt the hybrid route, but to think West Virginia's opinion is going to be the be-all, end-all is very flawed (and also why it's dumb for UCONN fans to point the finger at BC as to why they were passed over).

You make it sound like Texas has veto power over the will of the conference, which is ludicrous. If the majority of Big XII schools are for or against something, it doesn't matter what Texas thinks about it. The will of the majority and all.

And Texas just can't up and leave if they don't like the decision either - GoR and all.

(12-24-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:27 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  WVU will NEVER vote for any hybrid members, and they will make their point and the reasons for it very public among the other Big XII schools. BYU as a football only member is a dead issue. The Big XII will not go that route. That's following the Big East recipe for failure.

West Virginia is like Boston College...

West Virginia is vehemently against hybrid members for conference expansion (like BC was vehemently against UCONN for conference expansion).

In the end though, the only thing that matters is what Texas wants (like what the Southern ACC football schools wanted).

I don't think the Big 12 will ever attempt the hybrid route, but to think West Virginia's opinion is going to be the be-all, end-all is very flawed (and also why it's dumb for UCONN fans to point the finger at BC as to why they were passed over).

You make it sound like Texas has veto power over the will of the conference, which is ludicrous. If the majority of Big XII schools are for or against something, it doesn't matter what Texas thinks about it. The will of the majority and all.

And Texas just can't up and leave if they don't like the decision either - GoR and all.

I agree with most of your point, except that Texas can and would leave if they decided they want to. GOR be damned. They can pick up a phone and get the lawyers and the donors they need to make it happen, and ESPN would back their play because of their investment in Texas and that Texas' destination would likely be an ESPN contracted conference. A win-win for each.

(12-24-2014 01:04 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:27 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  WVU will NEVER vote for any hybrid members, and they will make their point and the reasons for it very public among the other Big XII schools. BYU as a football only member is a dead issue. The Big XII will not go that route. That's following the Big East recipe for failure.

West Virginia is like Boston College...

West Virginia is vehemently against hybrid members for conference expansion (like BC was vehemently against UCONN for conference expansion).

In the end though, the only thing that matters is what Texas wants (like what the Southern ACC football schools wanted).

I don't think the Big 12 will ever attempt the hybrid route, but to think West Virginia's opinion is going to be the be-all, end-all is very flawed (and also why it's dumb for UCONN fans to point the finger at BC as to why they were passed over).

You make it sound like Texas has veto power over the will of the conference, which is ludicrous. If the majority of Big XII schools are for or against something, it doesn't matter what Texas thinks about it. The will of the majority and all.

And Texas just can't up and leave if they don't like the decision either - GoR and all.

I agree with most of your point, except that Texas can and would leave if they decided they want to. GOR be damned. They can pick up a phone and get the lawyers and the donors they need to make it happen, and ESPN would back their play because of their investment in Texas and that Texas' destination would likely be an ESPN contracted conference. A win-win for each.

Any competent lawyer will tell Texas to go ahead, if they don't mind losing all their TV income for the length of the GoR.

(12-24-2014 12:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  WVU will NEVER vote for any hybrid members, and they will make their point and the reasons for it very public among the other Big XII schools. BYU as a football only member is a dead issue. The Big XII will not go that route. That's following the Big East recipe for failure.

Lets assume WVU's first choice would be nearby Cincy with whom they have a long history.

Is just only school, BYU, FB only really recreating the Big East disaster model? Come on, 1 school FB only is very different than the old Big East.

IMO from a strictly theoretical/hypothetical perspective, Cincy full and BYU FB only seems like the best route to 12.

(12-24-2014 01:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:04 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:27 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  WVU will NEVER vote for any hybrid members, and they will make their point and the reasons for it very public among the other Big XII schools. BYU as a football only member is a dead issue. The Big XII will not go that route. That's following the Big East recipe for failure.

West Virginia is like Boston College...

West Virginia is vehemently against hybrid members for conference expansion (like BC was vehemently against UCONN for conference expansion).

In the end though, the only thing that matters is what Texas wants (like what the Southern ACC football schools wanted).

I don't think the Big 12 will ever attempt the hybrid route, but to think West Virginia's opinion is going to be the be-all, end-all is very flawed (and also why it's dumb for UCONN fans to point the finger at BC as to why they were passed over).

You make it sound like Texas has veto power over the will of the conference, which is ludicrous. If the majority of Big XII schools are for or against something, it doesn't matter what Texas thinks about it. The will of the majority and all.

And Texas just can't up and leave if they don't like the decision either - GoR and all.

I agree with most of your point, except that Texas can and would leave if they decided they want to. GOR be damned. They can pick up a phone and get the lawyers and the donors they need to make it happen, and ESPN would back their play because of their investment in Texas and that Texas' destination would likely be an ESPN contracted conference. A win-win for each.

Any competent lawyer will tell Texas to go ahead, if they don't mind losing all their TV income for the length of the GoR.

Seems as though you believe the GoR is water tight. I tend to believe OU and Texas wouldn't get into that situation, unless they left a loophole in there somewhere. This is an unprovable argument atm, so i'll leave it at that.

(12-24-2014 01:41 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:04 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:27 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  West Virginia is like Boston College...

West Virginia is vehemently against hybrid members for conference expansion (like BC was vehemently against UCONN for conference expansion).

In the end though, the only thing that matters is what Texas wants (like what the Southern ACC football schools wanted).

I don't think the Big 12 will ever attempt the hybrid route, but to think West Virginia's opinion is going to be the be-all, end-all is very flawed (and also why it's dumb for UCONN fans to point the finger at BC as to why they were passed over).

You make it sound like Texas has veto power over the will of the conference, which is ludicrous. If the majority of Big XII schools are for or against something, it doesn't matter what Texas thinks about it. The will of the majority and all.

And Texas just can't up and leave if they don't like the decision either - GoR and all.

I agree with most of your point, except that Texas can and would leave if they decided they want to. GOR be damned. They can pick up a phone and get the lawyers and the donors they need to make it happen, and ESPN would back their play because of their investment in Texas and that Texas' destination would likely be an ESPN contracted conference. A win-win for each.

Any competent lawyer will tell Texas to go ahead, if they don't mind losing all their TV income for the length of the GoR.

Seems as though you believe the GoR is water tight. I tend to believe OU and Texas wouldn't get into that situation, unless they left a loophole in there somewhere. This is an unprovable argument atm, so i'll leave it at that.

If there's a loophole in the contract, I haven't found it. Neither did Frank the Tank. All he was able to determine is that anyone attempting to break the GoR would enrich a bunch of lawyers, without much in the way of success. That was my initial assessment of the wording of the contract as well.

Quote:The Big 12 Grant of Rights agreement (the “GOR”) states that each school will grant to the conference its applicable media rights (in this case, first and second tier tights for football and men’s basketball) for the duration of the term of the agreement, regardless of whether such school is a member of the conference or not. As we’ve noted here previously, this means that even if, say, Texas were to leave for the Big Ten or Pac-12, the GOR mandates that the Texas first and second tier rights would still be owned by the Big 12 until the GOR period ends in 2025.

http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/summer...agreement/

(12-24-2014 02:05 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:41 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:04 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  You make it sound like Texas has veto power over the will of the conference, which is ludicrous. If the majority of Big XII schools are for or against something, it doesn't matter what Texas thinks about it. The will of the majority and all.

And Texas just can't up and leave if they don't like the decision either - GoR and all.

I agree with most of your point, except that Texas can and would leave if they decided they want to. GOR be damned. They can pick up a phone and get the lawyers and the donors they need to make it happen, and ESPN would back their play because of their investment in Texas and that Texas' destination would likely be an ESPN contracted conference. A win-win for each.

Any competent lawyer will tell Texas to go ahead, if they don't mind losing all their TV income for the length of the GoR.

Seems as though you believe the GoR is water tight. I tend to believe OU and Texas wouldn't get into that situation, unless they left a loophole in there somewhere. This is an unprovable argument atm, so i'll leave it at that.

If there's a loophole in the contract, I haven't found it. Neither did Frank the Tank. All he was able to determine is that anyone attempting to break the GoR would enrich a bunch of lawyers, without much in the way of success. That was my initial assessment of the wording of the contract as well.

Quote:The Big 12 Grant of Rights agreement (the “GOR”) states that each school will grant to the conference its applicable media rights (in this case, first and second tier tights for football and men’s basketball) for the duration of the term of the agreement, regardless of whether such school is a member of the conference or not. As we’ve noted here previously, this means that even if, say, Texas were to leave for the Big Ten or Pac-12, the GOR mandates that the Texas first and second tier rights would still be owned by the Big 12 until the GOR period ends in 2025.

http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/summer...agreement/

I know there's some content in there about dissolution of the conference, but I haven't read the details, so I cant argue intelligently, except that if the conference got to 8 teams or less, that the members can vote to dissolve? I'm sure someone already knows this and probably set me straight.

(12-24-2014 02:16 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 02:05 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:41 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:04 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I agree with most of your point, except that Texas can and would leave if they decided they want to. GOR be damned. They can pick up a phone and get the lawyers and the donors they need to make it happen, and ESPN would back their play because of their investment in Texas and that Texas' destination would likely be an ESPN contracted conference. A win-win for each.

Any competent lawyer will tell Texas to go ahead, if they don't mind losing all their TV income for the length of the GoR.

Seems as though you believe the GoR is water tight. I tend to believe OU and Texas wouldn't get into that situation, unless they left a loophole in there somewhere. This is an unprovable argument atm, so i'll leave it at that.

If there's a loophole in the contract, I haven't found it. Neither did Frank the Tank. All he was able to determine is that anyone attempting to break the GoR would enrich a bunch of lawyers, without much in the way of success. That was my initial assessment of the wording of the contract as well.

Quote:The Big 12 Grant of Rights agreement (the “GOR”) states that each school will grant to the conference its applicable media rights (in this case, first and second tier tights for football and men’s basketball) for the duration of the term of the agreement, regardless of whether such school is a member of the conference or not. As we’ve noted here previously, this means that even if, say, Texas were to leave for the Big Ten or Pac-12, the GOR mandates that the Texas first and second tier rights would still be owned by the Big 12 until the GOR period ends in 2025.

http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/summer...agreement/

I know there's some content in there about dissolution of the conference, but I haven't read the details, so I cant argue intelligently, except that if the conference got to 8 teams or less, that the members can vote to dissolve? I'm sure someone already knows this and probably set me straight.

Read Frank's analysis. It goes into detail about the ramifications of any attempt to dissolve the agreement.

(12-24-2014 02:42 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 02:16 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 02:05 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:41 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Any competent lawyer will tell Texas to go ahead, if they don't mind losing all their TV income for the length of the GoR.

Seems as though you believe the GoR is water tight. I tend to believe OU and Texas wouldn't get into that situation, unless they left a loophole in there somewhere. This is an unprovable argument atm, so i'll leave it at that.

If there's a loophole in the contract, I haven't found it. Neither did Frank the Tank. All he was able to determine is that anyone attempting to break the GoR would enrich a bunch of lawyers, without much in the way of success. That was my initial assessment of the wording of the contract as well.

Quote:The Big 12 Grant of Rights agreement (the “GOR”) states that each school will grant to the conference its applicable media rights (in this case, first and second tier tights for football and men’s basketball) for the duration of the term of the agreement, regardless of whether such school is a member of the conference or not. As we’ve noted here previously, this means that even if, say, Texas were to leave for the Big Ten or Pac-12, the GOR mandates that the Texas first and second tier rights would still be owned by the Big 12 until the GOR period ends in 2025.

http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/summer...agreement/

I know there's some content in there about dissolution of the conference, but I haven't read the details, so I cant argue intelligently, except that if the conference got to 8 teams or less, that the members can vote to dissolve? I'm sure someone already knows this and probably set me straight.

Read Frank's analysis. It goes into detail about the ramifications of any attempt to dissolve the agreement.

Thanks