1. Is it true that the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC GORs extend to all games, while the Big 12 only extends to Tier 1 and 2 games so schools retain Tier 3 rights?

If that's true, that's a major loophole for the Big 12. If OU left for the Big 10 for example, and the Big 12 refused to show their Big 10 games televised from Norman, then OU could claim those games as Tier 3 and get them shown on the Big 10 network.

2. In exchange for rights granted, must the conference pay each member even if that member leaves for a new conference and their home games now feature games played against their new conference foes?

(06-28-2015 11:05 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  1. Is it true that the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC GORs extend to all games, while the Big 12 only extends to Tier 1 and 2 games so schools retain Tier 3 rights?

If that's true, that's a major loophole for the Big 12. If OU left for the Big 10 for example, and the Big 12 refused to show their Big 10 games televised from Norman, then OU could claim those games as Tier 3 and get them shown on the Big 10 network.

2. In exchange for rights granted, must the conference pay each member even if that member leaves for a new conference and their home games now feature games played against their new conference foes?

Sorry but Tier 2 only exists when the entity that has paid for Tier 1 rights passes on content. Then, Tier 2 comes into existence and gets their pick. If there was a third major network contract then that would be considered the third pick or "tier 3" and then the less radio and reproduction rights would fall to "tier 4". Look past the word Tier and instead replace it with the word Pick and you will have a better understanding.

For instance, The Big Ten's rights with The Big Ten Network are considered Tier 2 because the only other major contract that they have is with ESPN.

Thats a little misleading to say BTN is Tier2 because really both Tier1 and Tier2 are with ABC/ESPN, with Tier1 games usually on ABC.

Typically the BigTen has its top 4 games on ESPN/ABC

Tier1
1. saturday night on ABC
2. 230pm CST game on ABC or a mirror regional game on ESPN2.

Tier2
3. 11am or 230pm or 530pm CST game on some ESPN channel
4. 11am or 230pm or 530pm CST game on some ESPN channel

Tier3
5 and below. All remaining games shown on BTN

There are exceptions but thats how it usually works.

(06-28-2015 11:05 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  1. Is it true that the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC GORs extend to all games, while the Big 12 only extends to Tier 1 and 2 games so schools retain Tier 3 rights?

If that's true, that's a major loophole for the Big 12. If OU left for the Big 10 for example, and the Big 12 refused to show their Big 10 games televised from Norman, then OU could claim those games as Tier 3 and get them shown on the Big 10 network.

2. In exchange for rights granted, must the conference pay each member even if that member leaves for a new conference and their home games now feature games played against their new conference foes?

1. I know the ACC TV contract states that any game not picked up to be broadcast automatically revert back to the schools. I assume the Big XII (and all other conferences) have similar wording to prevent a network from sitting on their games without showing them.

2. That debate has raged here for some time - this is the part nobody seems to know on this board: can you enforce a GoR without continuing to pay for the rights? It seems like the conference controlling those rights would simply own the new games - but still have to pay the same amount. (A situation the new conference probably could not tolerate).

Unasked question: is the GoR enough to prevent movement? Probably.

(06-28-2015 11:05 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  1. Is it true that the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC GORs extend to all games, while the Big 12 only extends to Tier 1 and 2 games so schools retain Tier 3 rights?

No. The Big 12 contract reserves one football game per year to the individual schools, and it's the least attractive game.

Quote:2. In exchange for rights granted, must the conference pay each member even if that member leaves for a new conference and their home games now feature games played against their new conference foes?

I think that's an open question. People will claim certainty both ways.
In the music industry and other intellectual property domains, grants-of-rights have proven highly durable in court.
On the other hand, there is a principle in law of no one-way contracts (thanks Judge Judy)--a contract is only binding if both parties gain something valuable. If Old State leaves a conference and is no longer getting a share of the TV revenue, I don't see what value Old State is getting from the contract

Frank the Tank on the true strength of a GOR--complete legal uncertainty. Basically, nobody knows what a school would have to pay to break a GOR--it might be nothing, it might (if it's Texas leaving the Big 12) be billions of dollars.

(06-29-2015 02:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  Thats a little misleading to say BTN is Tier2 because really both Tier1 and Tier2 are with ABC/ESPN, with Tier1 games usually on ABC.

Typically the BigTen has its top 4 games on ESPN/ABC

Tier1
1. saturday night on ABC
2. 230pm CST game on ABC or a mirror regional game on ESPN2.

Tier2
3. 11am or 230pm or 530pm CST game on some ESPN channel
4. 11am or 230pm or 530pm CST game on some ESPN channel

Tier3
5 and below. All remaining games shown on BTN

There are exceptions but thats how it usually works.

No, it's not misleading at all. ESPN/ABC are the same entity. They don't have both Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights. They have Tier 1 rights. BTN has Tier 2 rights. That is not misleading, that is how it is. Trying to add on more so that it fits in with this notion that there HAS to be three tiers? That is misleading.

There is only as many tiers as there are contractual agreements.

(06-29-2015 07:41 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 02:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  Thats a little misleading to say BTN is Tier2 because really both Tier1 and Tier2 are with ABC/ESPN, with Tier1 games usually on ABC.

Typically the BigTen has its top 4 games on ESPN/ABC

Tier1
1. saturday night on ABC
2. 230pm CST game on ABC or a mirror regional game on ESPN2.

Tier2
3. 11am or 230pm or 530pm CST game on some ESPN channel
4. 11am or 230pm or 530pm CST game on some ESPN channel

Tier3
5 and below. All remaining games shown on BTN

There are exceptions but thats how it usually works.

No, it's not misleading at all. ESPN/ABC are the same entity. They don't have both Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights. They have Tier 1 rights. BTN has Tier 2 rights. That is not misleading, that is how it is. Trying to add on more so that it fits in with this notion that there HAS to be three tiers? That is misleading.

There is only as many tiers as there are contractual agreements.

It's a bit of "old thinking" from a moment in the evolution of college sports on TV where Tier 1 was an OTA national network, Tier 2 was a basic cable network or national syndication package and Tier 3 was local TV/RSN coverage.

(06-29-2015 07:41 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 02:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  Thats a little misleading to say BTN is Tier2 because really both Tier1 and Tier2 are with ABC/ESPN, with Tier1 games usually on ABC.

Typically the BigTen has its top 4 games on ESPN/ABC

Tier1
1. saturday night on ABC
2. 230pm CST game on ABC or a mirror regional game on ESPN2.

Tier2
3. 11am or 230pm or 530pm CST game on some ESPN channel
4. 11am or 230pm or 530pm CST game on some ESPN channel

Tier3
5 and below. All remaining games shown on BTN

There are exceptions but thats how it usually works.

No, it's not misleading at all. ESPN/ABC are the same entity. They don't have both Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights. They have Tier 1 rights. BTN has Tier 2 rights. That is not misleading, that is how it is. Trying to add on more so that it fits in with this notion that there HAS to be three tiers? That is misleading.

There is only as many tiers as there are contractual agreements.

That's not exactly true. ESPN/ ABC may be one company and share their product teams and announcers, but that does not mean the old concept of Tier1 and Tier2 is gone.

Lets take the SEC as another example.

Tier1 games are on CBS
Tier2 games are on ESPN but not ABC. ABC can not show SEC games because of the way the contract is worded.
Tier3 games are now on SECN, run by ESPN.

Now back to the Big Ten.

both the tier1 and tier2 rights are with ESPN/ ABC but the BigTen could have easily split those tiers between 2 different networks if they wanted just like the SEC did.

Tier3 games are on BTN, which is run by Fox, but that does not mean tier3 games can be shown on Fox itself.

(06-29-2015 11:34 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:41 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 02:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  Thats a little misleading to say BTN is Tier2 because really both Tier1 and Tier2 are with ABC/ESPN, with Tier1 games usually on ABC.

Typically the BigTen has its top 4 games on ESPN/ABC

Tier1
1. saturday night on ABC
2. 230pm CST game on ABC or a mirror regional game on ESPN2.

Tier2
3. 11am or 230pm or 530pm CST game on some ESPN channel
4. 11am or 230pm or 530pm CST game on some ESPN channel

Tier3
5 and below. All remaining games shown on BTN

There are exceptions but thats how it usually works.

No, it's not misleading at all. ESPN/ABC are the same entity. They don't have both Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights. They have Tier 1 rights. BTN has Tier 2 rights. That is not misleading, that is how it is. Trying to add on more so that it fits in with this notion that there HAS to be three tiers? That is misleading.

There is only as many tiers as there are contractual agreements.

That's not exactly true. ESPN/ ABC may be one company and share their product teams and announcers, but that does not mean the old concept of Tier1 and Tier2 is gone.

Lets take the SEC as another example.

Tier1 games are on CBS
Tier2 games are on ESPN but not ABC. ABC can not show SEC games because of the way the contract is worded.
Tier3 games are now on SECN, run by ESPN.

Now back to the Big Ten.

both the tier1 and tier2 rights are with ESPN/ ABC but the BigTen could have easily split those tiers between 2 different networks if they wanted just like the SEC did.

Tier3 games are on BTN, which is run by Fox, but that does not mean tier3 games can be shown on Fox itself.

But that's not a full picture either.

For the SEC, CBS has old-style Tier 1 rights--one game a week, OTA on a national broadcast network. (Maybe a doubleheader somewhere during the year, I forget).

But saying that ESPN/2/U have Tier 2 and SEC Network has Tier 3 ignores the fact that SEC Network gets some choice games, that would be Tier 2 games in the old Tier 1/2/3 setup.

Meanwhile, the Big Ten-ESPN deal is for 20 games (I'm pretty sure), which is big for a Tier 1 package, but not so big that I'd call it Tier 1 and 2.

And the Big 12, ESPN and Fox just threw their games into a blender and split the Tier 1 and Tier 2 games in a very complicated way. (ESPN had Tier 1, FOX had Tier 2, and when they extended, ESPN traded some Tier 1 games to Fox for more Tier 2 games).

The point is that talking about Tier 1 and 2 and 3 doesn't make sense anymore, most of the contracts are either much simpler (ESPN/Fox buys it all--ACC, Big East, AAC) or much more complicated (PAC, XIII, C-USA).

(06-29-2015 11:48 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='goofus' pid='12162346' dateline='1435595661']
The point is that talking about Tier 1 and 2 and 3 doesn't make sense anymore, most of the contracts are either much simpler (ESPN/Fox buys it all--ACC, Big East, AAC) or much more complicated (PAC, XIII, C-USA).

Yeah, the Tier 1/2/3 language is outdated. Doesn't fit any of the current TV deals.

yes there are exceptions to the pecking order of picks, just like BTN sometimes gets to pick some BigTen games before ESPN does, but those are exceptions and for the most part it is understood that the BTN has Tier3 rights, not Tier1 or Tier2.

(06-29-2015 12:12 PM)goofus Wrote:  yes there are exceptions to the pecking order of picks, just like BTN sometimes gets to pick some BigTen games before ESPN does, but those are exceptions and for the most part it is understood that the BTN has Tier3 rights, not Tier1 or Tier2.

Kristi Dosh, who has as much authority as anybody, says that BTN has Tier 2.

Quote:BIG TEN

First-tier rights: $1 billion, ESPN, 10 years through 2016-17

Second-tier rights: $2.8 billion, Big Ten Network, 25 years through 2031-32

Select basketball rights: (minimum of 24 games, men’s tournament semifinal and championship games): $72 million, CBS, six years through 2016-17

Football championship game: $145 million, FOX, six years through 2016

Per-year average: $248.2 million

Per-school, per-pear average: $20.7 million

The point isn't that you're right or she's right, the point is that the Tier 1, 2, 3 terms have largely lost meaning. You can't really say "for the most part it is understood" because
1. It's not understood without a couple of sentences or bullet points of explanation and
2. People who still use it understand it differently. Does "Tier 2" mean the second and third picks of football games in a weekend? OR does it just mean the second network to pick? There is no right answer, and it doesn't matter anymore because the terms don't match the reality of the current contracts.

(06-29-2015 05:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:05 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  1. Is it true that the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC GORs extend to all games, while the Big 12 only extends to Tier 1 and 2 games so schools retain Tier 3 rights?

No. The Big 12 contract reserves one football game per year to the individual schools, and it's the least attractive game.

Quote:2. In exchange for rights granted, must the conference pay each member even if that member leaves for a new conference and their home games now feature games played against their new conference foes?

I think that's an open question. People will claim certainty both ways.
In the music industry and other intellectual property domains, grants-of-rights have proven highly durable in court.
On the other hand, there is a principle in law of no one-way contracts (thanks Judge Judy)--a contract is only binding if both parties gain something valuable. If Old State leaves a conference and is no longer getting a share of the TV revenue, I don't see what value Old State is getting from the contract

Frank the Tank on the true strength of a GOR--complete legal uncertainty. Basically, nobody knows what a school would have to pay to break a GOR--it might be nothing, it might (if it's Texas leaving the Big 12) be billions of dollars.

If I enter into a contract, and the valuable consideration I receive is a one time, up front cash payment, then I can't subsequently break that contract to the detriment of my contractual partner on the basis of a claim that because I am no longer receiving anything of value that the contract is unenforceable.

Every school that has entered into a GoR with its conference has received something of substantial value. Their choice to waive future value by leaving the conference cannot be a basis from denying the holder in due course of those rights to benefit from what they have paid for.

(06-29-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 05:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:05 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  1. Is it true that the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC GORs extend to all games, while the Big 12 only extends to Tier 1 and 2 games so schools retain Tier 3 rights?

No. The Big 12 contract reserves one football game per year to the individual schools, and it's the least attractive game.

Quote:2. In exchange for rights granted, must the conference pay each member even if that member leaves for a new conference and their home games now feature games played against their new conference foes?

I think that's an open question. People will claim certainty both ways.
In the music industry and other intellectual property domains, grants-of-rights have proven highly durable in court.
On the other hand, there is a principle in law of no one-way contracts (thanks Judge Judy)--a contract is only binding if both parties gain something valuable. If Old State leaves a conference and is no longer getting a share of the TV revenue, I don't see what value Old State is getting from the contract

Frank the Tank on the true strength of a GOR--complete legal uncertainty. Basically, nobody knows what a school would have to pay to break a GOR--it might be nothing, it might (if it's Texas leaving the Big 12) be billions of dollars.

If I enter into a contract, and the valuable consideration I receive is a one time, up front cash payment, then I can't subsequently break that contract to the detriment of my contractual partner on the basis of a claim that because I am no longer receiving anything of value that the contract is unenforceable.

Every school that has entered into a GoR with its conference has received something of substantial value. Their choice to waive future value by leaving the conference cannot be a basis from denying the holder in due course of those rights to benefit from what they have paid for.

But they're not getting an up-front payment. They're getting an annual payment. So if Texas is getting say $250M per year in $25M increments in return for their home game rights, and Texas leaves halfway through the 10 year contract, I don't see how the Big 12 can justify not paying Texas their $25M a year if the Big 12 still owns and sells Texas' home games.

As far as I can tell, in the music industry about the only thing that voids a GOR is non-payment.

(The Big Ten, PAC and SEC Grants-of-Rights might be more stable on these grounds, or they might not, because in return for the TV rights, Old STate gets an equity stake in the BTN/PACnet/SEC Network. On the other hand, that makes it easier for a judge to unwind the GOR--Old State signs over their share of the Big Conference Media Inc, and Old STate regains title to their TV rights.)

(06-29-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 05:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:05 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  1. Is it true that the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC GORs extend to all games, while the Big 12 only extends to Tier 1 and 2 games so schools retain Tier 3 rights?

No. The Big 12 contract reserves one football game per year to the individual schools, and it's the least attractive game.

Quote:2. In exchange for rights granted, must the conference pay each member even if that member leaves for a new conference and their home games now feature games played against their new conference foes?

I think that's an open question. People will claim certainty both ways.
In the music industry and other intellectual property domains, grants-of-rights have proven highly durable in court.
On the other hand, there is a principle in law of no one-way contracts (thanks Judge Judy)--a contract is only binding if both parties gain something valuable. If Old State leaves a conference and is no longer getting a share of the TV revenue, I don't see what value Old State is getting from the contract

Frank the Tank on the true strength of a GOR--complete legal uncertainty. Basically, nobody knows what a school would have to pay to break a GOR--it might be nothing, it might (if it's Texas leaving the Big 12) be billions of dollars.

If I enter into a contract, and the valuable consideration I receive is a one time, up front cash payment, then I can't subsequently break that contract to the detriment of my contractual partner on the basis of a claim that because I am no longer receiving anything of value that the contract is unenforceable.

Every school that has entered into a GoR with its conference has received something of substantial value. Their choice to waive future value by leaving the conference cannot be a basis from denying the holder in due course of those rights to benefit from what they have paid for.

To put my argument another way: Name it. Name the thing of substantial value that UT and OU got for signing the GOR.

(06-29-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  If I enter into a contract, and the valuable consideration I receive is a one time, up front cash payment, then I can't subsequently break that contract to the detriment of my contractual partner on the basis of a claim that because I am no longer receiving anything of value that the contract is unenforceable.

None of the conferences have given their members a one time, up front cash payment to cover the school's broadcast rights for the life of the TV contract. All of them are making annual payments to each school that correspond to the annual payments made to the conference by the TV networks.

So it's more like leasing a floor in an office building. The school is the landlord, and it's leasing (to the conference) the right to use the space for several years, in exchange for annual rent payments. Arguing that the conference retains the TV rights even if they stop paying the school for its TV rights is like arguing that the tenant retains the right to use the office space for 10 years even if they stop paying rent after the second year.

It would be a different story if the tenant made a single lump sum, up front payment to cover the entire length of the lease, but that's not what the conferences are doing.

(06-29-2015 01:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 05:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:05 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  1. Is it true that the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC GORs extend to all games, while the Big 12 only extends to Tier 1 and 2 games so schools retain Tier 3 rights?

No. The Big 12 contract reserves one football game per year to the individual schools, and it's the least attractive game.

Quote:2. In exchange for rights granted, must the conference pay each member even if that member leaves for a new conference and their home games now feature games played against their new conference foes?

I think that's an open question. People will claim certainty both ways.
In the music industry and other intellectual property domains, grants-of-rights have proven highly durable in court.
On the other hand, there is a principle in law of no one-way contracts (thanks Judge Judy)--a contract is only binding if both parties gain something valuable. If Old State leaves a conference and is no longer getting a share of the TV revenue, I don't see what value Old State is getting from the contract

Frank the Tank on the true strength of a GOR--complete legal uncertainty. Basically, nobody knows what a school would have to pay to break a GOR--it might be nothing, it might (if it's Texas leaving the Big 12) be billions of dollars.

If I enter into a contract, and the valuable consideration I receive is a one time, up front cash payment, then I can't subsequently break that contract to the detriment of my contractual partner on the basis of a claim that because I am no longer receiving anything of value that the contract is unenforceable.

Every school that has entered into a GoR with its conference has received something of substantial value. Their choice to waive future value by leaving the conference cannot be a basis from denying the holder in due course of those rights to benefit from what they have paid for.

To put my argument another way: Name it. Name the thing of substantial value that UT and OU got for signing the GOR.

The stability and continued existence of the Big 12, which was severely threatened at the time.

I realize that no conference made an up front cash payment as in the hypothetical situation I described. I didn't mean to suggest that they did. But they did all receive something of value on the front end, and they had the right to continue receiving valuable consideration in the future. Their voluntary waiver of that right does not/should not lessen the contractual benefits due to other parties.

(06-29-2015 01:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 01:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 05:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:05 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  1. Is it true that the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC GORs extend to all games, while the Big 12 only extends to Tier 1 and 2 games so schools retain Tier 3 rights?

No. The Big 12 contract reserves one football game per year to the individual schools, and it's the least attractive game.

Quote:2. In exchange for rights granted, must the conference pay each member even if that member leaves for a new conference and their home games now feature games played against their new conference foes?

I think that's an open question. People will claim certainty both ways.
In the music industry and other intellectual property domains, grants-of-rights have proven highly durable in court.
On the other hand, there is a principle in law of no one-way contracts (thanks Judge Judy)--a contract is only binding if both parties gain something valuable. If Old State leaves a conference and is no longer getting a share of the TV revenue, I don't see what value Old State is getting from the contract

Frank the Tank on the true strength of a GOR--complete legal uncertainty. Basically, nobody knows what a school would have to pay to break a GOR--it might be nothing, it might (if it's Texas leaving the Big 12) be billions of dollars.

If I enter into a contract, and the valuable consideration I receive is a one time, up front cash payment, then I can't subsequently break that contract to the detriment of my contractual partner on the basis of a claim that because I am no longer receiving anything of value that the contract is unenforceable.

Every school that has entered into a GoR with its conference has received something of substantial value. Their choice to waive future value by leaving the conference cannot be a basis from denying the holder in due course of those rights to benefit from what they have paid for.

To put my argument another way: Name it. Name the thing of substantial value that UT and OU got for signing the GOR.

The stability and continued existence of the Big 12, which was severely threatened at the time.

But that's not valuable to Texas--the main threat to the the stability of the Big 12 was Texas leaving. Nobody was going anywhere without Texas. Even if Oklahoma pulled off the PAC-14 maneuver, that just means that Texas joins the PAC on less favorable terms than they were asking for,

Besides, that's what exit fees are for--to compensate the remaining members of the conference for the loss of stability etc etc etc.

Quote: But they did all receive something of value on the front end, and they had the right to continue receiving valuable consideration in the future. Their voluntary waiver of that right does not/should not lessen the contractual benefits due to other parties.

(06-29-2015 02:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 01:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 01:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 05:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  No. The Big 12 contract reserves one football game per year to the individual schools, and it's the least attractive game.


I think that's an open question. People will claim certainty both ways.
In the music industry and other intellectual property domains, grants-of-rights have proven highly durable in court.
On the other hand, there is a principle in law of no one-way contracts (thanks Judge Judy)--a contract is only binding if both parties gain something valuable. If Old State leaves a conference and is no longer getting a share of the TV revenue, I don't see what value Old State is getting from the contract

Frank the Tank on the true strength of a GOR--complete legal uncertainty. Basically, nobody knows what a school would have to pay to break a GOR--it might be nothing, it might (if it's Texas leaving the Big 12) be billions of dollars.

If I enter into a contract, and the valuable consideration I receive is a one time, up front cash payment, then I can't subsequently break that contract to the detriment of my contractual partner on the basis of a claim that because I am no longer receiving anything of value that the contract is unenforceable.

Every school that has entered into a GoR with its conference has received something of substantial value. Their choice to waive future value by leaving the conference cannot be a basis from denying the holder in due course of those rights to benefit from what they have paid for.

To put my argument another way: Name it. Name the thing of substantial value that UT and OU got for signing the GOR.

The stability and continued existence of the Big 12, which was severely threatened at the time.

But that's not valuable to Texas--the main threat to the the stability of the Big 12 was Texas leaving. Nobody was going anywhere without Texas. Even if Oklahoma pulled off the PAC-14 maneuver, that just means that Texas joins the PAC on less favorable terms than they were asking for,

Besides, that's what exit fees are for--to compensate the remaining members of the conference for the loss of stability etc etc etc.

Quote: But they did all receive something of value on the front end, and they had the right to continue receiving valuable consideration in the future. Their voluntary waiver of that right does not/should not lessen the contractual benefits due to other parties.

Neb, Col, Mizzou, and A&M had all recently left without Texas. The Big 12 needed to do something fast to stabilize the conference.

I wrote this is another thread. Is it a valid assumption if the Big 12 were to continue and continue to pay the leaving university for their TV rights.



Lets try a hypothetical. OU and kU go to the B1G after Fox wins the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights. The Big 12 still retain OU and kU's Tier 1 and Tier 2 media rights. Thus, the Big 12 would have OU and kU's Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights along with whoever is still in the conference. If the conference expanded back to 10 then the Big 12 should be paid for 12 teams. Under the current contract, ESPN should pay the Big 12 for their Tier 1 rights for 12 teams (current Big 12 + OU and kU). Likewise Fox should have to pay for 12 teams under the Big 12 Tier 2 contract.

OU's and kU's home games media rights would be held by the Big 12 initially. The Big 12 would have to sell them to ESPN and Fox per their Tier 1 and Tier 2 contracts. Lets take for example OU vs Michigan at OU. The Big 12 would have to offer it to ESPN per the contract. ESPN would get to decide if it is worthy of Tier 1. Lets assume that ESPN deems it worthy of Tier 1 status. Would it then be shown as a Big 12 game of the week on an ESPN affiliated channel? Remember that game is taking a Big 12 spot to be broadcast and the Big 12 does not really have a say. The Big 12 gets the money for the game but could lose exposure by having the game broadcast as a Tier 1 Big 12 game of the week.

Lets now look at a game like kU vs Northwestern (NU) at kU. First ESPN would get first chance at broadcasting the game. ESPN decides it is not worthy of Tier 1. Fox is next up and can decide if it is worthy of Tier 2. Fox declines it for Tier 2. It thus reverts to Tier 3. Tier 3 rights go back to kU. The game then would go back to kU's and be shown on BTN. kU would get paid for it as it is now Tier 3.

Lets look at a game like OU vs MSU. I could see it being Tier 2 worthy. Does Fox then pick it up and broadcast it as a Big 12 games or can Fox gift it to itself and show it as a B1G game since they own both the Big 12 and B1G Tier 2 rights?

Don't worry about Tiers just if this could be a possible outcome.