(07-27-2015 01:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  What you are saying is just a basic TV contract.....

The AAC who is with ESPN. They have a tv contract but no grant of rights. But Fox can't air an AAC game because ESPN has the rights to that conference....

A Grant of Rights is with the CONFERNCE. It's the CONFERNCE that would go after a school if they left the conference. The network has NOTHING to do with it at all. NOTHING is turned over to the network. I repeat.... NOTHING.

What do you think a TV contract is and how they are given things to broadcast? Set up a satellite to broadcast waves in the ocean since those are the only rights given to them to broadcast?

Would be some interesting TV.

(07-27-2015 01:13 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 12:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:51 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Everyone knows the schools turned over the rights to the conference when they signed the GOR. Why are people even debating that. That is a 100% FACT.

You do realize that YOU are the ones debating this, right? Stever has been trying to tell you that. Instead, you claimed they signed a GOR to assign the rights to the network. That is what is false. One has nothing to do with the other contractually. As you said, it's not that complicated. For most of us, anyway.

You still don't get it. The rights from the schools are transferred over to the CONFERENCE that is then turned over to the NETWORK!!!!

There is one of us here who doesn't get it. And it's not me. And it's not Stever. Consider the Big 12 and PAC 12. Both have grants of rights. But they have contracts with multiple networks. If what you claimed were true, that would be impossible.

(07-27-2015 01:37 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 01:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  What you are saying is just a basic TV contract.....

The AAC who is with ESPN. They have a tv contract but no grant of rights. But Fox can't air an AAC game because ESPN has the rights to that conference....

A Grant of Rights is with the CONFERNCE. It's the CONFERNCE that would go after a school if they left the conference. The network has NOTHING to do with it at all. NOTHING is turned over to the network. I repeat.... NOTHING.

What do you think a TV contract is and how they are given things to broadcast? Set up a satellite to broadcast waves in the ocean since those are the only rights given to them to broadcast?

Would be some interesting TV.

There's a big difference between a TV Contract and a GOR. TV contract is with a network. a GOR is with the conference and has nothing to do with the TV networks.

So you are saying a conference can just do whatever they want for whomever they want to show their games? Because they are just TV contracts. Why doesn't the SEC just give a call to TNT to tell them to show the Auburn vs Alabama game this year since it would just be a TV contract.

(07-27-2015 01:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  So you are saying a conference can just do whatever they want for whomever they want to show their games? Because they are just TV contracts. Why doesn't the SEC just give a call to TNT to tell them to show the Auburn vs Alabama game this year since it would just be a TV contract.

You are trying to be a smartass and failing. You are trying to say the GOR is for a network. It is not. End of story. There are TWO separate contracts. That is the point Stever is making. GOR's are completely separate, and mean something different. This is like saying if I have a contract with my employer, and my employer has a contract with a distributor, that the distributor has my contract. That is not true.

(07-27-2015 01:57 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 01:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  So you are saying a conference can just do whatever they want for whomever they want to show their games? Because they are just TV contracts. Why doesn't the SEC just give a call to TNT to tell them to show the Auburn vs Alabama game this year since it would just be a TV contract.

You are trying to be a smartass and failing. You are trying to say the GOR is for a network. It is not. End of story. There are TWO separate contracts. That is the point Stever is making. GOR's are completely separate, and mean something different. This is like saying if I have a contract with my employer, and my employer has a contract with a distributor, that the distributor has my contract. That is not true.

So the networks just fork over $2.5 billion just for a contract? That is a lot of money just for a contract. So you are saying the network will have no power over granting that amount of money? So then why doesn't the SEC just call up TNT and tell them they now broadcast the SEC games and tell CBS to get lost and all is good in the network world.

(07-27-2015 01:57 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 01:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  So you are saying a conference can just do whatever they want for whomever they want to show their games? Because they are just TV contracts. Why doesn't the SEC just give a call to TNT to tell them to show the Auburn vs Alabama game this year since it would just be a TV contract.

You are trying to be a smartass and failing. You are trying to say the GOR is for a network. It is not. End of story. There are TWO separate contracts. That is the point Stever is making. GOR's are completely separate, and mean something different. This is like saying if I have a contract with my employer, and my employer has a contract with a distributor, that the distributor has my contract. That is not true.

ON a serious no, no crap they are two separate contracts. NOT A SINGLE PERSON SAID THEY WERE THE SAME CONTRACT!!!!!!!!!!!

You two have no clue what you are even arguing.

the only way the Big 12 gets divided is if it is brokered by FOX and ESPN. I mean, they are just contracts. They have no power whatsoever.

(07-27-2015 09:36 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 09:15 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 08:04 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 07:42 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:10 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  No, you don't get it. Schools without a GOR can move conferences without the threat of unlimited damages because they have not turned over their rights to a conference. THus, the conference isn't going to throw a billion dollar lawsuit at them, but the school will need to pay an exiting fee.

When a school turns over their rights to a conference, the network that is contracted with the conference then has the rights to broadcast x and y and when that contract with the conference is broke because a school left, the school is taken to court for breach of contract.

Notre Dame's deal with NBC for football is different. I'm not aware of a GOR in place with Notre Dame and NBC. Their could be one in place, but I don't know if there is one.

No. When a school has granted its rights to a conference who has then sold the rights to one or more networks the school can leave if the network or networks agree and will pay for such a move while still paying the original conference the same money. If the school tries to move to a different conference with a different network than the one who owns the rights the network who does own the rights will file for an injunction. This is not rocket science people.

Correct, a school can leave without damages IF the network signs off on it. But that is NOT a defeat of a GOR.

If a school that ESPN has all of the rights to jumped shift and ran to FOX, that school would be taken to court if ESPN did not sign off on it.

Rights can be sold or traded.

So in effect, Rights can be nullified or at least allow teams to move without penalty. Correct?

Rights is just ownership of something. Like property. For example, you signed a contract for the rights of someone to rent the house for 10 years and you can't come back 5 years later and say house no longer for rent. The person renting the house can take you to court and have a pretty easy case that any lawyer could win in the courtroom.

Obviously rights with conferences and networks is more complicated than a signed contract of a property that is being rented out.

Rights of players in pro sports are traded every year.

That's still the part that most can agree on. Where are the examples that back up the conference bylaws that say they can stop compensating a departing school for their rights??

To use your example, I can understand how if someone agrees to rent their house for 10 years they can't just come back in 5 and kick the renter out. Where is the real world example of the renter still living in the rented property but legally being allowed to just stop paying the rent?

Just a point of contention here.

The NCAA states that a Conference needs a minimum of 8 teams to be recognized as a Conference. A conference can play with 7 for a single year with an exemption permitted by the NCAA but, only for that year. The conference must have specified an incoming school for the following year to qualify for the exemption.

The Big 12 contract can only be broken with FOX and ESPN is they fail to have 10 teams to start a particular season. Not if they fall below 8 teams period. In the FOX and Big 12 contract, they need 10 schools. That's why they were in such a rush to get replacements for Missouri and TA&M. anyway, carry on.

(07-27-2015 02:09 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  the only way the Big 12 gets divided is if it is brokered by FOX and ESPN. I mean, they are just contracts. They have no power whatsoever.

Nebraskafan, I think you have missed the broader point here. The conferences have media contracts with the networks that often predated the signing of GORs. The signing of the GORs were specific to the conferences, who then could use them as leverage to improve their media deals. Take the ACC, for example. Pretty much everyone agreed that the timing of the signing of their last media deal predated the boom in the value of media contracts. Once the ACC GOR was signed, they could use that as leverage to improve their existing deal. The main incentive was the fact that the GOR instantly made the ACC a more stable conference for the network to commit more $$'s to.

I don't believe there was any subsequent transfer of ownership rights from the ACC to ESPN. Keep in mind that ESPN is a subsidiary of Disney, a public corporation. If Disney had acquired ownership of the ACC media rights, I believe that fact would have been required to be disclosed to shareholders and to the investing public, much like the basic terms of the media deals that are now disclosed. I think if you go back and pull all of Disney's public findings at that time, you will be hard pressed to find any mention of such a transaction in any of their filings or press releases.

The other point I would raise concern tax issues. I am not a tax attorney so perhaps someone on the board who is might want to weigh in on this. The schools and the conferences are non-profit entities. The networks are either, or part of, for-profit corporations. While for-profit corporations can obviously have contracts with non-profit entities, I am not sure they can own pieces of the non-profit entity so easily (which would be the case if they owned the media rights of the schools and conferences).

Just my 2 cents.

ESPN will say yes to UCF. Why? Disney World

ESPN does have invested intrests in UCF and Orlando. Adding them to the Big 12 will bring business in the area including Disney World.

(07-28-2015 01:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN will say yes to UCF. Why? Disney World

ESPN does have invested intrests in UCF and Orlando. Adding them to the Big 12 will bring business in the area including Disney World.

Interesting take. Not convincing, but interesting.

(07-28-2015 07:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 01:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN will say yes to UCF. Why? Disney World

ESPN does have invested intrests in UCF and Orlando. Adding them to the Big 12 will bring business in the area including Disney World.

Interesting take. Not convincing, but interesting.

Then is UConn (close to ESPN HQ) not in the ACC?

(07-27-2015 01:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  There's a big difference between a TV Contract and a GOR. TV contract is with a network. a GOR is with the conference and has nothing to do with the TV networks.

What you and Corbett are saying is correct, but completely misses the big picture.

For a conference to enforce a GOR, it has to exist. For a conference to exist, it needs 8 schools. If ESPN/Fox have veto power on expansion/replacement candidates, then they have leverage on the existence of the conference should it drop below 8. In that case, the networks have leverage on the enforceability of the GOR.

Quit looking at the trees and gaze upon the forest.

(07-28-2015 07:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 01:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  There's a big difference between a TV Contract and a GOR. TV contract is with a network. a GOR is with the conference and has nothing to do with the TV networks.

What you and Corbett are saying is correct, but completely misses the big picture.

For a conference to enforce a GOR, it has to exist. For a conference to exist, it needs 8 schools. If ESPN/Fox have veto power on expansion/replacement candidates, then they have leverage on the existence of the conference should it drop below 8. In that case, the networks have leverage on the enforceability of the GOR.

Quit looking at the trees and gaze upon the forest.

Except lets say they to go down to 7. If ESPN/Fox tried to pull that ****, they would have their asses sued so fast it would make your head spin. ESPN/Fox could change how much money they're paying the conference- but they can't just be dicks and say we won't approve anyone.

(07-28-2015 08:37 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 07:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 01:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  There's a big difference between a TV Contract and a GOR. TV contract is with a network. a GOR is with the conference and has nothing to do with the TV networks.

What you and Corbett are saying is correct, but completely misses the big picture.

For a conference to enforce a GOR, it has to exist. For a conference to exist, it needs 8 schools. If ESPN/Fox have veto power on expansion/replacement candidates, then they have leverage on the existence of the conference should it drop below 8. In that case, the networks have leverage on the enforceability of the GOR.

Quit looking at the trees and gaze upon the forest.

Except lets say they to go down to 7. If ESPN/Fox tried to pull that ****, they would have their asses sued so fast it would make your head spin. ESPN/Fox could change how much money they're paying the conference- but they can't just be dicks and say we won't approve anyone.

You are not picturing how it would go down. If TV was OK with a Big 10 and/or Pac 12 raid of the Big 12, the leverage would be used like this:

TV: "Leftover schools, don't worry. We'll help you find a new P4 home with a great TV deal."

Leftover schools: "But we want to stay together, rebuild the Big 12, and enforce our GOR!"

TV: "You are below 10 teams and our contract mandates a 10 team inventory. You are below 8 teams and the NCAA mandates 8 teams to even exist. We don't like anyone you want to add. So we are cancelling your TV deal."

Leftover schools: "Wait, what?"

TV: "Further, if you persist on enforcing your GOR, we'll never do business with you again. Good luck getting a fat contract from NBC or CBS when we don't bid. And good luck staying a P5 conference when the 12-year playoff contract expires in 2025."

Leftover schools: "Oh. I see your point. What P4 home did you have in mind for us?"

**********

No one wants to piss off ESPN. See what happened to the MWC in 2005. See what happened to the Big East in 2011.

If TV doesn't want a conference (which must expand to exist) to enforce its GOR, TV can make an offer that the leftover schools cannot refuse.

(07-28-2015 08:59 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:37 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 07:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 01:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  There's a big difference between a TV Contract and a GOR. TV contract is with a network. a GOR is with the conference and has nothing to do with the TV networks.

What you and Corbett are saying is correct, but completely misses the big picture.

For a conference to enforce a GOR, it has to exist. For a conference to exist, it needs 8 schools. If ESPN/Fox have veto power on expansion/replacement candidates, then they have leverage on the existence of the conference should it drop below 8. In that case, the networks have leverage on the enforceability of the GOR.

Quit looking at the trees and gaze upon the forest.

Except lets say they to go down to 7. If ESPN/Fox tried to pull that ****, they would have their asses sued so fast it would make your head spin. ESPN/Fox could change how much money they're paying the conference- but they can't just be dicks and say we won't approve anyone.

You are not picturing how it would go down. If TV was OK with a Big 10 and/or Pac 12 raid of the Big 12, the leverage would be used like this:

TV: "Leftover schools, don't worry. We'll help you find a new P4 home with a great TV deal."

Leftover schools: "But we want to stay together, rebuild the Big 12, and enforce our GOR!"

TV: "You are below 10 teams and our contract mandates a 10 team inventory. You are below 8 teams and the NCAA mandates 8 teams to even exist. We don't like anyone you want to add. So we are cancelling your TV deal."

Leftover schools: "Wait, what?"

TV: "Further, if you persist on enforcing your GOR, we'll never do business with you again. Good luck getting a fat contract from NBC or CBS when we don't bid. And good luck staying a P5 conference when the 12-year playoff contract expires in 2025."

Leftover schools: "Oh. I see your point. What P4 home did you have in mind for us?"

**********

No one wants to piss off ESPN. See what happened to the MWC in 2005. See what happened to the Big East in 2011.

If TV doesn't want a conference (which must expand to exist) to enforce its GOR, TV can make an offer that the leftover schools cannot refuse.

Well then the schools would have to be all taken care of BEFORE the conference is dissolved. That's the bottom line. It would be the 1st 3 schools leave, then other 7 are taken care of. Not 1st 3 schools leave, GOR eliminated, and other 7 taken care of.

Now you get it.

The Big 12 is vulnerable because if key teams leave with TV's blessing, the GOR will never be enforced by the leftovers.

The Big 12 GOR only has teeth if some school goes rogue. UT is not going rogue without TV's blessing. Neither is OU.

In that sense, the GOR cost OU and Texas nothing, but they benefit from its protection if any of the others decide to leave on their own.

TV has maximum leverage over the leftovers (and the enforcement of the GOR) as long as the Big 12 remains at 10. If the Big 12 expands, the ability to exercise the leverage becomes more difficult.

Texas knows all this. Why do you think they are so against expansion? They want a get out of jail free card, and expansion makes it harder for them to play that card.

CougarRed,

Your scenario requires the Networks to play hardball and kingmaker with heavy cost and open themselves up to legal exposure unless all are taken care of. Tough to pull off and especially so in a league like the Big12 or PAC with two rights holders.

Also I don't know if I buy that they'd be able to cancel the tv deal when all inventory is still being provided. It would depend on outs in the contract that would seem iffy at best given that Flugaur got the ncaa rules on conference makeup wrong.

Now if everyone is placed elsewhere there wouldn't be a fight but if some are left you can bet things would go to court.

Also the threat of not dealing with them in 10 years rings hollow if they are left out. It's pretty much what happened with the AAC without the AAC doing any of that so what reason would the leftovers have to play ball? So we can have two peanuts in 10 years instead of 1 while everyone in the P5 gets rich?

The league owns the rights, not the networks. If Fox/ESPN void the contract then the league simply offers CBS/NBC/Turner the same contract terms for all prior members along with any replacements. The league owns the rights.