Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

Of course, that's what WVa, Boise State and TCU said about the Big East; they would have to take it to court, though.

(08-12-2016 06:15 PM)acc4life Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

Of course, that's what WVa, Boise State and TCU said about the Big East; they would have to take it to court, though.

And we all know how that turned out to be.

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

This is a meaningless scenerio

1) there wont be an expansion without uts approval
2) the makeup of the big 10 has changed since the original GoR
3) all other conference have networks, texas has the LHN it doesn't want to give up why would it try to implode the big 12 GoR, that benefits them

remove the words Texas with Oklahoma and you might have a scenerio where expansion goes against their will.. even still they will just wait it out 6 years

(08-12-2016 06:20 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:15 PM)acc4life Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

Of course, that's what WVa, Boise State and TCU said about the Big East; they would have to take it to court, though.

And we all know how that turned out to be.

Pay a bunch of money and do whatever the funk you want; have GOR ever been tested in court? I'm not aware of it, but I'm sure it would play out the exact same way it did for WVa and Maryland (in that a fee is negotiated and said parties involved, part ways).

(08-12-2016 06:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

This is a meaningless scenerio

1) there wont be an expansion without uts approval
2) the makeup of the big 10 has changed since the original GoR
3) all other conference have networks, texas has the LHN it doesn't want to give up why would it try to implode the big 12 GoR, that benefits them

remove the words Texas with Oklahoma and you might have a scenerio where expansion goes against their will.. even still they will just wait it out 6 years

First off that's not correct. No Big12 team has left since the GOR and there wasn't one when AM left.
Second, Texas is the only one that could survive with the LHN as an Indy if they chose to and the ACC would gladly give them same deal they gave ND. So if they decide they are done with the B12 they can blow up the GOR go Indy/ ACC and make more money

I think the B12 will go to 12 and that's it

they wanted more but outside pressures will prevent it

(08-12-2016 06:33 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

This is a meaningless scenerio

1) there wont be an expansion without uts approval
2) the makeup of the big 10 has changed since the original GoR
3) all other conference have networks, texas has the LHN it doesn't want to give up why would it try to implode the big 12 GoR, that benefits them

remove the words Texas with Oklahoma and you might have a scenerio where expansion goes against their will.. even still they will just wait it out 6 years

First off that's not correct. No Big12 team has left since the GOR and there wasn't one when AM left.
Second, Texas is the only one that could survive with the LHN as an Indy if they chose to and the ACC would gladly give them same deal they gave ND. So if they decide they are done with the B12 they can blow up the GOR go Indy/ ACC and make more money

i said big 10 not big 12, they added rutgers and maryland after the intial grant of rights
texas made 40-45 mil from their tv deal last year...
ND made 15mil from football & 10 mil from basketball last year (acc).....

tv rights are worth more when they are collectively bargained.. texas has the best of both world right now, why would they want to implode the GoR if they cant get into another conference with the LHN

(08-12-2016 06:45 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:33 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

This is a meaningless scenerio

1) there wont be an expansion without uts approval
2) the makeup of the big 10 has changed since the original GoR
3) all other conference have networks, texas has the LHN it doesn't want to give up why would it try to implode the big 12 GoR, that benefits them

remove the words Texas with Oklahoma and you might have a scenerio where expansion goes against their will.. even still they will just wait it out 6 years

First off that's not correct. No Big12 team has left since the GOR and there wasn't one when AM left.
Second, Texas is the only one that could survive with the LHN as an Indy if they chose to and the ACC would gladly give them same deal they gave ND. So if they decide they are done with the B12 they can blow up the GOR go Indy/ ACC and make more money

i said big 10 not big 12, they added rutgers and maryland after the intial grant of rights
texas made 40-45 mil from their tv deal last year...
ND made 15mil from football & 10 mil from basketball last year (acc).....

tv rights are worth more when they are collectively bargained.. texas has the best of both world right now, why would they want to implode the GoR if they cant get into another conference with the LHN

You can't compare the two. I have a feeling Texas/ ESPN are in cahoots to make the B12 expansion such a joke it ends.
And you are not correct Texas can get into the ACC like ND go Indy in football and keep LHN

(08-12-2016 06:48 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:45 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:33 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

This is a meaningless scenerio

1) there wont be an expansion without uts approval
2) the makeup of the big 10 has changed since the original GoR
3) all other conference have networks, texas has the LHN it doesn't want to give up why would it try to implode the big 12 GoR, that benefits them

remove the words Texas with Oklahoma and you might have a scenerio where expansion goes against their will.. even still they will just wait it out 6 years

First off that's not correct. No Big12 team has left since the GOR and there wasn't one when AM left.
Second, Texas is the only one that could survive with the LHN as an Indy if they chose to and the ACC would gladly give them same deal they gave ND. So if they decide they are done with the B12 they can blow up the GOR go Indy/ ACC and make more money

i said big 10 not big 12, they added rutgers and maryland after the intial grant of rights
texas made 40-45 mil from their tv deal last year...
ND made 15mil from football & 10 mil from basketball last year (acc).....

tv rights are worth more when they are collectively bargained.. texas has the best of both world right now, why would they want to implode the GoR if they cant get into another conference with the LHN

You can't compare the two. I have a feeling Texas/ ESPN are in cahoots to make the B12 expansion such a joke it ends.
And you are not correct Texas can get into the ACC like ND go Indy in football and keep LHN

again i just pointed out texas made 15 mil more from tv than ND last year...15 MILLION MORE!..why would texas want to emulate ND?
that was the point i was making with mentioning how much each made and collective bargaining

(08-12-2016 07:19 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:48 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:45 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:33 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  This is a meaningless scenerio

1) there wont be an expansion without uts approval
2) the makeup of the big 10 has changed since the original GoR
3) all other conference have networks, texas has the LHN it doesn't want to give up why would it try to implode the big 12 GoR, that benefits them

remove the words Texas with Oklahoma and you might have a scenerio where expansion goes against their will.. even still they will just wait it out 6 years

First off that's not correct. No Big12 team has left since the GOR and there wasn't one when AM left.
Second, Texas is the only one that could survive with the LHN as an Indy if they chose to and the ACC would gladly give them same deal they gave ND. So if they decide they are done with the B12 they can blow up the GOR go Indy/ ACC and make more money

i said big 10 not big 12, they added rutgers and maryland after the intial grant of rights
texas made 40-45 mil from their tv deal last year...
ND made 15mil from football & 10 mil from basketball last year (acc).....

tv rights are worth more when they are collectively bargained.. texas has the best of both world right now, why would they want to implode the GoR if they cant get into another conference with the LHN

You can't compare the two. I have a feeling Texas/ ESPN are in cahoots to make the B12 expansion such a joke it ends.
And you are not correct Texas can get into the ACC like ND go Indy in football and keep LHN

again i just pointed out texas made 15 mil more from tv than ND last year...15 MILLION MORE!..why would texas want to emulate ND?
that was the point i was making with mentioning how much each made and collective bargaining

But you miss the point ND does NOT have LHN. If Texas keeps that deal and then gets similar deal with ACC as ND for Olympic sports plus 4 ACC football games they can end up making more.
At the end of the day Texas has options and I wouldn't be surprised if Texas is working hand in hand with ESPN on this whole expansion thing. One thing for sure this B12 expansion has turned into a zoo.

(08-12-2016 07:19 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:48 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:45 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:33 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  This is a meaningless scenerio

1) there wont be an expansion without uts approval
2) the makeup of the big 10 has changed since the original GoR
3) all other conference have networks, texas has the LHN it doesn't want to give up why would it try to implode the big 12 GoR, that benefits them

remove the words Texas with Oklahoma and you might have a scenerio where expansion goes against their will.. even still they will just wait it out 6 years

First off that's not correct. No Big12 team has left since the GOR and there wasn't one when AM left.
Second, Texas is the only one that could survive with the LHN as an Indy if they chose to and the ACC would gladly give them same deal they gave ND. So if they decide they are done with the B12 they can blow up the GOR go Indy/ ACC and make more money

i said big 10 not big 12, they added rutgers and maryland after the intial grant of rights
texas made 40-45 mil from their tv deal last year...
ND made 15mil from football & 10 mil from basketball last year (acc).....

tv rights are worth more when they are collectively bargained.. texas has the best of both world right now, why would they want to implode the GoR if they cant get into another conference with the LHN

You can't compare the two. I have a feeling Texas/ ESPN are in cahoots to make the B12 expansion such a joke it ends.
And you are not correct Texas can get into the ACC like ND go Indy in football and keep LHN

again i just pointed out texas made 15 mil more from tv than ND last year...15 MILLION MORE!..why would texas want to emulate ND?
that was the point i was making with mentioning how much each made and collective bargaining

Nobody knows exactly how much Notre Dame made since their contracts are not released... and ND doesnt care about money. The last time they did a fund raiser they decided to raise $2 Billion dollars for improvements.... it took them less than 2 months to do it.

The ACC probably wouldnt take Texas anyhow. They want Notre Dame as a full member. Adding Texas would only help keep Notre Dame indy. Texas brings 5 football games and some basketball. Thats it. The amount that the ACC can sell that content for compared to how much they would lose by not getting Notre Dame to be a full member isnt worth it.

I am not saying it cant be done, but I know that its been discussed and many feel like adding Texas (as a not football member) could create more problems than it would solve.

I have heard very little lately about the GOR extension. To me this is the key point. The President of Iowa State stated that without an extension there will be no expansion. Why in the world would Texas and Okla. sign an extension when in six years they are free to negotiate a deal with any conference. The Iowa State's of the Big 12 know they are dead meat in 6 years. How would they get Texas & Okla. to sign. Maybe give them a Boise deal?

(08-12-2016 06:45 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:33 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

This is a meaningless scenerio

1) there wont be an expansion without uts approval
2) the makeup of the big 10 has changed since the original GoR
3) all other conference have networks, texas has the LHN it doesn't want to give up why would it try to implode the big 12 GoR, that benefits them

remove the words Texas with Oklahoma and you might have a scenerio where expansion goes against their will.. even still they will just wait it out 6 years

First off that's not correct. No Big12 team has left since the GOR and there wasn't one when AM left.
Second, Texas is the only one that could survive with the LHN as an Indy if they chose to and the ACC would gladly give them same deal they gave ND. So if they decide they are done with the B12 they can blow up the GOR go Indy/ ACC and make more money

i said big 10 not big 12, they added rutgers and maryland after the intial grant of rights
texas made 40-45 mil from their tv deal last year...
ND made 15mil from football & 10 mil from basketball last year (acc).....

tv rights are worth more when they are collectively bargained.. texas has the best of both world right now, why would they want to implode the GoR if they cant get into another conference with the LHN

Where did you get this figure from? The LHN royalty is around 15 million with 12 million coming in last year

(08-15-2016 06:22 PM)hobucken0 Wrote:  I have heard very little lately about the GOR extension. To me this is the key point. The President of Iowa State stated that without an extension there will be no expansion. Why in the world would Texas and Okla. sign an extension when in six years they are free to negotiate a deal with any conference. The Iowa State's of the Big 12 know they are dead meat in 6 years. How would they get Texas & Okla. to sign. Maybe give them a Boise deal?

Question. If OU is looking to get out in 9 years (not 6), why would they go to all the trouble of trying to get the Big 12 to expand in the first place?

(08-12-2016 06:45 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:33 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

This is a meaningless scenerio

1) there wont be an expansion without uts approval
2) the makeup of the big 10 has changed since the original GoR
3) all other conference have networks, texas has the LHN it doesn't want to give up why would it try to implode the big 12 GoR, that benefits them

remove the words Texas with Oklahoma and you might have a scenerio where expansion goes against their will.. even still they will just wait it out 6 years

First off that's not correct. No Big12 team has left since the GOR and there wasn't one when AM left.
Second, Texas is the only one that could survive with the LHN as an Indy if they chose to and the ACC would gladly give them same deal they gave ND. So if they decide they are done with the B12 they can blow up the GOR go Indy/ ACC and make more money

i said big 10 not big 12, they added rutgers and maryland after the intial grant of rights
texas made 40-45 mil from their tv deal last year...
ND made 15mil from football & 10 mil from basketball last year (acc).....

tv rights are worth more when they are collectively bargained.. texas has the best of both world right now, why would they want to implode the GoR if they cant get into another conference with the LHN

22-25 million. 15 was the last contract

(08-15-2016 09:23 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:45 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:33 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 06:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here is something that hasn't been talked about. Let's say Big12 expands to 14 and Texas votes no on the expansions. Could they then argue that the GOR are no longer applicable because the make up of the league has changed.

This is a meaningless scenerio

1) there wont be an expansion without uts approval
2) the makeup of the big 10 has changed since the original GoR
3) all other conference have networks, texas has the LHN it doesn't want to give up why would it try to implode the big 12 GoR, that benefits them

remove the words Texas with Oklahoma and you might have a scenerio where expansion goes against their will.. even still they will just wait it out 6 years

First off that's not correct. No Big12 team has left since the GOR and there wasn't one when AM left.
Second, Texas is the only one that could survive with the LHN as an Indy if they chose to and the ACC would gladly give them same deal they gave ND. So if they decide they are done with the B12 they can blow up the GOR go Indy/ ACC and make more money

i said big 10 not big 12, they added rutgers and maryland after the intial grant of rights
texas made 40-45 mil from their tv deal last year...
ND made 15mil from football & 10 mil from basketball last year (acc).....

tv rights are worth more when they are collectively bargained.. texas has the best of both world right now, why would they want to implode the GoR if they cant get into another conference with the LHN

Where did you get this figure from? The LHN royalty is around 15 million with 12 million coming in last year

LHN + Big 12 shares

The Big 12 GOR will never be tested unless Texas or Oklahoma decides to push it. No other school in the league is attractive enough on its own to go down that road. Even if there was no GOR, I believe the Big 12 would be fairly stable as long as Texas and Oklahoma both stay. I doubt anyone would want Kansas without Oklahoma. No one wants Texas Tech without Texas.

The GOR is basically meaningless because the schools who were already attractive to other conferences left aside from Oklahoma and Texas. The only plausible scenario I could maybe see for teams leaving the Big 12 without one of the big two would be Oklahoma State and Kansas to the SEC. Aside from that, the Big 12 will survive as long as Texas and Oklahoma want it to.

(08-15-2016 09:25 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 06:22 PM)hobucken0 Wrote:  I have heard very little lately about the GOR extension. To me this is the key point. The President of Iowa State stated that without an extension there will be no expansion. Why in the world would Texas and Okla. sign an extension when in six years they are free to negotiate a deal with any conference. The Iowa State's of the Big 12 know they are dead meat in 6 years. How would they get Texas & Okla. to sign. Maybe give them a Boise deal?

Question. If OU is looking to get out in 9 years (not 6), why would they go to all the trouble of trying to get the Big 12 to expand in the first place?

They get a big cut of $$$ for the pro rated shares of the new teams. That is a no brainer. Extending the grant of rights is not for Okla. & Texas..

(08-15-2016 11:26 PM)hobucken0 Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 09:25 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 06:22 PM)hobucken0 Wrote:  I have heard very little lately about the GOR extension. To me this is the key point. The President of Iowa State stated that without an extension there will be no expansion. Why in the world would Texas and Okla. sign an extension when in six years they are free to negotiate a deal with any conference. The Iowa State's of the Big 12 know they are dead meat in 6 years. How would they get Texas & Okla. to sign. Maybe give them a Boise deal?

Question. If OU is looking to get out in 9 years (not 6), why would they go to all the trouble of trying to get the Big 12 to expand in the first place?

They get a big cut of $$$ for the pro rated shares of the new teams. That is a no brainer. Extending the grant of rights is not for Okla. & Texas..

there is no big new money for taking money from any new teams even with only two teams and especially four

and even if the Big 12 did try and take some table scraps from new members unless they were going to take money the entire 8 years they could have new members it would not pay out much if anything in the long run

and worst of all the shares would decline dramatically as new members moved closer to equal shares

that is a terrible situation to have for a conference facing the possible loss of their two most valuable members

the only way to make big new money is to get paid not to expand