(08-22-2016 02:30 PM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Put a different way, UH, UCF, SMU, and Memphis were all invited to the AAC before ECU. I'm sure those invites were not for winning % or attendance...at least not for us or Memphis. ECU was part of the second AAC expansion along with Tulane & Tulsa.

With that precedent set, wouldn't it make sense that all 4 of those teams would be picked up by the B12 before ECU?

Well that said, Memphis is thought to be among the top three of AAC teams, somewhat there with UConn. By that token, since Memphis was not among the original Big East expansion teams, yet they are ahead of Big East "originals" UConn and USF, and potentially UCF, Boise, and SMU

(08-22-2016 02:02 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 01:40 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  Memphis has only spent about 4 weeks ranked ever 1st off and ECU hasn't lost to Memphis in a decade despite playing in the same division in C-USA. Yes UC and UH have been to more prestigious bowls but what ECU lacks in terms of number of top 25 finishes (although to correct you ECU's finished ranked 3x (#20 in 1983, #9 in '91 and # 23 in 1995) it makes up for in consistency.

ECU was not ranked in the AP poll at any point in 1995. And while I was not really referring to Memphis in terms of rankings, they were ranked four weeks last year, so that part is not true either. Head to head is irrelevant for discussions.

(08-22-2016 01:40 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  ECU is usually very consistent. There are many many x that ECU finished 2nd in the conference or were ranked or almost ranked going into the bowl season where they didn't finish the deal. Other years ECU just wasn't respected enough (eg., in '96 ECU only lost 3 games and beat #12 Miami, South Carolina & WVU but finished No. 26 and no bowl & in '99 ECU was ranked #19 going into the bowl against TCU before finishing No. 26, If ECU had won the Liberty Bowl in either '09 or '10 it would have been top 20 those years, and we all know what happened 2 years ago). & there are plenty of years I am forgetting.


[quote='Indiana Bones' pid='13491452' dateline='1471891246']
As for ECU's fan support. ECU ranks right up there with NCSU & UNC in both TV ratings and attendance despite playing teams like SMU, UAB, Tulsa Tulane, etc year in and year out.

You are confusing fan support and game day attendance, or at least how a perspective conference would define it. ECU's revenue falls behind schools such as Air Force, San Diego St, UCF, Cincinnati, and UConn, and only slightly above USF, UNLC, James Madison, Houston, Old Dominion, and Boise St (note, I am surprised to see Houston is down below James Madison). And even if you remove conference revenue, to equalize things, they were well behind UNC and NC State.

All that said, as I mentioned before, ECU's one asset to fall on is game day attendance. Their football pedigree and records are not better than most of the competition - well maybe UConn and Memphis. But what I am saying is, one reason ECU was even the last one to the party in the AAC, is their one asset, game day attendance (and environment), does not translate to an asset for the conference. And no other asset they have, is better than the other schools who have tangible assets to a new conference. This is not a knock, it just is what it is. I mean Tulane was invited as a full member ahead of ECU to the AAC. That is telling.

I like ECU as much as the next guy. I respect their willingness to schedule up in football OOC. But I marvel at the public perception of their football prowess. The numbers just don't back that up. Count on them for 7-9 wins a year? Since 1980, about the time of the FBS split when ECU left their SOCon mates behind, the Pirates' record is 212-211. Only once this century have they had fewer than five losses in a season (they were 10-3 in 2013). That's respectable enough, but it hasn't convinced any other conference before now to value them as a potential partner. To expect a Texas-centric conference like the Big XII to do so now is just asking too much.

I can't see any way that both Houston and SMU are added, or that SMU is added over Houston if one Texas school is added.

IF ESPN did sue.. could they also open them self up for a counter suit. To me they had no problem driving the first few rounds of expansion, yet when its not something that they like its going to sue? I am not a legal expert, and I know its about the money.

However to me if Big 12 does not expand, its going to die in the near future.

And we know Disney is having money issues, so could this open a can of worms on the past dealings of expansions.

(08-22-2016 11:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Did you ever consider the possible liability for the cost of the damages to the schools left out of realignment due to a collapse of the Big12? Seems if ESPN fails to pay its contractual obligation and thise directly causes the collapse of the Big12-----the long term damages to those schools could be huge and the cost to ESPN in a law suit could be even bigger. At that point, those schools would have little to lose and ESPN would be very vulnerable.

By the way, I think several schools damaged by realignment would be very interested in the discovery process should ESPN decide to go to court to avoid paying the Big12. ESPN might get waaaay more than they bargained for if enough hard evidence comes out that they were more than just an interested observer in many of the recent realignment moves. They could literaly face multiple suits from schools and conferences. I don't think ESPN wants anything to do with the discovery process that would be centered on realignment and the "spirit" of the current Big12 contract.

Actually I did consider potential damage as you alluded to. Then I thought to myself, lot's of programs have been damaged the last several years and look what's happened thus far for those programs in terms of damages....then I thought about how the USFL won a suit against the NFL and was awarded ONE DOLLAR over NFL COLLUSION with TV partners or something like that...of course everything situation is different, I know that....I would also note not only would Networks not want a discovery process to move forward...most likely neither would the programs left out because everybody has dirty hands, including perhaps some of these schools. Anything can be negotiated, I know that. I'm not an internet lawyer but i know the networks have the best Law firms in the country that deal with stuff like this as i'm sure some schools have heavy hitters as well.

Anybody have any idea if damages were awarded to the schools that got shafted after the break up of the SWC? to my knowledge they simply got left behind, that simple. Between the break up of the old SWC and the Catholic split Big East and the formation of the AAC and MWC I would think it's clear stuff can be negotiated. However I don't think any school that got left behind has made out like a bandit in terms of damages or whatever, certainly not long term.

If a conference dissolves (THINK SWC) i'm not sure what recourse the ones that get left out has. From past history it appears not much. I suppose a few bones can be thrown to whomever but it's far from a financial windfall long term.

I figure the heavy hitter law firms know far more than internet lawyers. Just my opinion. Whatever makes the most sense financially for the Networks is usually how things end up when all is said and done. Plus litigation can literally take years and years and years. Anyway, if the deal is honored for the next 8 years and some programs bolt then it really doesn't matter one way or the other.

Some programs get screwed, it happens. It's no different than anything else.

(08-20-2016 12:13 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  What are the teams ESPN would have been OK with when this was signed?

ACC teams?

My guess would be FSU and Clemson.

ESPN and Fox have to be careful. If they sue? There is smoking gun that will exposed them for tearing apart the Big East, and now with the Big 12. It would show that the private sector was interfering with the government because many of the schools effective were public. The government could rule in favor that all schools in the FBS and FCS and with the non football schools have to be paid the same amount on tv contracts.

(08-22-2016 09:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN and Fox have to be careful. If they sue? There is smoking gun that will exposed them for tearing apart the Big East, and now with the Big 12. It would show that the private sector was interfering with the government because many of the schools effective were public. The government could rule in favor that all schools in the FBS and FCS and with the non football schools have to be paid the same amount on tv contracts.

That won't be happening David. The largest state schools have the most registered voters and the most money, and the most law schools that pump out future house members for states and the feds, and the most potential senators at both levels as well, and oh, did I mention future judicial appointees as well?

Sorry young man, but crooked is top down, not bottom up. And, unfortunately the conglomerates that own FOX & ESPN, well....they are at the top.

It's not right. I don't like it either. I kind of hoped enough folks would get ticked when their sports got screwed up by the corruption of corporate influence that they would demand some legal changes by changing things at the polls. But in spite of all of the angst expressed, they either don't want to connect the dots, or are afraid to because their kids will need corporate jobs one day.

JRsec-------"That won't be happening David. The largest state schools have the most registered voters and the most money, and the most law schools that pump out future house members for states and the feds, and the most potential senators at both levels as well, and oh, did I mention future judicial appointees as well?

Sorry young man, but crooked is top down, not bottom up. And, unfortunately the conglomerates that own FOX & ESPN, well....they are at the top.

It's not right. I don't like it either. I kind of hoped enough folks would get ticked when their sports got screwed up by the corruption of corporate influence that they would demand some legal changes by changing things at the polls. But in spite of all of the angst expressed, they either don't want to connect the dots, or are afraid to because their kids will need corporate jobs one day."


THIS!!--A dozen times over!

(08-22-2016 06:47 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 12:13 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  What are the teams ESPN would have been OK with when this was signed?
ACC teams?

My guess would be FSU and Clemson.

The Big 12 additions that would have held the most appeal for ESPN and Fox at the time would have been Notre Dame (joined ACC instead), PAC teams (stayed put), former B12 members wanting to return (never happened), and perhaps BYU (we'll see).

ESPN could certainly justify paying the Big 12 the pro rata amount for Florida State and Clemson but the network would have little reason to encourage such a move. ESPN would just end up paying more to broadcast teams it already held exclusive rights to broadcast, and it would now have to share those teams with Fox.

The idea that ESPN 'drives' expansion is a message-board conspiracy story. Media companies generally dislike inter-conference moves. They oblige networks to pay ever higher amounts for content they already have or can acquire less expensively in other ways.

It's more accurate to say that *desire* for media dollars drives expansion. University presidents are the people who sit behind that wheel.

It's also more accurate to say that media companies encourage conference stability. ESPN and Fox took an active role in holding the Big 12 together. ESPN also reportedly wanted ACC schools to guarantee membership stability before launching a conference network; this led the schools to sign and then extend their grant of rights.

(08-22-2016 09:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN and Fox have to be careful. If they sue? There is smoking gun that will exposed [...]

Message-board fans can be so dramatic.

(08-22-2016 09:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There is smoking gun that will exposed them [sic] for tearing apart the Big East, and now with the Big 12. It would show that the private sector was interfering with the government because many of the schools effective were public. [...]

Public universities sign contracts with private entities, including commercial entities, all the time. No smoking guns there.

No school that left the Big East or Big 12 was forced at gunpoint to march off. Invitations mean little until they are accepted. The schools left because they wanted to. So--no smoking guns there, either.

It's no big cosmic thing. The old Big East was just a very unstable conference. It wasn't going to last. Instability was wired into its structure.

The Big 12 is unstable, too, as a matter of culture. Always has been.

(08-22-2016 09:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN and Fox have to be careful. If they sue? There is smoking gun that will exposed them for tearing apart the Big East, and now with the Big 12. It would show that the private sector was interfering with the government because many of the schools effective were public. The government could rule in favor that all schools in the FBS and FCS and with the non football schools have to be paid the same amount on tv contracts.

A party to a contract that doesn't perform as agreed in the contract has no basis to sue. In this case specifically, ESPN would be the non-preforming party. ESPN will not sue, if ESPN doesn't agree that there is a requirement (for whatever reason) for ESPN to pay pro rata, ESPN simply won't pay it. Then it would be up to the B12 to sue. The entire premise that ESPN is threatening to sue to prevent B12 expansion is illogical & frivolous. ESPN would simply not perform as the contract requires, not sue. And then it is certain that the B12 would sue for specific performance & damages.

The reality is ESPN & probably Fox don't want to pay pro rata. ESPN in particular already has the likely candidates under contract at a fraction of the fees that would be owed under the B12 contract. Therefore all of this public editorial by ESPN (and likely the B12 too) is just posturing to hopefully find common ground/compromise that will mitigate the added costs to the networks but still increases the pay out to the B12 through expansion &/or higher fees to the current members. And this in light of the conference TV networks by the other major conferences.

(08-23-2016 07:24 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  [...] Therefore all of this public editorial by ESPN (and likely the B12 too) is just posturing to hopefully find common ground/compromise that will mitigate the added costs to the networks but still increase the pay out to the B12 [...]

Good analysis.

It's worth noting that ESPN is not the source of the 'editorial' under discussion, which comes from a Texas Longhorn fan site (OrangeBloods) hosted by Yahoo.

The fan site seems to be making drama of (or just spinning, or garbling) the information reported by Andy Staples for Sports Illustrated. Staples supports your view: in a standoff it would be the Big 12 that sues its media partners, not the other way around.

Even ESPN executives, who desperately want to handle this across a table and not in a courtroom, will blanch at a Big 12 decision that adds four schools and simply sends the networks an invoice demanding a 40% rights fee increase. Sure, that's what the contract calls for. But since neither ESPN nor Fox believe that is keeping with the spirit of the deal, both would—in what they consider an extreme situation—consider more drastic action. The most drastic move would be to refuse to pay the Big 12 any additional money. The networks would simply pay what they pay now and force the Big 12 to take them to court over the rest.