Its a premium article on Rivals so I dont know what it says. But if its true, not good. Heard that ESPN was ready to sue the Big 12 to keep them from expanding with G5 schools. If anyone is a Rivals premium member, please give us the jist of whats going on.

OrangeBloods.com

ESPN really loves being the bad guy, don't they?

(08-19-2016 04:24 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  ESPN really loves being the bad guy, don't they?

I don't know that they're the bad guy in this instance. This is like a hostage situation and the B12 has the hostages. ESPN screwed up by rescuing the league in 2010, they threw it a generous lifeline and now they're being punished severely for it.

(08-19-2016 04:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Its a premium article on Rivals so I dont know what it says. But if its true, not good. Heard that ESPN was ready to sue the Big 12 to keep them from expanding with G5 schools. If anyone is a Rivals premium member, please give us the jist of whats going on.

OrangeBloods.com

I mentioned this on the Syracusefan site, not sure if I mentioned it here: ESPN already owns most of the properties being considered. By a simple invite by a third party, ESPN can lose access to a low cost property and have to pay premium rates for that same low cost property. Additionally, it will be paying more than it should for a back fill school to take the first property's place.

I am OK with pushing back on ESPN but interfering with contracts can get costly to one or both parties and always ends up in a mess and with richer attorneys. Aside from UT and OU (possibly Kansas) the remaining Big 12 teams NEED to play nice with ESPN and FOX at least until a new deal is struck, this deal expires after 9 seasons.

Only way ESPN would sue is if they believed there was a breach of the contract. I wonder if ESPN could just sell their interest in the Big12 media rights to Fox?

I wonder if Fox would buy those rights?

I'm certainly not an attorney, but from where I sit, ESPN doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on here even if it does sue the B12.

The Big 12 is a 10-team conference that has decided it needs to expand to help improve its chances of landing a team in the poorly conceived four-team playoff.

Unfortunately for the Big 12, all of the current Power 5 programs are committed elsewhere and unavailable.

So what else are they supposed to do? Just accept their fate?

Eff that noise!

They signed a contract with ESPN where the WWL agreed to pay the B12 $20 million per team were they to expand. The Big 12 is merely exercising that option in their contract. And if they were to add say, Brigham Young and Cincinnati, those are perfectly legitimate choices and very much in line with the vast majority of current P5 programs.

Also, it's not like the Big 12 is expanding by eight or 10 teams. They are talking about adding two teams – four at the absolute maximum.

Personally, I believe that ESPN is bluffing here. If they lose this lawsuit, they risk opening the floodgates. In fact, if I were the Big 12 and ESPN sued me, and my side prevailed, I would immediately expand by two or four more teams. They're going to shove it right up your ass in 2025 anyway, so why not get every nickel you can from them in the interim?

(08-19-2016 08:56 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I'm certainly not an attorney, but from where I sit, ESPN doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on here even if it does sue the B12.

The Big 12 is a 10-team conference that has decided it needs to expand to help improve its chances of landing a team in the poorly conceived four-team playoff.

Unfortunately for the Big 12, all of the current Power 5 programs are committed elsewhere and unavailable.

So what else are they supposed to do? Just accept their fate?

Eff that noise!

They signed a contract with ESPN where the WWL agreed to pay the B12 $20 million per team were they to expand. The Big 12 is merely exercising that option in their contract. And if they were to add say, Brigham Young and Cincinnati, those are perfectly legitimate choices and very much in line with the vast majority of current P5 programs.

Also, it's not like the Big 12 is expanding by eight or 10 teams. They are talking about adding two teams – four at the absolute maximum.

Personally, I believe that ESPN is bluffing here. If they lose this lawsuit, they risk opening the floodgates. In fact, if I were the Big 12 and ESPN sued me, and my side prevailed, I would immediately expand by two or four more teams. They're going to shove it right up your ass in 2025 anyway, so why not get every nickel you can from them in the interim?

The first claim by ESPN would be that the Big 12 is taking properties already bargained for, and abusing their right to expand to injure a party to the contract. This assumes that the Big 12 is looking at ESPN properties (I believe but won't swear to it the AAC, CUSA and MAC are ESPN properties - if someone has better info, please correct me and share with us all) whch most potential schools are.

Next would be tortious interference with a contract (in some jurisdictions, his may be rolled in the first claim).

Then ESPN may get wind of Fox pushing the expansion and they could claim a conspiracy. Nothing may become of this but the expansion can be delayed and the conference would spend a ton of money, etc.

Regardless, if the Big 12 does not play nice now, they certainly cannot expect ESPN to play nice when it is time to renegotiate the deal.

ESPN can sell their rights if they can find a buyer and the buyer could provide equal service (read access to the network). The Big 12 would have a potential claim if ESPN sold the rights and the new owner could not deliver the exposure that ESPN does. Or they can negotiate a compromise.

Any option can be ESPN's end game. They know what they want and will nt lose in the long run nor will most P5 schools, though a few Big 12 schools could.

So, you have a conference that has already been told that no network is coming...yet top dog Texas has their own network....

They are in a system where they have a clear disadvantange without a championship game, and they want to expand for more money, and now ESPN is throwing a fit??

F ESPN

I'd add 6 teams and try and get on with Fox at the end of the deal

While I think that the University of Houston and Brigham Young University deserve, and should be in one of the P5 conferences; I'm just not sure how to get them there. This Big 12 expansion to me seems like a money grab. Does Texas and Oklahoma really want to expand? I'm not sure; I have never been sure. I just think this is been a joke from beginning. I do feel bad for the schools that are being tempted. In the end I don't think they will. And there will be a lot of broken hearts out there.

Since no one has seen the contract, we can only speculate.
But I wouldn't take a stand against ESPN if I were in charge of any of the Big 12 schools. It probably will come back to haunt them later.

(08-20-2016 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  Since no one has seen the contract, we can only speculate.
But I wouldn't take a stand against ESPN if I were in charge of any of the Big 12 schools. It probably will come back to haunt them later.

DaVille makes an interesting point. If I'm ESPN I sell the B12 to Fox at whatever number the B12 is demanding. Wash your hands of that circus and let someone else deal with them. They get UC and WVU in your market? LOL

And if you think Fox would be pleased with the UC/Houston/UCF/USF expansion at 20 million each you'd be crazy.

The reason the B12 isn't getting a network is because Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas all have lucrative tier 3 deals. They don't want to give up those deals for a share in a B12 network. It never got to the point where ESPN/Fox were able to say no.

As Lance said, we have not seen the contract. I would be surprised if the armies of lawyers at Fox and ESPN let them send out a contract agreeing to pay $20 million for an unknown school. If that is really the case, why not add 10 no-name schools, pay them $1 million each and divide up the other $190 million between the existing schools?

(08-20-2016 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  Since no one has seen the contract, we can only speculate.
But I wouldn't take a stand against ESPN if I were in charge of any of the Big 12 schools. It probably will come back to haunt them later.

Yes it's one thing to gently nudge the hand that feeds and another to bite it hard.

The B12 suffers from an "original sin" the same way as the Big East. The imbalance between Texas and the rest of the schools is not very different from the lack of football at the beginning of the Big East. When the parties start with vastly different interests it's just a matter of time.

(08-20-2016 09:51 AM)L-yes Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  Since no one has seen the contract, we can only speculate.
But I wouldn't take a stand against ESPN if I were in charge of any of the Big 12 schools. It probably will come back to haunt them later.

DaVille makes an interesting point. If I'm ESPN I sell the B12 to Fox at whatever number the B12 is demanding. Wash your hands of that circus and let someone else deal with them. They get UC and WVU in your market? LOL

And if you think Fox would be pleased with the UC/Houston/UCF/USF expansion at 20 million each you'd be crazy.

Having Cincinnati go to the Big 12 is the second worse thing that could happen to the SEC/ESPN/Kentucky. To give FOX a foothold in a market that would directly compete with Kentucky for eyeballs would further marginalize the Wildcats. The only thing worse for the SEC/Kentucky would be for Cincinnati to join the ACC with West Virginia( it would wall off the Wildcats on the east with West Virginia, Pitt and Virginia Tech and seal them to the west with Louisville and Cincinnati). In 10 years nobody would remember who Kentucky was.

It's my understanding that there is a limit of 6 teams that the Big XII can add under the pro rate provision.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-20-2016 03:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It's my understanding that there is a limit of 6 teams that the Big XII can add under the pro rate provision.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

6 teams that would be OK by ESPN or the Big12 can add up to 6 teams?

(08-20-2016 04:42 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 03:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It's my understanding that there is a limit of 6 teams that the Big XII can add under the pro rate provision.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

6 teams that would be OK by ESPN or the Big12 can add up to 6 teams?

The contract allegedly pays pro rate for up to 16 total teams. So they can only add 6, Max.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-19-2016 09:23 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  The first claim by ESPN would be that the Big 12 is taking properties already bargained for, and abusing their right to expand to injure a party to the contract. This assumes that the Big 12 is looking at ESPN properties (I believe but won't swear to it the AAC, CUSA and MAC are ESPN properties - if someone has better info, please correct me and share with us all) whch most potential schools are.

But Cincinnati versus Texas with a playoff berth on the line is not worth the same as say, Cincinnati versus SMU with a Military Bowl berth at stake.

Also, if you were Cincinnati, wouldn't you then sue ESPN for effectively blackballing you from ever improving your lot? Again, I'm not an attorney but isn't that collusion?

This is not a caste system.

(08-19-2016 09:23 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Next would be tortious interference with a contract (in some jurisdictions, his may be rolled in the first claim).

See above.

(08-19-2016 09:23 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Then ESPN may get wind of Fox pushing the expansion and they could claim a conspiracy. Nothing may become of this but the expansion can be delayed and the conference would spend a ton of money, etc.

That would get expensive for ESPN too – especially if they're losing money hand over fist as I think they would.

(08-19-2016 09:23 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Regardless, if the Big 12 does not play nice now, they certainly cannot expect ESPN to play nice when it is time to renegotiate the deal.

ESPN is not going to play nice anyway, that's my point.

This isn't about being nice, it's about business. If Texas and Oklahoma remain involved in the Big 12 post this GOR, it doesn't matter what ESPN thinks because they will remain a valuable property with plenty of suitors.

Conversely, if those programs are not involved in the league post-2025, it doesn't matter how kind they are to ESPN now, they are going to be hosed because they would no longer be a valuable property.

Personally, if I were the Big 12, I would milk ESPN for every nickel I could. They signed a contract and they knew the terms going in. They would hold you to it and you should hold them to it.

(08-19-2016 09:23 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  ESPN can sell their rights if they can find a buyer and the buyer could provide equal service (read access to the network). The Big 12 would have a potential claim if ESPN sold the rights and the new owner could not deliver the exposure that ESPN does. Or they can negotiate a compromise.

Any option can be ESPN's end game. They know what they want and will not lose in the long run nor will most P5 schools, though a few Big 12 schools could.

To me that gets us into questions like what is the inherent value of any school? That's a tricky thing to answer/prove.

For example, what's the difference between the profiles of Connecticut and Kansas other than the fact that KU gets to play Texas and Oklahoma every year whereas Connecticut is relegated to playing Tulsa and SMU?

I think ESPN is playing a very dangerous game and they're going to lose. The Big 12 is definitely going to expand by at least two teams – there's just no doubt about that. Personally, I still think they should expand by four teams (BYU, Cincinnati, UConn and Houston) but it will definitely be two.

I think you're missing one key point here Dr., while the B12 will have suitors for their next contract, expansion would likely devalue the conference. In the meantime Fox is will be paying them more to so its not just ESPN that will be getting hurt here. Expansion will likely mean that the conference will split up. There would be a greater chance of the conference staying intact without expansion, although it will be vulnerable either way.

(08-20-2016 10:43 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  The reason the B12 isn't getting a network is because Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas all have lucrative tier 3 deals. They don't want to give up those deals for a share in a B12 network.

Funny -"lucrative" the only time I ever hear that word is in reference to B12 tier 3 contracts. Why is that?

Further, Oklahoma makes less than 2M per year off their T3 TV. KSU makes "tens of dollars." They are making peanuts, relatively, from it. The only one getting rich is Texas.