(09-16-2016 03:50 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I definitely think 4 is very unlikely. That would just upset the TV relationships too much. Not expanding is an option I guess, but it just seems like unless TV comes in and sweetens the deal to not expand, they've come too far.

To me, all signs point toward a modest expansion to 12, probably with UH and Cincy. It's the "not too hot, not too cold" outcome. TV doesn't love it, but it's better than 14. The conference doesn't love it, but it is better than going through this whole song and dance and not expanding. It removes the "one of these things is not like the other" stigma from the Playoff debate. And it is geographically and market friendly overall.

Considering all the talk about B12 expansion, I'm kind of surprised at how little chatter there has been about last night's game between UH and Cincy.

Not a big deal at all if they don't get a GOR extension at same time as expansion. Eight years is plenty of time. Frankly I'd be surprised if they all weren't thinking that keeping options open is best right now. Nothing wrong with the that -- unless they don't expand at all! That's the real indicator.

(09-16-2016 04:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 03:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Whether or not they expand is not the indicator.

The indicator is the GOR. If the Big 12 expands without extending its GOR and TV contract, it's a dead conference walking.

Not at all. The Big 10 is supposedly thinking that there will be a lot of new players in the marketplace in the mid-2020s, so they did a short term contract. The Big 12 has said similar things. Extending the GOR (which you wouldn't do without a TV contract extension) locks you into a contract that might be well under market in 8 years.

The Big Ten has a GOR that extends far beyond its new TV contract. Most of the Big 12 members would want the same. If they can't get that as part of an expansion, it means UT and OU want to be available to other conferences when the current Big 12 GOR is done.

The Big Ten's GOR extends for the length of its BTN contract.

There is no reason to do a GOR (and whether it legally enforceable could be questioned) if its not tied to a TV contract.

The reason to have or extend a GOR under any circumstances is the same -- to tie members to the conference and make it expensive and cumbersome for anyone to leave before the end of the GOR. If UT and OU say, "Nah, let's wait and test the marketplace," they don't mean they just want the Big 12 to get a good deal for itself, they mean that they want to be available to other conferences sooner rather than later.

Texas and OU explored in 2010 and stayed.

(09-16-2016 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 03:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  bullet,

Nonsense.

A school's TV rights are a thing that exists on their own, even if there is no TV deal. And as such, if the school leaves the conference prematurely (in the sense of the GoR term), it can't participate in the new conference's TV deal because the former conference still holds those TV rights.

Its basic contract law. You have to have consideration. If there is no deal then its questionable whether you have consideration. Now maybe the fact that all gave up their rights could be consideration. But its certainly something that could be explored.

I think it could reasonably be argued that getting your games on TV is "consideration"

with the fact that many athletics programs including the vast majority of P5 do not make money it is always argued that sports is a "window to the university" or a way for alumni to connect or a way to get alumni engaged to make donations

so getting those games on TV and selling the school has value outside of financial value

there is also the fact that some have argued in the past that the structure of the GOR is not similar to "media contract law' and thus the idea of "pay for rights" is not really one that applies to the GOR

this was from a while back when the GORs came out and some guy with a freshly printed law degree wrote a blog about how the GORs would easily fall apart and a number of much more experienced lawyers basically laughed at him, his arguments and his degree and stated that he was not even applying the proper area of law

ESPN and Fox Sports want teams that could draw viewers for football. As it is, 3 of the big ones that got a lot of eyeballs got knocked out.

Boise State, Memphis and East Carolina

Those three the big networks would want in the Big 12. Rice, UConn, Tulane, SMU, Colorado State all do not bring strength in football or tv sets for football. That could be why the networks do not want those teams in the Big 12. Plus, if you have the way Boise State winning? They could draw the best players away from the P5 schools.