(05-05-2022 10:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  We need one more option: NEVER, because the entire college sports system will collapse before they can get to the SEC.

Not sayin, just throwing it out there.

Just because there may be no NCAA doesn't mean that the SEC or Big Ten, or sports played at Universities goes away. You will need to distinguish between defunct and obsolete systems and "college sports."

When the equitable nature of existing contracts are destroyed by changes in court rulings the courts generally render the affected contracts moot and call for new ones to be created. This precedent would definitely apply should pay for play become the ruling. It destroys the equitable nature of current rights deals because it places a burden (payroll overhead) on only one party to the contract (the conferences by extension of member schools). The rights holder would now have the same benefit at no increase of cost while the school's overhead to produce said product would balloon.

Should contracts be required to be renegotiated it opens up the GOR. In that window massive movement and consolidation could occur and it would impact all conferences but likely those who currently earn less would be impacted the most.

People always forget but conference governance and its overhead generally costs each conference one full distribution share. What is gained by consolidation is the elimination of redundant governance costs, and a smaller share of overhead for the same in a larger conference, and that is in addition to greater leverage, a larger overall market exposure, and much easier scheduling. And for each conference which goes away each member school would be entitled to their share of the sale of conference properties, a windfall to help them catch up faster.

Whatever emerged would then have contracts which acknowledged the payroll, were equitable and which leveled the financial playing field for more schools. It would not be the NCAA (so hoops earn more too) and as the nuclei the SEC and B1G would be recognizable brands though radically changed in their scope and membership.

In short it wouldn't be anything but a Mergers and Acquisition move for profits and security.

(05-05-2022 10:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  We need one more option: NEVER, because the entire college sports system will collapse before they can get to the SEC.

Not sayin, just throwing it out there.

I think you intended this as snark.

At any rate, I would read your comment in a different way, probably not a way that you intended: Even if the entire college sports system collapses and hell freezes over, the SEC will still be there, at least until we reach the point where fans lose interest in paying to watch college football.

Compare college football to horse racing. Even if college football becomes a slowly dying sport like horse racing, the SEC is like Churchill Downs and the Kentucky Derby -- even if everything else goes kaput, it will be the very last thing to die out, if it ever does.

(05-05-2022 09:11 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(05-01-2022 09:39 AM)texoma Wrote:  I am thinking 2023. I think they will pay what ever fee is negotiated. What do you think?

There is no reason for the Big XII to let them go early. If OU/UT want to leave early, they will have to pay.

I believe that is exactly what I said.

(05-04-2022 11:30 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 02:11 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 02:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:51 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:07 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Lol. You’re making this far too personal.

It’s just business. The Big 12 benefits most from OU and UT staying and playing the new schools, or by getting paid for OU and UT leaving before that. Pretty simple stuff. The Big 12 would take a repeat of last year through 2025 over getting paid to release OU and UT early.

No business decisions will be based on what amounts to easily broken gentleman’s agreements.

What benefits do the remaining Big12 schools get, from Oklahoma and Texas playing the new schools added to the Big12?

Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

The new schools getting to play OU and Texas a couple of times benefits the new schools a little bit, but the old Big12 schools lose out, as JR and PeteTheChop so aptly stated.....win the battle and lose the war.

Lol.

If only Ukraine would have just agreed to Putin’s terms.

This is just business. The old schools don’t lose out. What is good for the new ones is good for the conference. Play the long game- the war- not some short term battle. There’s really no benefit to not having a high asking price to let OU and UT early.

Who really loses out are OU, UT, and SEC. Hence the begging in this thread.

The cost/benefit is clearly asymmetrical. You don’t offset that with some fan fantasy about gentlemen agreements and emotions. Let me guess, you also thought the Alliance was meaningful?

The SEC and OU, UT are free to level that- offer something real, binding, and substantial in exchange for releasing them early. We’re in that phase.

This has nothing to do with retribution and the SEC is not the “enemy” . The only conferences the B12 is aligned against are the P12 and ACC. If the SEC were to first get ESPN to take USC or pillage the ACC, I have no doubt OU and UT would be moved soon after.

You make no sense, you are back and forth with your arguments.
Do your really think the SEC and OU and UT are losing out and begging? LOL

Now you are quoting PeteTheChop in reverse. AS I said you make no sense. Good bye.

(05-05-2022 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 09:52 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 02:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:51 PM)texoma Wrote:  What benefits do the remaining Big12 schools get, from Oklahoma and Texas playing the new schools added to the Big12?

Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

Let's let Don Pardo discuss the parting prizes for our Big 12 participants:

Congratulations to the remaining Big 12 schools for participating in College Football's game show of realignment called "The Price is Right".

For holding onto Texas and Oklahoma until 2025 you get the schadenfreude of holding them back, and the joy of impeding the SEC expansion, and you get to continue to raid G5 conferences in hopes of boosting your P5 standing, and you get to negotiate a new contract after losing 54.3% of your brand value. And you piss off ESPN in the process. Well Done!

Outside of that you really get nothing! You will now have little leverage to:
1. Schedule Texas, Oklahoma, or any SEC school, or any school under contract to ESPN.
2. You lose your Sugar Bowl tie-in to the ACC.
3. You lose any interest ESPN may have had in keeping your contract values up.
4. And you lose the perception of being a top 3 P conference because you alienated the #1 image maker.
5. And you get to split 76 million 12 ways so you get a one time payout of just over 6 million per school.
7. And you get a home version of our new game, "Breakaway" which isolates the top earners and relegates the lesser earners in CFB's version of purgatory.

Had you negotiated the early release of Texas and Oklahoma here's what you could have had:
1. Games with Texas, Oklahoma, SEC schools, ESPN contract schools.
2. You would have kept your Sugar Bowl tie in. Why you ask? Because had the SEC and B1G expanded out of the ACC you would have merged with other P5 schools keeping your P status, and elevating your revenue in the process.
3. You would have netted a higher payout from departing schools.
4. You would have been included when playing "Breakaway".

But we don't want you to walk away with nothing so we are giving you a set of books written by our game champions called, "How to Win in College Football's Realignment Game" by Mike Slive, Jim Delany, and with a forward by Greg Sankey

Thanks for playing! Our next contestant is from California, George Kiavkoff come on down!

I'm probably taking Don Pardo's response too seriously. However,
1) SEC schools will still schedule Big 12 schools. Games like UF-UCF, KY-Cincy, Houston-A&M will be fun regional rivalries, even if not played every year. Schools will still want to schedule Kansas as their P5 OOC matchup. OK will still play OK State, Texas will play Tech.
2) I'm not sure the Big 12 loses the Sugar Bowl (at least for now).
3) While a higher payout is true, that is mitigated by not playing Texas/OK. We haven't heard the new numbers for sure yet (as far as I know), but we are about to find out what those two schools on a schedule are worth to TV, and they are certainly worth something at the gate too.

1. Don't bet on it. We may be moving to a closed system in scheduling in the not too distant future. AD's are discussing these matters aleeady.
2. At the end of the current contract. The Sugar Bowl wanted OU and UT's brand power, not so much the rest.
3. There is no doubt as to OU and UT's value in the B12. The WSJ consistently estimated their value at 54% of the Big 12 total and the highest valued conference game was the RRR. The big question is what are they worth against A&M, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, and Tennessee. We just know it's huge. Estimates are low end 10 million more per school in payouts and upper end 20 million more.

On point 2, you have me curious what you think might happen after.

Per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%2...ce_tie-ins

Quote: Rose Bowl: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Sugar Bowl: SEC vs. Big 12
Orange Bowl: ACC vs. Big Ten, SEC, or Notre Dame


[...]The Cotton, Fiesta, and Peach Bowls, have no conference tie-ins; as such, the best conference champion from the Group of Five ends up in one of those bowls if it doesn't end up in a playoff semifinal.

If the B12 is out of the sugar bowl, would another conference take its place? (Like the ACC?) or might it be variable like the orange bowl?

And might one of the other 3 bowls offer to be the new "permanent" bowl of the B12? (cotton bowl is in tx, fiesta is in az, peach is in ga)

(05-05-2022 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 09:52 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 02:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 01:51 PM)texoma Wrote:  What benefits do the remaining Big12 schools get, from Oklahoma and Texas playing the new schools added to the Big12?

Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

Let's let Don Pardo discuss the parting prizes for our Big 12 participants:

Congratulations to the remaining Big 12 schools for participating in College Football's game show of realignment called "The Price is Right".

For holding onto Texas and Oklahoma until 2025 you get the schadenfreude of holding them back, and the joy of impeding the SEC expansion, and you get to continue to raid G5 conferences in hopes of boosting your P5 standing, and you get to negotiate a new contract after losing 54.3% of your brand value. And you piss off ESPN in the process. Well Done!

Outside of that you really get nothing! You will now have little leverage to:
1. Schedule Texas, Oklahoma, or any SEC school, or any school under contract to ESPN.
2. You lose your Sugar Bowl tie-in to the ACC.
3. You lose any interest ESPN may have had in keeping your contract values up.
4. And you lose the perception of being a top 3 P conference because you alienated the #1 image maker.
5. And you get to split 76 million 12 ways so you get a one time payout of just over 6 million per school.
7. And you get a home version of our new game, "Breakaway" which isolates the top earners and relegates the lesser earners in CFB's version of purgatory.

Had you negotiated the early release of Texas and Oklahoma here's what you could have had:
1. Games with Texas, Oklahoma, SEC schools, ESPN contract schools.
2. You would have kept your Sugar Bowl tie in. Why you ask? Because had the SEC and B1G expanded out of the ACC you would have merged with other P5 schools keeping your P status, and elevating your revenue in the process.
3. You would have netted a higher payout from departing schools.
4. You would have been included when playing "Breakaway".

But we don't want you to walk away with nothing so we are giving you a set of books written by our game champions called, "How to Win in College Football's Realignment Game" by Mike Slive, Jim Delany, and with a forward by Greg Sankey

Thanks for playing! Our next contestant is from California, George Kiavkoff come on down!

I'm probably taking Don Pardo's response too seriously. However,
1) SEC schools will still schedule Big 12 schools. Games like UF-UCF, KY-Cincy, Houston-A&M will be fun regional rivalries, even if not played every year. Schools will still want to schedule Kansas as their P5 OOC matchup. OK will still play OK State, Texas will play Tech.
2) I'm not sure the Big 12 loses the Sugar Bowl (at least for now).
3) While a higher payout is true, that is mitigated by not playing Texas/OK. We haven't heard the new numbers for sure yet (as far as I know), but we are about to find out what those two schools on a schedule are worth to TV, and they are certainly worth something at the gate too.

1. Don't bet on it. We may be moving to a closed system in scheduling in the not too distant future. AD's are discussing these matters aleeady.
2. At the end of the current contract. The Sugar Bowl wanted OU and UT's brand power, not so much the rest.
3. There is no doubt as to OU and UT's value in the B12. The WSJ consistently estimated their value at 54% of the Big 12 total and the highest valued conference game was the RRR. The big question is what are they worth against A&M, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, and Tennessee. We just know it's huge. Estimates are low end 10 million more per school in payouts and upper end 20 million more.

Well the ploys didn’t last long!
1.) Exactly! And why the asking price is more than Alliance-like gentleman’s agreements on future scheduling
2.) yep. War is likely already over. The only real option is to get what you can now, try to capitalize as much as possible on repeating last year 4 more times, with the new schools helping. Build the brand off off OU and UT slipping
3.) Again, this says OU/UT/SEC would need to make a substantive, tangible offer to facilitate an early move. A counter-party that asks you to ignore that type of asymmetrical cost for in essence a favor, isn’t one to give favors to.

Nothing personal with SEC or OU/UT, just basics of business.

Imo, if you want to go with “win the war, not the battle”, the Big 12 would let OU and UT walk for free, including exit if they got real assurances ESPN and SEC would first put the ACC in a similar position, or get USC to go independent.

(05-05-2022 05:38 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 09:52 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 02:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Branding.

The Big 12s issue vs the ACC and P12 is nothing more than perception. Not even ratings. Perception. Repeating last year 4 more times, but with the new schools also getting to take shots at OU and UT, is a scenario that many will only give up if paid well

Let's let Don Pardo discuss the parting prizes for our Big 12 participants:

Congratulations to the remaining Big 12 schools for participating in College Football's game show of realignment called "The Price is Right".

For holding onto Texas and Oklahoma until 2025 you get the schadenfreude of holding them back, and the joy of impeding the SEC expansion, and you get to continue to raid G5 conferences in hopes of boosting your P5 standing, and you get to negotiate a new contract after losing 54.3% of your brand value. And you piss off ESPN in the process. Well Done!

Outside of that you really get nothing! You will now have little leverage to:
1. Schedule Texas, Oklahoma, or any SEC school, or any school under contract to ESPN.
2. You lose your Sugar Bowl tie-in to the ACC.
3. You lose any interest ESPN may have had in keeping your contract values up.
4. And you lose the perception of being a top 3 P conference because you alienated the #1 image maker.
5. And you get to split 76 million 12 ways so you get a one time payout of just over 6 million per school.
7. And you get a home version of our new game, "Breakaway" which isolates the top earners and relegates the lesser earners in CFB's version of purgatory.

Had you negotiated the early release of Texas and Oklahoma here's what you could have had:
1. Games with Texas, Oklahoma, SEC schools, ESPN contract schools.
2. You would have kept your Sugar Bowl tie in. Why you ask? Because had the SEC and B1G expanded out of the ACC you would have merged with other P5 schools keeping your P status, and elevating your revenue in the process.
3. You would have netted a higher payout from departing schools.
4. You would have been included when playing "Breakaway".

But we don't want you to walk away with nothing so we are giving you a set of books written by our game champions called, "How to Win in College Football's Realignment Game" by Mike Slive, Jim Delany, and with a forward by Greg Sankey

Thanks for playing! Our next contestant is from California, George Kiavkoff come on down!

I'm probably taking Don Pardo's response too seriously. However,
1) SEC schools will still schedule Big 12 schools. Games like UF-UCF, KY-Cincy, Houston-A&M will be fun regional rivalries, even if not played every year. Schools will still want to schedule Kansas as their P5 OOC matchup. OK will still play OK State, Texas will play Tech.
2) I'm not sure the Big 12 loses the Sugar Bowl (at least for now).
3) While a higher payout is true, that is mitigated by not playing Texas/OK. We haven't heard the new numbers for sure yet (as far as I know), but we are about to find out what those two schools on a schedule are worth to TV, and they are certainly worth something at the gate too.

1. Don't bet on it. We may be moving to a closed system in scheduling in the not too distant future. AD's are discussing these matters aleeady.
2. At the end of the current contract. The Sugar Bowl wanted OU and UT's brand power, not so much the rest.
3. There is no doubt as to OU and UT's value in the B12. The WSJ consistently estimated their value at 54% of the Big 12 total and the highest valued conference game was the RRR. The big question is what are they worth against A&M, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, and Tennessee. We just know it's huge. Estimates are low end 10 million more per school in payouts and upper end 20 million more.

On point 2, you have me curious what you think might happen after.

Per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%2...ce_tie-ins

Quote: Rose Bowl: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Sugar Bowl: SEC vs. Big 12
Orange Bowl: ACC vs. Big Ten, SEC, or Notre Dame


[...]The Cotton, Fiesta, and Peach Bowls, have no conference tie-ins; as such, the best conference champion from the Group of Five ends up in one of those bowls if it doesn't end up in a playoff semifinal.

If the B12 is out of the sugar bowl, would another conference take its place? (Like the ACC?) or might it be variable like the orange bowl?

And might one of the other 3 bowls offer to be the new "permanent" bowl of the B12? (cotton bowl is in tx, fiesta is in az, peach is in ga)

It depends upon whether the ACC remains whole or is left in fragments. If the Big 10 and SEC expand out of the ACC then look for the Sugar Bowl to rotate between semis and finals for a new expanded championship series. If conferences remain pretty much as is I could see the ACC pick it up, or perhaps the Outback becomes an SEC / B12 bowl and the Sugar becomes a SEC / B1G bowl. It's a nice destination for the Big Ten and you have Gulf Shores an hour away and Biloxi if you want to gamble and Matairie for fine food, and Bourbon Street for the tourist treatment.

(05-05-2022 06:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 05:38 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 09:52 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's let Don Pardo discuss the parting prizes for our Big 12 participants:

Congratulations to the remaining Big 12 schools for participating in College Football's game show of realignment called "The Price is Right".

For holding onto Texas and Oklahoma until 2025 you get the schadenfreude of holding them back, and the joy of impeding the SEC expansion, and you get to continue to raid G5 conferences in hopes of boosting your P5 standing, and you get to negotiate a new contract after losing 54.3% of your brand value. And you piss off ESPN in the process. Well Done!

Outside of that you really get nothing! You will now have little leverage to:
1. Schedule Texas, Oklahoma, or any SEC school, or any school under contract to ESPN.
2. You lose your Sugar Bowl tie-in to the ACC.
3. You lose any interest ESPN may have had in keeping your contract values up.
4. And you lose the perception of being a top 3 P conference because you alienated the #1 image maker.
5. And you get to split 76 million 12 ways so you get a one time payout of just over 6 million per school.
7. And you get a home version of our new game, "Breakaway" which isolates the top earners and relegates the lesser earners in CFB's version of purgatory.

Had you negotiated the early release of Texas and Oklahoma here's what you could have had:
1. Games with Texas, Oklahoma, SEC schools, ESPN contract schools.
2. You would have kept your Sugar Bowl tie in. Why you ask? Because had the SEC and B1G expanded out of the ACC you would have merged with other P5 schools keeping your P status, and elevating your revenue in the process.
3. You would have netted a higher payout from departing schools.
4. You would have been included when playing "Breakaway".

But we don't want you to walk away with nothing so we are giving you a set of books written by our game champions called, "How to Win in College Football's Realignment Game" by Mike Slive, Jim Delany, and with a forward by Greg Sankey

Thanks for playing! Our next contestant is from California, George Kiavkoff come on down!

I'm probably taking Don Pardo's response too seriously. However,
1) SEC schools will still schedule Big 12 schools. Games like UF-UCF, KY-Cincy, Houston-A&M will be fun regional rivalries, even if not played every year. Schools will still want to schedule Kansas as their P5 OOC matchup. OK will still play OK State, Texas will play Tech.
2) I'm not sure the Big 12 loses the Sugar Bowl (at least for now).
3) While a higher payout is true, that is mitigated by not playing Texas/OK. We haven't heard the new numbers for sure yet (as far as I know), but we are about to find out what those two schools on a schedule are worth to TV, and they are certainly worth something at the gate too.

1. Don't bet on it. We may be moving to a closed system in scheduling in the not too distant future. AD's are discussing these matters aleeady.
2. At the end of the current contract. The Sugar Bowl wanted OU and UT's brand power, not so much the rest.
3. There is no doubt as to OU and UT's value in the B12. The WSJ consistently estimated their value at 54% of the Big 12 total and the highest valued conference game was the RRR. The big question is what are they worth against A&M, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, and Tennessee. We just know it's huge. Estimates are low end 10 million more per school in payouts and upper end 20 million more.

On point 2, you have me curious what you think might happen after.

Per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%2...ce_tie-ins

Quote: Rose Bowl: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Sugar Bowl: SEC vs. Big 12
Orange Bowl: ACC vs. Big Ten, SEC, or Notre Dame


[...]The Cotton, Fiesta, and Peach Bowls, have no conference tie-ins; as such, the best conference champion from the Group of Five ends up in one of those bowls if it doesn't end up in a playoff semifinal.

If the B12 is out of the sugar bowl, would another conference take its place? (Like the ACC?) or might it be variable like the orange bowl?

And might one of the other 3 bowls offer to be the new "permanent" bowl of the B12? (cotton bowl is in tx, fiesta is in az, peach is in ga)

It depends upon whether the ACC remains whole or is left in fragments. If the Big 10 and SEC expand out of the ACC then look for the Sugar Bowl to rotate between semis and finals for a new expanded championship series. If conferences remain pretty much as is I could see the ACC pick it up, or perhaps the Outback becomes an SEC / B12 bowl and the Sugar becomes a SEC / B1G bowl. It's a nice destination for the Big Ten and you have Gulf Shores an hour away and Biloxi if you want to gamble and Matairie for fine food, and Bourbon Street for the tourist treatment.

Sounds logical.

(a side note - I had the opportunity to go to New Orleans as a child (long before the various storms) and enjoyed the walk down bourbon street - though really, it wasn't a place for kids lol - so sounds fun to me : )

I had read an article that Oklahoma has to much debt on the books to be able to afford to pay a buyout to leave the conference early. And TX is willing to wait, rather than pay it. That is unless the SEC is willing to make the payments for them.

(05-09-2022 05:32 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  I had read an article that Oklahoma has to much debt on the books to be able to afford to pay a buyout to leave the conference early. And TX is willing to wait, rather than pay it. That is unless the SEC is willing to make the payments for them.

Yes OU has a lot of debt related to dorm construction, the athletic department is not in debt and its funds are separate from the university

Would OU rather not pay a huge exit penalty? Yes. of course. They aren't Texas who is obscenely wealthy, but they do have the means to pay it.

The OU is too broke to pay to exit sprang from Oklahoma State people with an agenda.

(05-09-2022 10:15 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 05:32 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  I had read an article that Oklahoma has to much debt on the books to be able to afford to pay a buyout to leave the conference early. And TX is willing to wait, rather than pay it. That is unless the SEC is willing to make the payments for them.

Yes OU has a lot of debt related to dorm construction, the athletic department is not in debt and its funds are separate from the university

Would OU rather not pay a huge exit penalty? Yes. of course. They aren't Texas who is obscenely wealthy, but they do have the means to pay it.

The OU is too broke to pay to exit sprang from Oklahoma State people with an agenda.

This. In addition, in a normal year, the OU athletic department contributes financially (out of profits) to the university general fund.

A detail left out of the announcement of last week's Tier 3 deal with ESPN: financial terms were not disclosed, other than that OU will make more than the $7-8M/year they were making from the Fox/Bally deal. UT is currently making more than $15M/year from Longhorn Network. I'd be shocked if OU is getting Longhorn Network money for a ESPN+ contract, but they got a better deal than what they had before.

I'm not saying ESPN is going to pay the buyout of the GOR, but the skids were just greased even more for an early exit. Not only does ESPN now own the Tier 3 rights to OU and UT, but they can move OU/UT to the SEC early, and can move their content seamlessly to the SEC Network. ESPN is in a better position to help OU and UT move early, if they can so benefit.

I believe the upcoming season is the OU/UT farewell tour in the Big 12.

2025

(05-09-2022 11:05 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 10:15 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 05:32 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  I had read an article that Oklahoma has to much debt on the books to be able to afford to pay a buyout to leave the conference early. And TX is willing to wait, rather than pay it. That is unless the SEC is willing to make the payments for them.

Yes OU has a lot of debt related to dorm construction, the athletic department is not in debt and its funds are separate from the university

Would OU rather not pay a huge exit penalty? Yes. of course. They aren't Texas who is obscenely wealthy, but they do have the means to pay it.

The OU is too broke to pay to exit sprang from Oklahoma State people with an agenda.

This. In addition, in a normal year, the OU athletic department contributes financially (out of profits) to the university general fund.

A detail left out of the announcement of last week's Tier 3 deal with ESPN: financial terms were not disclosed, other than that OU will make more than the $7-8M/year they were making from the Fox/Bally deal. UT is currently making more than $15M/year from Longhorn Network. I'd be shocked if OU is getting Longhorn Network money for a ESPN+ contract, but they got a better deal than what they had before.

I'm not saying ESPN is going to pay the buyout of the GOR, but the skids were just greased even more for an early exit. Not only does ESPN now own the Tier 3 rights to OU and UT, but they can move OU/UT to the SEC early, and can move their content seamlessly to the SEC Network. ESPN is in a better position to help OU and UT move early, if they can so benefit.

I believe the upcoming season is the OU/UT farewell tour in the Big 12.

Nah, those two are locked up until the conference’s GOR expires in 2025. Bet either OU or UT drafted that GOR to keep the other from leaving. 2022 is the last season in which both receive their conference distribution. Then the big12 will withhold 2023 and 2024 (80 million each) distribution as exit fees.

Only way I see them leaving early is if ESPN agree to give the conference an 5 extension year extension starting in 2024 at current or higher per school payout rates. That essentially amends the GOR and allows the two to walk to the SEC as early 2023.

(05-09-2022 11:38 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 11:05 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 10:15 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 05:32 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  I had read an article that Oklahoma has to much debt on the books to be able to afford to pay a buyout to leave the conference early. And TX is willing to wait, rather than pay it. That is unless the SEC is willing to make the payments for them.

Yes OU has a lot of debt related to dorm construction, the athletic department is not in debt and its funds are separate from the university

Would OU rather not pay a huge exit penalty? Yes. of course. They aren't Texas who is obscenely wealthy, but they do have the means to pay it.

The OU is too broke to pay to exit sprang from Oklahoma State people with an agenda.

This. In addition, in a normal year, the OU athletic department contributes financially (out of profits) to the university general fund.

A detail left out of the announcement of last week's Tier 3 deal with ESPN: financial terms were not disclosed, other than that OU will make more than the $7-8M/year they were making from the Fox/Bally deal. UT is currently making more than $15M/year from Longhorn Network. I'd be shocked if OU is getting Longhorn Network money for a ESPN+ contract, but they got a better deal than what they had before.

I'm not saying ESPN is going to pay the buyout of the GOR, but the skids were just greased even more for an early exit. Not only does ESPN now own the Tier 3 rights to OU and UT, but they can move OU/UT to the SEC early, and can move their content seamlessly to the SEC Network. ESPN is in a better position to help OU and UT move early, if they can so benefit.

I believe the upcoming season is the OU/UT farewell tour in the Big 12.

Nah, those two are locked up until the conference’s GOR expires in 2025. Bet either OU or UT drafted that GOR to keep the other from leaving. 2022 is the last season in which both receive their conference distribution. Then the big12 will withhold 2023 and 2024 (80 million each) distribution as exit fees.

Only way I see them leaving early is if ESPN agree to give the conference an 5 extension year extension starting in 2024 at current or higher per school payout rates. That essentially amends the GOR and allows the two to walk to the SEC as early 2023.

I agree with Johnintex on all counts. The fact that ESPN locked up OU's third tier rights is evident.... and neither OU or UT drafted the GOR to keep the other from leaving.

(05-05-2022 03:12 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 09:11 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(05-01-2022 09:39 AM)texoma Wrote:  I am thinking 2023. I think they will pay what ever fee is negotiated. What do you think?

There is no reason for the Big XII to let them go early. If OU/UT want to leave early, they will have to pay.

I believe that is exactly what I said.

If by the negotiated fee you mean whatever is contractually obligated by OU/UT to break the contract, then we said the same thing.

The Big XII has no incentive to negotiate a lower buyout to let OU/UT leave. There is nothing it in for them except bringing in less money for their schools. Why would they do that?

(05-10-2022 11:27 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 03:12 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 09:11 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(05-01-2022 09:39 AM)texoma Wrote:  I am thinking 2023. I think they will pay what ever fee is negotiated. What do you think?

There is no reason for the Big XII to let them go early. If OU/UT want to leave early, they will have to pay.

I believe that is exactly what I said.

If by the negotiated fee you mean whatever is contractually obligated by OU/UT to break the contract, then we said the same thing.

The Big XII has no incentive to negotiate a lower buyout to let OU/UT leave. There is nothing it in for them except bringing in less money for their schools. Why would they do that?

To avoid grey legal battles trying to enforce the contract and alienating UT and OU and possibly the SEC.

(05-09-2022 11:05 PM)johnintx Wrote:  I'm not saying ESPN is going to pay the buyout of the GOR, but the skids were just greased even more for an early exit. Not only does ESPN now own the Tier 3 rights to OU and UT, but they can move OU/UT to the SEC early, and can move their content seamlessly to the SEC Network. ESPN is in a better position to help OU and UT move early, if they can so benefit.

I believe the upcoming season is the OU/UT farewell tour in the Big 12.

ESPN has no incentive to help pay for OU and UT to join the SEC before fall 2024, because that is when ESPN/ABC gains full control of SEC media rights. If OU and UT leave before then, CBS gets to pick OU and UT football games at no extra charge. Disney isn't going to pay for that gift to CBS.

OU and UT might pay a little extra to leave early, but any speculation about them paying hundreds of millions, or ESPN paying hundreds of millions on their behalf, is fantasy. It's not profitable for any of them (OU, UT, or Disney) to pay that much to have them in the SEC a year or two early.

(05-10-2022 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 11:27 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 03:12 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 09:11 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(05-01-2022 09:39 AM)texoma Wrote:  I am thinking 2023. I think they will pay what ever fee is negotiated. What do you think?

There is no reason for the Big XII to let them go early. If OU/UT want to leave early, they will have to pay.

I believe that is exactly what I said.

If by the negotiated fee you mean whatever is contractually obligated by OU/UT to break the contract, then we said the same thing.

The Big XII has no incentive to negotiate a lower buyout to let OU/UT leave. There is nothing it in for them except bringing in less money for their schools. Why would they do that?

To avoid grey legal battles trying to enforce the contract and alienating UT and OU and possibly the SEC.

The Big 12 welcomes discovery and because of the asymmetrical costs, the legal process.

And alienation UT and OU and possibly the SEC is message board fan talk. Gentlemen agreements of favorable future relations don’t lend to much of a discount rate in these situations. Those future positive interactions get leveraged or monetized now, or they don’t exist with respect to the settlement.

The Big 12 is willing to work with the SEC and ESPN. OU and UT are less important. Thus far, there hasn’t been a real incentive by any side, as there are too many looming disruptions to know what a good settlement looks like.

What’s the rush from the Big 12 POV? If things blow up from legal rulings, any settlement is moot, if not void. Even OU doesn’t have huge incentive with CFP at 4, save cash and get a better chance of playoffs for new coach isn’t a bad hand. SEC/ESPN could make more, but the main reason it was leaked early was to lock in OU and UT from other conferences, not because of getting them in before 2025. In terms of branding, there’s upside to OU getting a 3rd SEC playoff spot, which is nearly impossible if they move early.

In many ways, staying until 2025 is a settlement. The only party that loses is UT. They also have the means to prevent that

Fox is still an impediment to them leaving until they aren’t. Will espn pay fox?

(05-10-2022 11:27 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 03:12 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 09:11 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(05-01-2022 09:39 AM)texoma Wrote:  I am thinking 2023. I think they will pay what ever fee is negotiated. What do you think?

There is no reason for the Big XII to let them go early. If OU/UT want to leave early, they will have to pay.

I believe that is exactly what I said.

If by the negotiated fee you mean whatever is contractually obligated by OU/UT to break the contract, then we said the same thing.

The Big XII has no incentive to negotiate a lower buyout to let OU/UT leave. There is nothing it in for them except bringing in less money for their schools. Why would they do that?

(05-10-2022 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 11:27 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 03:12 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 09:11 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(05-01-2022 09:39 AM)texoma Wrote:  I am thinking 2023. I think they will pay what ever fee is negotiated. What do you think?

There is no reason for the Big XII to let them go early. If OU/UT want to leave early, they will have to pay.

I believe that is exactly what I said.

If by the negotiated fee you mean whatever is contractually obligated by OU/UT to break the contract, then we said the same thing.

The Big XII has no incentive to negotiate a lower buyout to let OU/UT leave. There is nothing it in for them except bringing in less money for their schools. Why would they do that?

To avoid grey legal battles trying to enforce the contract and alienating UT and OU and possibly the SEC.

Well said. Also, to avoid alienating ESPN any more than Bowlsby already has.