They considered leaving the Big 12 a couple of years ago which is an indication they are unhappy. They would love to be on the east coast in front of 50% of the USA TV population. Accepting ND showed Texas the ACC can be flexible. There are no reports only facts backing this statement. I did not eat sushi with insiders. I have no connections to support this view. But it is as factual as 99% of what I have read on this subject in the last month.
Who will the Big 12 get to replace Texas & Oklahoma?
(02-01-2013 03:20 PM)Rabonchild Wrote: [ -> ]They considered leaving the Big 12 a couple of years ago which is an indication they are unhappy. They would love to be on the east coast in front of 50% of the USA TV population. Accepting ND showed Texas the ACC can be flexable. There are no reports only facts backing this statement. I did not eat sushi with insiders. I have no connections to support this view. But it is as factual as 99% of what I have read on this subject in the last month.
Who will the Big 12 get to replace Texas & Oklahoma?
. . . and a cow could jump over the moon. . .
I want the last 30 seconds of my life back.
(02-01-2013 03:20 PM)Rabonchild Wrote: [ -> ]They considered leaving the Big 12 a couple of years ago which is an indication they are unhappy. They would love to be on the east coast in front of 50% of the USA TV population. Accepting ND showed Texas the ACC can be flexible. There are no reports only facts backing this statement. I did not eat sushi with insiders. I have no connections to support this view. But it is as factual as 99% of what I have read on this subject in the last month.
Who will the Big 12 get to replace Texas & Oklahoma?
1- If they weren't happy they wouldn't have signed a GOR and expanded the league.
2- The ACC wasn't flexible with the LHN.
3- Texas and OU aren't leaving in the next few years if at all.
Let's assume Texas wanted out. Wouldn't the grant of rights case be heard in a Texas state court?
4. nobody is leaving the ACC.
Gotta love these rumors... Don't see it even w/ my 4 eyes
This is dumb. How is the ACC supposed to get Texas when I keep telling everybody that Texas is going to the Big Ten?
The Big 12 can keep the TV rights to Texas' home games as long as Bevo keeps getting his $20M per year check. The Big Ten will pay Texas the difference between UT's Big 12 and LHN money and a regular Big Ten TV rights share. A&M can have the SEC and their redneck towns like Starksville and Tallahassee. Bevo's going to go sip wine and eat brie in Madison and Columbus and Ann Arbor and Bloomington and, er, Lincoln and State College.
Which way of phrasing this rumor is more likely to gain steam?
1. Texas is supposedly going to take the deal Notre Dame got with ACC.
Texas would play six ACC games per year but would also be guaranteed a Notre Dame game every year that would not count as one of the six. Texas would be guaranteed a yearly game against one of the Florida ACC schools that would count as one of the six ACC games. In addition as part of an ACC-PAC 12 alliance, Texas would be guaranteed one game against PAC 12 per year. So Texas would be regularly appearing in the biggest football recruiting states of Texas, California and Florida. The rest of Texas' schedule would be filled in with rival Oklahoma and Texas schools.
Finally, the ACC network, PAC 12 network and Longhorn Network would be packaged together or combined for coast to coast coverage.
or
2. It's a "done deal". Texas is just floating the Big XII-ACC alliance "smokescreen" to get their own conference's guard down. Texas knows a "Grant of Rights" will never hold up because it is "punitive" and the court case will have to be heard in a state of Texas court. The new Longhorn-PAC12-ACC network will be aired coast to coast and will produce tens of millions of dollars on "Tier 3" alone. The ACC's version of the "CIC" called the ACCIAC will start a price club for buying journals and getting billions of dollars in government grants. But those grants won't just come from the US government as the ACCIAC goes international and moves into Europe, Japan and China.
This will all be announced at the 60th Anniversary of the Founding of the ACC Ceremony on June 14th, 2013 at ACC Headquaters in Greensboro, NC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like VT and VA are joined?
Like UNC and Duke are joined?
(02-01-2013 03:26 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote: [ -> ]Let's assume Texas wanted out. Wouldn't the grant of rights case be heard in a Texas state court?
If UT wanted out it would be very costly to do. The conference legally owns the rights. The exact legalities are unknown unless you've seen the documents but considering how long it was with the lawyers before it was signed and the fact it had to have BOR approval it's not something that is cast aside easily.
So Texas files suit in a Texas state court and claims a GOR is punitive. The Big XII is the only conference to have grant of rights and no conference tv network.
(02-01-2013 03:38 PM)S11 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2013 03:26 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote: [ -> ]Let's assume Texas wanted out. Wouldn't the grant of rights case be heard in a Texas state court?
If UT wanted out it would be very costly to do. The conference legally owns the rights. The exact legalities are unknown unless you've seen the documents but considering how long it was with the lawyers before it was signed and the fact it had to have BOR approval it's not something that is cast aside easily.
I guess he's using an obscurograph that uses
dark light to peer into the future...
(02-01-2013 03:43 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote: [ -> ]So Texas files suit in a Texas state court and claims a GOR is punitive. The Big XII is the only conference to have grant of rights and no conference tv network.
1- It's tied into the FOX and ESPN tv deals. No league owned network is irrelevant. You have a legit contract it is part of.
2- As long as UT is getting their tv payout they are scheduled to get from the B12 there would be no punishment at all- just a contract they are getting benefit from. This isn't hiking exit fees on people who voted against it.
Where is it a punishment for leaving? It simply limits the value of UT to another league (all their tv rights are locked into the Big 12 deal and they aren't giving up the LHN) and UT entered in eyes open and voluntarily.
At most a GOR bound UT would be able to offer road game TV value but that has to be split X number of ways. Between travel costs going up, exit fees, and legal fees there becomes no incentive.
(02-01-2013 03:38 PM)curtis0620 Wrote: [ -> ]Like VT and VA are joined?
Like UNC and Duke are joined?
Explained my reasoning in another thread and before you set up a strawman I never said UNC or Duke would be among the first schools who would leave the acc. Frankly I never said teams were going to leave. I simply said IF x (non duke unc) school happens then y schools leaving would seem likely.
(02-01-2013 03:53 PM)S11 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2013 03:38 PM)curtis0620 Wrote: [ -> ]Like VT and VA are joined?
Like UNC and Duke are joined?
Explained my reasoning in another thread and before you set up a strawman I never said UNC or Duke would be among the first schools who would leave the acc. Frankly I never said teams were going to leave. I simply said IF x (non duke unc) school happens then y schools leaving would seem likely.
Good, then we agree, no school is leaving the ACC.
(02-01-2013 03:56 PM)curtis0620 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2013 03:53 PM)S11 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2013 03:38 PM)curtis0620 Wrote: [ -> ]Like VT and VA are joined?
Like UNC and Duke are joined?
Explained my reasoning in another thread and before you set up a strawman I never said UNC or Duke would be among the first schools who would leave the acc. Frankly I never said teams were going to leave. I simply said IF x (non duke unc) school happens then y schools leaving would seem likely.
Good, then we agree, no school is leaving the ACC.
I didn't say they would or would not. It's possible just as I said it was possible before UMD left.
(02-01-2013 03:51 PM)S11 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2013 03:43 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote: [ -> ]So Texas files suit in a Texas state court and claims a GOR is punitive. The Big XII is the only conference to have grant of rights and no conference tv network.
1- It's tied into the FOX and ESPN tv deals. No league owned network is irrelevant. You have a legit contract it is part of.
2- As long as UT is getting their tv payout they are scheduled to get from the B12 there would be no punishment at all- just a contract they are getting benefit from. This isn't hiking exit fees on people who voted against it.
Where is it a punishment for leaving? It simply limits the value of UT to another league (all their tv rights are locked into the Big 12 deal and they aren't giving up the LHN) and UT entered in eyes open and voluntarily.
At most a GOR bound UT would be able to offer road game TV value but that has to be split X number of ways. Between travel costs going up, exit fees, and legal fees there becomes no incentive.
Actually as unlikely as this rumor may be (and it originated from a poster who had ND to the ACC weeks ahead of time), the GOR doesn't alter the value of UT for the ACC one bit. And besides, the GOR only stays if the remnants of the B12 would be happy to have Fox and ESPN filling the required number of their conference broadcast slots with UT playing home games against ACC teams (or Pac or whomever) while at the same time paying out the same money to UT.
That's what the GOR rights get them...the rights to show UT's home games (which Fox and ESPN select) that they'd still have to pay UT for them.
Sounds something like the setup for ACC, Notre Dame and NBC doesn't it? With a 5-game commitment to the ACC (six with ND), there would be no loss in $ for UT even if the GOR remained in place, and the ACC would, in theory, benefit from additional ACC home games against UT. The B12 would be stupid not to negotiate UT out of the GOR. And without the GOR, UT could sell its home games for itself like ND or BYU, or put more on the LHN. It is, in theory, a no lose situation for UT. They have the B12 by the balls, always have.
(02-01-2013 03:21 PM)UHCougar Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2013 03:20 PM)Rabonchild Wrote: [ -> ]They considered leaving the Big 12 a couple of years ago which is an indication they are unhappy. They would love to be on the east coast in front of 50% of the USA TV population. Accepting ND showed Texas the ACC can be flexable. There are no reports only facts backing this statement. I did not eat sushi with insiders. I have no connections to support this view. But it is as factual as 99% of what I have read on this subject in the last month.
Who will the Big 12 get to replace Texas & Oklahoma?
. . . and a cow could jump over the moon. . .
In Lubbock, yes.