(04-18-2015 10:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 09:22 AM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]B1G West
Kansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern
B1G East
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
Looks pretty solid to me and KU and OU would do whatever it took to make that happen.
Look, seriously man, you NEED to listen to a Big Ten guy when I say this. That set up is terrible. You want to know why? Because the original Ten want to be on each other's schedules.
With eight teams in a division you have seven games just for that division. Two games against the other division for a nine game schedule means it takes four years just to play every team in the conference, eight years to play in every stadium. That isn't going to fly.
Expansion to sixteen means there absolutely will be a rule change for divisions and the Big Ten will take advantage of it. Having four divisions drastically reduces the timeline for being able to play everyone in the conference.
Start looking at the two division concept as a dying tradition.
Exactly. That's why CCG deregulation is a done deal. It will give these big conference much more flexibility with scheduling. Once you eliminate the requirement that conferences to divide into just 2 divisions and you eliminate the requirment for a full round robin within each division---lots of workable solutions exist for rotating Confernce opponents on a more regular basis while still maintaining traditional rivalry games.
(04-18-2015 10:38 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ]Coog that is an awesome point that I do not believe has ever been brought up on this board. Not sure exactly of how it would all work, but it sounds feasible.
Collusion?
Breach?
(04-18-2015 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 10:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 09:22 AM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]B1G West
Kansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern
B1G East
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
Looks pretty solid to me and KU and OU would do whatever it took to make that happen.
Look, seriously man, you NEED to listen to a Big Ten guy when I say this. That set up is terrible. You want to know why? Because the original Ten want to be on each other's schedules.
With eight teams in a division you have seven games just for that division. Two games against the other division for a nine game schedule means it takes four years just to play every team in the conference, eight years to play in every stadium. That isn't going to fly.
Expansion to sixteen means there absolutely will be a rule change for divisions and the Big Ten will take advantage of it. Having four divisions drastically reduces the timeline for being able to play everyone in the conference.
Start looking at the two division concept as a dying tradition.
Exactly. That's why CCG deregulation is a done deal. It will give these big conference much more flexibility with scheduling. Once you eliminate the requirement that conferences to divide into just 2 divisions and you eliminate the requirment for a full round robin within each division---lots of workable solutions exist for rotating Confernce opponents on a more regular basis while still maintaining traditional rivalry games.
It's not going to happen in a way that benefits the big 12 AND don't assume that just because these conferences can go with no divisions that they will choose to go with no divisions. If you have no restraints then you can get plenty of scheduling flexibility with four divisions while still at the same time maintaining that structure that general fans accept and appreciate.
(04-18-2015 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 09:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 09:00 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ]The networks don't own the media rights with a grant of rights, the conferences do (they just sell them out to the networks). That's a huge distinction. The reason that's big is it is the departing conference you have to get to agree to anything when you leave. If Oklahoma were to leave the Big 12 for example, since the Big 12 owns the media rights for Oklahoma, it would still own them. Further, since Oklahoma would no longer be a Big 12 member, the other 9 teams would be under no obligation to pay Oklahoma anything. In that set-up, no conference is going to invite Oklahoma when they know they get none the home game rights, but would still need to pay Oklahoma a full share to get them.
Now in the last couple years of a grant of rights, the value of the Big 12 owning Oklahoma's rights starts to decrease as that's only a few years worth of television value. At that point, Oklahoma could probably negotiate to buy back the rights at market value and at that point, it might start to just look like a very big exit fee. Until those last few years though, the cost is simply too big for even major schools as their value toward the existing television contracts are huge.
Except where the same network currently has purchased the media rights for the Comference the school is leaving and the conference the school is going to. Under those conditions, ultimate ownership doesn't matter because the broadcast rights have already been sold for a set number of years. The network has already been promised the right to show those games by both the conference left behind and the conference adding the school in question. Doesn't matter who ultimately wins the GOR pissing match, as long as the broadcasting network continues paying the agreed compensation to both conference. Since most of these GOR's expire with the current media contracts, the GOR's cease to be an issue after the current contract cycle. At that point, true own ship rights will go to the moving teams new destination conference---freeing the networks to pay free market rates for both conferences in question.
It still matters though. Even ignoring the fact that no conference has an identical set-up (with different companies being licensed differently in all cases), there's one huge issue.
The issue is that the networks aren't going to promise the Big Ten/SEC/whomever extra money if they aren't getting extra content. ESPN/FOX already have rights to Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas/etc and ESPN already has pretty much all rights to North Carolina/Duke/etc. If they already have those rights and they aren't going to lose them (since the grant of rights protects them), why would they agree to pay extra to the Big Ten/SEC? If they aren't going to pay extra, then the additions come at the expense of every team in the conference and will continue to do so for a decade.
Further, ESPN/Fox aren't going to orchestrate anything themselves, because they would be very subject to a lawsuit if they partnered to harm a conference they are in contract with. Now the Big Ten/SEC could ask what their value is under different set-ups, but since none of those set-ups involve actually having the rights to Texas/Oklahoma/etc home games, all those set-ups must involve big losses if they are done now.
Theoretically, you could have someone like Oklahoma or Kansas in the Big Ten, but with their TV falling under the Big 12 package and counted as such. The problem with that is that ESPN/Fox are not going to pay the Big Ten anything extra for that game and the Big 12 isn't going to pay Kansas/Oklahoma for it even though they are the ones in it.
Why would ESPN agree to pay extra for rights to a GOR protected team moving to a new conference? Well, it depends on the case. Right now we are talking about the Big-10 adding teams. So the obvious reason in this case is the expiring Big10 media agreement. ESPN is in danger of losing the Big-10 contract. So they would be willing to pay extra for a team already under thier control in a GOR protected conference in order to retain the rights to a highly prized conference they might lose (like the Big10). It's very similar to the reason ESPN is paying Texas an additional 15 million a year (for the LHN) when they already owned the rights to Texas under thier existing Big-12 contract. They didn't want one of thier highly valued properties (Big-12, which included Texas) to fall apart and potentially leave thier airwaves. With ESPN owning all AAC content, first tier Big-12 content, and all Big-10 content not held for the BTN, ESPN is the unique position of being able to circumvent the most punitive feature of GOR's allowing the Big-10 to expand in ways that would not be allowed under any other network carrier. This gives ESPN an advantage no other network can offer when renegotiation time rolls around.
(04-18-2015 07:06 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]I don't buy the trial balloon theory. Schools have options available to them without floating rumors through the media. Most schools had reps at the final four. It would be easier, safer and more reliable to simply propose a "what-if" scenario in a hallway conversation. Using the media for a trial balloon could have major negative consequences.
Unless the ACC looses a school or goes to 18, they only have room for 1 more school.
This could be a double edged sword for Missouri. It might give them enough cache to say, "Put us in the SEC West." It could also put them in a position where the SEC looks down on them because, "they are going to leave anyway."
Wolfman trial balloons aren't for the schools or conferences. They are used to gauge public sentiment. When Clay Travis leaked the Virginia Tech and N.C. State stuff it was to see if the SEC public who was hearing rumors of Florida State and Clemson would have an overly negative reaction to schools that had not yet been vetted in the public's psyche. It was a pre-sell job to put the concept out there and get enough talk generated to begin to change initial knee jerk reactions into a kind of general acceptance for the idea. Missouri did the same with their MIZZOU2SEC campaign. Until a year prior to the move (and 1 year after discussions had begun) the Missouri public had not even considered the SEC.
Obviously the SEC wasn't about to move on Virginia Tech and N.C. State, but ESPN was playing around with different configurations to maximize the markets for both the SEC and ACC. When the scenario was put forth the SEC office wanted to know if those brands would be accepted by its public since heretofore no mention of those two was really in the public's memory. Clay Travis leaked and the rest is message board history.
If ESPN can utilize Missouri to both satisfy the Big 10 and to land more revenue for the remaining SEC schools then two things have to happen. Missouri needs to be unsold to the SEC fan base, and the new schools will have to be viewed as home runs in the eyes of the public. That's no big deal now should one of them be either N.C. State or Virginia Tech, or Oklahoma. Even West Virginia has been publicly vetted down here in the last round of rumors prior to moves. Now if we were to look at Oklahoma State or Baylor then some kind of sales job will have to be done beforehand. Texas wouldn't have to be sold. Texas would have to be trusted and that may be quite a bit more difficult than getting people to warm up to the idea.
When we took Missouri it was after ESPN said, "Have you considered Missouri? If they were to join this is how much your revenue will be boosted." ESPN sheltered Big East property in the ACC and Big 12 property in the SEC and with GOR's they control the valuation for distribution of those properties to which they have the vast majority or complete rights to. The rest is PR and leaks are part of PR. That's true even if you suggest somebody you know the public will reject so that later they will accept somebody else they might otherwise have had reservations about.
I could buy ESPN/ACC want to wall off the ACC from any loses to the big 10/sec. I don't really buy ESPN/SEC would be ok with missouri leaving for the big 10. Of course, a lot depends on what missouri wants. IF deregulation happens, the big 10 could just add Missouri and stop at 15. You could go with a 4-2-2 or 4-3-3 football format. IF they jump to 16, i think big 10 has 2 options in KU and Uconn to pair with Missouri. Either could have nice 4 team pods or a 8 team e/w split. THe natural fit is with KU and i got to think Missouri might demand KU in order to jump. Yet, i see no way the big 12 would allow KU to jump. Not to mention K state wouldn't be happy since that puts the big 12 dangerous spot. The bigger issue is if the big 10 can get KU, why not just bring in OU instead of missouri to get to 16.
Of course, i doubt the pac 12 is standing still and they have more options to offer than the big 10. Pac 12 could offer OU, Ok state, KU and K state + jump to 18 with texas and texas tech. Just as the acc become flexible with Louisville, the pac 12 could counter any big 10 moves with more favorable terms. ALlowing OU and Ku to stay with their instate rivals is a huge get + texas tech going with texas. I would go with the big 12 school's looking at a pac 18 more so than joining the big 10 at 16. I don't think a pac 16 works but a pac 18 trumps other offers.
In the end, for the big 10 to jump to 16, probably would mean Missouri + Uconn combo and leave the core big 12 alone. IF that happened, i'd guess the sec would be allowed to take WVU with the big 12 being OK bringing in BYU. Maybe the ACC jumps to 16 with cincy to get more markets.
(04-17-2015 09:19 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]B1G will add West Virginia in 2017. The B12 is allowing it so they can make room for BYU.
I've said it makes sense due to rivalries and geography before. WVU's endowment is currently the same size of Maryland's and Rutgers.
Except WVU's endowment is significantly smaller than Rutgers and Maryland...
WVU is at $565 million as of 2014
Rutgers is at $918 million as of 2014
Maryland is at $963 million as of 2014
That's not small potatoes at all. That being said I'd gladly have WVU join the Big Ten, they have 3 existing rivalries with PSU, UMD and RU in the conference and I could see Ohio State - WVU being a fun one for both sides.
(04-18-2015 10:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 09:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 09:00 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ]The networks don't own the media rights with a grant of rights, the conferences do (they just sell them out to the networks). That's a huge distinction. The reason that's big is it is the departing conference you have to get to agree to anything when you leave. If Oklahoma were to leave the Big 12 for example, since the Big 12 owns the media rights for Oklahoma, it would still own them. Further, since Oklahoma would no longer be a Big 12 member, the other 9 teams would be under no obligation to pay Oklahoma anything. In that set-up, no conference is going to invite Oklahoma when they know they get none the home game rights, but would still need to pay Oklahoma a full share to get them.
Now in the last couple years of a grant of rights, the value of the Big 12 owning Oklahoma's rights starts to decrease as that's only a few years worth of television value. At that point, Oklahoma could probably negotiate to buy back the rights at market value and at that point, it might start to just look like a very big exit fee. Until those last few years though, the cost is simply too big for even major schools as their value toward the existing television contracts are huge.
Except where the same network currently has purchased the media rights for the Comference the school is leaving and the conference the school is going to. Under those conditions, ultimate ownership doesn't matter because the broadcast rights have already been sold for a set number of years. The network has already been promised the right to show those games by both the conference left behind and the conference adding the school in question. Doesn't matter who ultimately wins the GOR pissing match, as long as the broadcasting network continues paying the agreed compensation to both conference. Since most of these GOR's expire with the current media contracts, the GOR's cease to be an issue after the current contract cycle. At that point, true own ship rights will go to the moving teams new destination conference---freeing the networks to pay free market rates for both conferences in question.
It still matters though. Even ignoring the fact that no conference has an identical set-up (with different companies being licensed differently in all cases), there's one huge issue.
The issue is that the networks aren't going to promise the Big Ten/SEC/whomever extra money if they aren't getting extra content. ESPN/FOX already have rights to Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas/etc and ESPN already has pretty much all rights to North Carolina/Duke/etc. If they already have those rights and they aren't going to lose them (since the grant of rights protects them), why would they agree to pay extra to the Big Ten/SEC? If they aren't going to pay extra, then the additions come at the expense of every team in the conference and will continue to do so for a decade.
Further, ESPN/Fox aren't going to orchestrate anything themselves, because they would be very subject to a lawsuit if they partnered to harm a conference they are in contract with. Now the Big Ten/SEC could ask what their value is under different set-ups, but since none of those set-ups involve actually having the rights to Texas/Oklahoma/etc home games, all those set-ups must involve big losses if they are done now.
Theoretically, you could have someone like Oklahoma or Kansas in the Big Ten, but with their TV falling under the Big 12 package and counted as such. The problem with that is that ESPN/Fox are not going to pay the Big Ten anything extra for that game and the Big 12 isn't going to pay Kansas/Oklahoma for it even though they are the ones in it.
Why would ESPN agree to pay extra for rights to a GOR protected team moving to a new conference? Well, it depends on the case. Right now we are talking about the Big-10 adding teams. So the obvious reason in this case is the expiring Big10 media agreement. ESPN is in danger of losing the Big-10 contract. So they would be willing to pay extra for a team already under thier control in a GOR protected conference in order to retain the rights to a highly prized conference they might lose (like the Big10). It's very similar to the reason ESPN is paying Texas an additional 15 million a year (for the LHN) when they already owned the rights to Texas under thier existing Big-12 contract. They didn't want one of thier highly valued properties (Big-12, which included Texas) to fall apart and potentially leave thier airwaves. With ESPN owning all AAC content, first tier Big-12 content, and all Big-10 content not held for the BTN, ESPN is the unique position of being able to circumvent the most punitive feature of GOR's allowing the Big-10 to expand in ways that would not be allowed under any other network carrier. This gives ESPN an advantage no other network can offer when renegotiation time rolls around.
That is precisely what I've been telling GOR thumpers for 2 years now. What most ACC folks don't get is that "if" ESPN wanted to leverage their properties they would be the easiest of any conference to move for the Mouse. It also proves my second point about realignment. The poaching of the Big East was as the B.C. leadership said, a sheltering of Big East properties at the behest of ESPN into a conference to which they held total rights. Accordingly the movement of A&M and Missouri gave ESPN much greater control over two market movers by getting them out of a 50% FOX controlled conference and into one where ESPN had the vast majority of rights, the SEC. For all we know the SEC bargained to shelter Missouri just to land A&M and ESPN wanted Missouri to hem in the Big 10's prospects. ESPN knew prior to the Big East implosion that Delany was turning up his nose at their offers and intended to launch his own independent network. A simple market check told the folks in Stores that the undervalued properties of the Big East (and the prime market expansion targets of the Big 10) would be needed to be sheltered in a bargain basement priced conference until Delany was ready to negotiate. So the bleeding of the Big East began. Delany couldn't move as quickly as he wanted because he was having start up problems and distribution problems and guaranteeing payouts for joining the Big 10 would be difficult. That's why Penn State and later Nebraska didn't get the same deal as Maryland and Rutgers. The latter two joined after valuation projections were more easily established and after FOX bought in to help with distribution issues. The SEC sold out early because they learned from the Big 10's issues. The closer that Delany got to resolving his early issues the more Big East properties disappeared. When Delany moved on Nebraska ESPN got caught with some egg on its face. Colorado was not as big a deal as losing Nebraska. So up go the Big 12 values. But Kansas and Missouri were still a bridge that Delany needed to expand South from the West. Kansas gets a nice T3 boost with ESPN and Missouri gets moved with A&M to the SEC. Now Delany is cut off, right? No Maryland was bleeding money and Rutgers was a diamond in the rough. Game on. Time for the GOR's so that ESPN could lock down disputed claims (like the Big 12) and still be free to broker properties more under their total control. Why did CBS not want to pay for Missouri's addition? Perhaps their execs knew that their contract to do so would outlast their stay? Anyway ESPN was trying to build in the SEC West a division suitable for Texas and Oklahoma. They own Texas for a while but the Sooners are another issue and with the OSU problem a significant issue.
But understand this. While I agree with your assessment of the GOR's with regards to ESPN, your assessment of the Big 12 is sugar coated. ESPN cares about Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and somewhat about West Virginia. Boone Pickens cares about Oklahoma State. Outside of those the rest are of little consequence. Therefore ESPN doesn't care to hold the Big 12 together for the sake of the conference. They do care about holding onto the properties I listed.
(04-18-2015 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]But understand this. While I agree with your assessment of the GOR's with regards to ESPN, your assessment of the Big 12 is sugar coated. ESPN cares about Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and somewhat about West Virginia. Boone Pickens cares about Oklahoma State. Outside of those the rest are of little consequence. Therefore ESPN doesn't care to hold the Big 12 together for the sake of the conference. They do care about holding onto the properties I listed.
Interesting concept and probably accurate. But what happens to those individual properties if let's say only those 5 (I'll include Okla State) get into a P5 conference?
Does the PAC truly want any of the others? Do they go to the AAC which would put them under the ESPN wing?
Cheers,
Neil
(04-18-2015 11:33 AM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2015 09:19 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]B1G will add West Virginia in 2017. The B12 is allowing it so they can make room for BYU.
I've said it makes sense due to rivalries and geography before. WVU's endowment is currently the same size of Maryland's and Rutgers.
Except WVU's endowment is significantly smaller than Rutgers and Maryland...
WVU is at $565 million as of 2014
Rutgers is at $918 million as of 2014
Maryland is at $963 million as of 2014
That's not small potatoes at all. That being said I'd gladly have WVU join the Big Ten, they have 3 existing rivalries with PSU, UMD and RU in the conference and I could see Ohio State - WVU being a fun one for both sides.
West Virginia on the Wilkipedia site lists its endowment at 773 million but when I look at WVU's financial statement that 773 million is Net Assets not endowment.
Net Assets
Unrestricted 36,807,588
Temporary Restricted 304,591,782
Permanently Restricted 431,500,482
So likely things like land are considered in the Net Asset calculation over liquid asset valuation.
http://wvuf.org/sites/g/files/g1361086/f...0630_0.pdf
If you pencil in KU and Missouri to the big 10, i could see the SEC jump to 15 post deregulation.
SEC at 15 with OU and Ok state
Pod A: Scar, UGA, UF, Ole Miss, Miss state
Pod B: Uk, UT, Vandy, Ala, Aub
Pod C: LSU, Texas A&M, OU, Ok state, Ark
format 4-2-2
The ACC jumps to 16 with WVU with a 3 pod 15 team football setup with the 4 big 12 texas school's going to the pac 16. Leftout to join the ACC, K state and Io state.
Oklahoma is a small market state.
WTH would you need to take two OK schools? Either one alone accomplishes what you need (the whole state of OK for SECN carriage and a slightly bigger presence in the DFW metro area)
(04-18-2015 12:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Oklahoma is a small market state.
WTH would you need to take two OK schools? Either one alone accomplishes what you need (the whole state of OK for SECN carriage and a slightly bigger presence in the DFW metro area)
politics.
Conference realignment slots are the single most valuable thing P5 conferences have. Each one can worth millions and millions of dollars if spent on the right school. They can NOT be wasted.
Outside of one or two schools, using a realignment slot to bring in a redundant sister school to satisfy state politics is a waste even if it gets you the first one. The things OU brings are not of such paramount importance and necessity to the SEC conference that they are worth a slot for OSU.
(04-18-2015 11:51 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]But understand this. While I agree with your assessment of the GOR's with regards to ESPN, your assessment of the Big 12 is sugar coated. ESPN cares about Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and somewhat about West Virginia. Boone Pickens cares about Oklahoma State. Outside of those the rest are of little consequence. Therefore ESPN doesn't care to hold the Big 12 together for the sake of the conference. They do care about holding onto the properties I listed.
Interesting concept and probably accurate. But what happens to those individual properties if let's say only those 5 (I'll include Okla State) get into a P5 conference?
Does the PAC truly want any of the others? Do they go to the AAC which would put them under the ESPN wing?
Cheers,
Neil
I don't think they do Neil. I believe that is why if there is any credibility in this particular rumor it is the timeline. In about 3 years the GOR for the Big 12 will be passing it's prime and in 5-7 years affordable to break. I just don't think that will have to happen that way, although it certainly could. FOX and ESPN honoring the remainder of the contract with no diminished value for the duration of the contract might be sufficient. No diminished value, no economic damages.
The question is why would FOX work with ESPN on this? Kansas and Missouri to the Big 10 possibly with Oklahoma might do it. Sublet rights to ESPN products might also do it. We'll see.
(04-18-2015 10:33 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]Could COA be some kind of nuke to some of these agreements? If there's potential for a new member from a school already in a GoR-bound conference, I guess it would mean there was a legitimate hole or out for one to escape after all?
Funny seeing all the VT 'spec talk...they came to mind first, too. Even before Missouri, Vanderbilt, and Kansas...
You raise an interesting question which somebody should have picked up on. I commented to bump this along until we learn a little more about the COA as being a potential contingency unforeseen and obstructive to GOR's.
(04-18-2015 12:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 12:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Oklahoma is a small market state.
WTH would you need to take two OK schools? Either one alone accomplishes what you need (the whole state of OK for SECN carriage and a slightly bigger presence in the DFW metro area)
politics.
Politics do not define that the two schools have to be in the same conference. Iowa and Iowa State do just fine in different conferences.
What is necessary due to politics is that one of the Universities doesn't make a move that benefits it while at the same time damaging the other University. That they cannot do. They don't have to stay together though.
(04-18-2015 09:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]I know many of the B1G folks think Mizzou will come running, but I really don't believe they want to leave the SEC.
I don't for a minute think that it is an easy sell.
When I was up in Columbia I'd say close to half of all Mizzou shirts had an SEC logo or some mention of SEC.
Tigers aren't jumping for a small amount of money, deal has to be something truly special.
(04-18-2015 02:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 09:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]I know many of the B1G folks think Mizzou will come running, but I really don't believe they want to leave the SEC.
I don't for a minute think that it is an easy sell.
When I was up in Columbia I'd say close to half of all Mizzou shirts had an SEC logo or some mention of SEC.
Tigers aren't jumping for a small amount of money, deal has to be something truly special.
Except the Big 10 is the conference they were wanting to be in. While they settle for the SEC and like it, I think they'd rather be in the Big 10.
(04-18-2015 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 09:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2015 09:00 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ]The networks don't own the media rights with a grant of rights, the conferences do (they just sell them out to the networks). That's a huge distinction. The reason that's big is it is the departing conference you have to get to agree to anything when you leave. If Oklahoma were to leave the Big 12 for example, since the Big 12 owns the media rights for Oklahoma, it would still own them. Further, since Oklahoma would no longer be a Big 12 member, the other 9 teams would be under no obligation to pay Oklahoma anything. In that set-up, no conference is going to invite Oklahoma when they know they get none the home game rights, but would still need to pay Oklahoma a full share to get them.
Now in the last couple years of a grant of rights, the value of the Big 12 owning Oklahoma's rights starts to decrease as that's only a few years worth of television value. At that point, Oklahoma could probably negotiate to buy back the rights at market value and at that point, it might start to just look like a very big exit fee. Until those last few years though, the cost is simply too big for even major schools as their value toward the existing television contracts are huge.
Except where the same network currently has purchased the media rights for the Comference the school is leaving and the conference the school is going to. Under those conditions, ultimate ownership doesn't matter because the broadcast rights have already been sold for a set number of years. The network has already been promised the right to show those games by both the conference left behind and the conference adding the school in question. Doesn't matter who ultimately wins the GOR pissing match, as long as the broadcasting network continues paying the agreed compensation to both conference. Since most of these GOR's expire with the current media contracts, the GOR's cease to be an issue after the current contract cycle. At that point, true own ship rights will go to the moving teams new destination conference---freeing the networks to pay free market rates for both conferences in question.
It still matters though. Even ignoring the fact that no conference has an identical set-up (with different companies being licensed differently in all cases), there's one huge issue.
The issue is that the networks aren't going to promise the Big Ten/SEC/whomever extra money if they aren't getting extra content. ESPN/FOX already have rights to Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas/etc and ESPN already has pretty much all rights to North Carolina/Duke/etc. If they already have those rights and they aren't going to lose them (since the grant of rights protects them), why would they agree to pay extra to the Big Ten/SEC? If they aren't going to pay extra, then the additions come at the expense of every team in the conference and will continue to do so for a decade.
Further, ESPN/Fox aren't going to orchestrate anything themselves, because they would be very subject to a lawsuit if they partnered to harm a conference they are in contract with. Now the Big Ten/SEC could ask what their value is under different set-ups, but since none of those set-ups involve actually having the rights to Texas/Oklahoma/etc home games, all those set-ups must involve big losses if they are done now.
Theoretically, you could have someone like Oklahoma or Kansas in the Big Ten, but with their TV falling under the Big 12 package and counted as such. The problem with that is that ESPN/Fox are not going to pay the Big Ten anything extra for that game and the Big 12 isn't going to pay Kansas/Oklahoma for it even though they are the ones in it.
I'm a skeptic on all this but.
It is entirely plausible that a network can say School X playing schedule 2 is more valuable than playing schedule 1. Continue to pay the old conference what the contract calls for and an extra amount to the new conference representing the gain in value.