You guys are idiots. A GOR is to the CONFERENCE. PERIOD.

From CBS when the ACC did their GOR:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ights-deal
A Grant of Rights, in basic form, is written permission from league members to relinquish control of television rights to the league for the duration of the deal. If a school leaves, it forfeits those earnings to be spread among the rest of the conference.

(07-26-2015 09:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  You guys are idiots. A GOR is to the CONFERENCE. PERIOD.

From CBS when the ACC did their GOR:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ights-deal
A Grant of Rights, in basic form, is written permission from league members to relinquish control of television rights to the league for the duration of the deal. If a school leaves, it forfeits those earnings to be spread among the rest of the conference.

No crap the rights are given to the conference with a signed GOR. Why on earth are you trying to argue that for?

What you don't realize is how things work BEYOND the conference being given the rights by the conference schools.

The issue of whether a network has the power to approve/disapprove of prospective members applies ONLY IF the conference wants to keep the existing TV contract.

That contract is with the conference, which the conference gives the network the right to broadcast the rights that the school forfeited over by signing the GOR.

Legally if a network tried to void the contract after a conference added a school- it would be extremely dicey for the network. And, the Big 12 schools are kind of known for being pretty litigious. The networks may have the power to say we'd prefer these schools- but they can't for instance do like what was said on here- say they couldn't add anyone- and then have the conference die. No way in hell can they do that.

If you want to know what the Big 12 GOR says, read if for yourself. It is an agreement between the Big 12 conference and individual schools.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116756116/Grant-of-Rights-pdf

I agree the GOR is solid. It's a grant of property rights, kind of like renting out your house for 10 years. You can't show up 5 years later and say "I hereby un-rent this house." I don't know of any legal theory that allows a university to 'unsell' something it sold.

The GOR basically says that the member universities sell to the Big 12 conference whatever rights are necessary for the conference to meet its contractual obligations under the conference's agreements with ESPN and Fox. The conference members retain the right to all other events. So, if Texas is playing Kansas in Kansas, the rights to that game belong to the Big 12 conference if ESPN/Fox decide to telecast it or to Kansas (home team) if ESPN/Fox decide not to.

So what happens if the ESPN and Fox media deals with the Conference terminate for any reason? The answer is that because the Conference has no more obligations under it's media deals, the member schools get to keep the rights to all events - the GOR becomes meaningless.

There's been lots of discussion today on other boards about how 5 teams could leave the Big 12 and the GOR would not be a problem. I can easily see how that could be true.

ESPN/Fox almost certainly built into the conference media deals early termination rights to protect themselves. I don't think anyone knows the specifics because the media deals are not public. The ESPN and Fox contracts are with the conference, not the schools, so they are beyond the reach of state Freedom of Information acts.

I think posters have identified one early termination event - dissolution of the conference. Contracts typically give one party to a contract the right to terminate if the other party goes bankrupt or dissolves, so I assume ESPN/Fox would have a termination right in that event.

I can certainly see ESPN/Fox also wanting to terminate if Texas and Oklahoma left or, if todays' tweets from Greg Flugaur are correct, any combination of teams leaving that causes only 5 or fewer teams to be left in the Big 12. ESPN/Fox certainly would have also reserved the right to consent to new teams. If I am ESPN and Fox, I certainly don't want to continue paying the conference $200 million a year (or whatever it is at the time) and get the rights to a Tech/BYU game as a replacement for Texas/Tech and or Houston/OSU instead of OU/OSU game. I want the right to terminate the contract.

So what Flugaur is saying is not far fetched. There may well be a backdoor 'out' of the conference for Texas and Oklahoma. And that shouldn't surprise anyone. Texas certainly would have considered the possibility, when it was proposing the GOR, that it may want to leave. It would have been ironic for the GOR, which Texas wanted to tie up teams in the Big 12, to wind up being the handcuffs keeping Texas in the Big 12 if it later wanted to leave. Giving ESPN/Fox the right to terminate the conference media deal, and as a result eliminate the GOR, would have accomplished Texas goal.

If a school leaves? It hurts the conference where the money becomes less. The GoRs are connected to networks. It means the conference could get hit by the next tv contract would be a lot less. Ask AAC about what happened when they lost schools? The value of the conference went down.

(07-26-2015 07:06 PM)krup Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 03:02 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:30 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  So says Greg Flugaur (@Flugempire).

NCAA ByLaw 20.02.6 say a FBS conference needs 8 members.

http://tinyurl.com/pflnxve

The implication is that if 3-5 teams leave the Big 12, ESPN/Fox have the power over the others about whether they even remain a conference. Whether the remaining schools can enforce the GOR at all.

Yes they do. The B1G source read the article yesterday and "leaked" out the info with permission to set the record straight on some things that people were getting wrong.

FOX and ESPN have the power to move schools if they sign off on it.

It was something that I was saying for some time that ESPN wants teams that are not in the P5 in as a P5. There is a list of schools that are wanted. If Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State leaves for the Big 10 now, and Texas go Independent? West Virginia, Kansas State, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State is screwed. I think ESPN had something to do with blocking the Texhoma 4 from going to the PAC 12. They would have lost money to CBS and PAC 12 Network. That is why schools like Boise State, BYU, San Diego State, Colorado State, UNLV, New Mexico, North Dakota State, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Cincinnati, U.Conn, UCF, USF and East Carolina are on the expansion list. ESPN really does not have any west coast content except for Boise State and BYU at their expense.

ESPN wants Big 12 to die.

FOX wants ACC to die.

Resolution = expanded content in Big 12 for both networks = more live content that viewers will watch = more teams into the P5.

The main thing now is to get the Big 12 to expand so the "5 team leaving situation" doesn't happen and that is not what FOX wants to happen. Thus, FOX will help expand and will give into ESPN's BYU to Big 12 as a comprise. Thus FOX gets what they want with East expansion for live content.

Why would Fox get what they want?

Your resolution makes it sound like both ESPN and Fox would be forced to concede because they want opposing outcomes. That makes no sense when Fox has no influence over ACC members while ESPN controls the most important member of the B12 with the Longhorn network.

ESPN is going to win that battle.

From my basic understanding there are many aspects that affect each network's strategy. Seems like recent news of ESPN trying to scale back might indicate that they would be willing to cut some of their less valuable/profitable investments. Could that mean rolling LHN into the ACC or Big 12 network? Would Fox be willing to give up T-3 games for some better games to boost FS1 ratings in the Central time zone? Would Fox offer a network to the Big 12? Only if they expanded? Would the PACN benefit from Central time zone games? Would ESPN be willing to move the more valuable teams from the Big 12 or ACC to other conferences to drop less valuable programs from the payroll. Will the Big 12 or ACC add schools so they have content for a network since they already sold what content they owned?

I have no idea but it seem like there are many aspects to consider when looking at realignment from a TV partner perspective.

(07-26-2015 07:42 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:10 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:54 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  No, you are wrong:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...avid-boren

from when they did this at first...
The Big 12's presidents pledged to grant their television rights to the conference for six years, Oklahoma president David Boren said at a news conference on Thursday.

Doesn't say a damn thing about the networks.

The schools sign off their rights to the conference, the conference signs with the networks. Networks are not in contract with individual schools (except for Notre Dame).

Get a clue.

You do understand, don't you, that what you just described is what makes stever correct and you wrong?

No, you don't get it. Schools without a GOR can move conferences without the threat of unlimited damages because they have not turned over their rights to a conference. THus, the conference isn't going to throw a billion dollar lawsuit at them, but the school will need to pay an exiting fee.

When a school turns over their rights to a conference, the network that is contracted with the conference then has the rights to broadcast x and y and when that contract with the conference is broke because a school left, the school is taken to court for breach of contract.

Notre Dame's deal with NBC for football is different. I'm not aware of a GOR in place with Notre Dame and NBC. Their could be one in place, but I don't know if there is one.

No. When a school has granted its rights to a conference who has then sold the rights to one or more networks the school can leave if the network or networks agree and will pay for such a move while still paying the original conference the same money. If the school tries to move to a different conference with a different network than the one who owns the rights the network who does own the rights will file for an injunction. This is not rocket science people.

The thing that is still unclear for me is the middle ground.

It seems pretty obvious that a school that signed a GOR is not going to be able to just switch conferences and take their TV rights with them. Examples have been cited (such as a recording artist that signed to do X number of albums with Company Y), to show how they have held up in court.

However, people have been taking that argument forward and saying that means if a school leaves the conference bylaws say the departing school would lose their rights AND wouldn't get paid for them. Even in the example I mentioned above, those recording artists were still paid by Company X for completing those albums which were in dispute.

I would like to see an example of a precedent where someone signed away their rights to something in return for money and then a court said the people who signed for those rights to were allowed to keep them AND stop paying the agreed upon money.

(07-26-2015 10:35 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 07:06 PM)krup Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 03:02 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:30 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Yes they do. The B1G source read the article yesterday and "leaked" out the info with permission to set the record straight on some things that people were getting wrong.

FOX and ESPN have the power to move schools if they sign off on it.

It was something that I was saying for some time that ESPN wants teams that are not in the P5 in as a P5. There is a list of schools that are wanted. If Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State leaves for the Big 10 now, and Texas go Independent? West Virginia, Kansas State, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State is screwed. I think ESPN had something to do with blocking the Texhoma 4 from going to the PAC 12. They would have lost money to CBS and PAC 12 Network. That is why schools like Boise State, BYU, San Diego State, Colorado State, UNLV, New Mexico, North Dakota State, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Cincinnati, U.Conn, UCF, USF and East Carolina are on the expansion list. ESPN really does not have any west coast content except for Boise State and BYU at their expense.

ESPN wants Big 12 to die.

FOX wants ACC to die.

Resolution = expanded content in Big 12 for both networks = more live content that viewers will watch = more teams into the P5.

The main thing now is to get the Big 12 to expand so the "5 team leaving situation" doesn't happen and that is not what FOX wants to happen. Thus, FOX will help expand and will give into ESPN's BYU to Big 12 as a comprise. Thus FOX gets what they want with East expansion for live content.

Why would Fox get what they want?

Your resolution makes it sound like both ESPN and Fox would be forced to concede because they want opposing outcomes. That makes no sense when Fox has no influence over ACC members while ESPN controls the most important member of the B12 with the Longhorn network.

ESPN is going to win that battle.

From my basic understanding there are many aspects that affect each network's strategy. Seems like recent news of ESPN trying to scale back might indicate that they would be willing to cut some of their less valuable/profitable investments. Could that mean rolling LHN into the ACC or Big 12 network? Would Fox be willing to give up T-3 games for some better games to boost FS1 ratings in the Central time zone? Would Fox offer a network to the Big 12? Only if they expanded? Would the PACN benefit from Central time zone games? Would ESPN be willing to move the more valuable teams from the Big 12 or ACC to other conferences to drop less valuable programs from the payroll. Will the Big 12 or ACC add schools so they have content for a network since they already sold what content they owned?

I have no idea but it seem like there are many aspects to consider when looking at realignment from a TV partner perspective.

Of course there are innumerable possibilities of how this can shake out. My point was that only one of the two players, ESPN, has some control over the power centers of both the B12 and ACC while Fox has no influence in what the ACC does.

(07-26-2015 08:04 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 07:42 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:10 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:54 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The schools sign off their rights to the conference, the conference signs with the networks. Networks are not in contract with individual schools (except for Notre Dame).

Get a clue.

You do understand, don't you, that what you just described is what makes stever correct and you wrong?

No, you don't get it. Schools without a GOR can move conferences without the threat of unlimited damages because they have not turned over their rights to a conference. THus, the conference isn't going to throw a billion dollar lawsuit at them, but the school will need to pay an exiting fee.

When a school turns over their rights to a conference, the network that is contracted with the conference then has the rights to broadcast x and y and when that contract with the conference is broke because a school left, the school is taken to court for breach of contract.

Notre Dame's deal with NBC for football is different. I'm not aware of a GOR in place with Notre Dame and NBC. Their could be one in place, but I don't know if there is one.

No. When a school has granted its rights to a conference who has then sold the rights to one or more networks the school can leave if the network or networks agree and will pay for such a move while still paying the original conference the same money. If the school tries to move to a different conference with a different network than the one who owns the rights the network who does own the rights will file for an injunction. This is not rocket science people.

Correct, a school can leave without damages IF the network signs off on it. But that is NOT a defeat of a GOR.

If a school that ESPN has all of the rights to jumped shift and ran to FOX, that school would be taken to court if ESPN did not sign off on it.

Rights can be sold or traded.

So in effect, Rights can be nullified or at least allow teams to move without penalty. Correct?

(07-27-2015 09:15 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 08:04 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 07:42 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:10 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  You do understand, don't you, that what you just described is what makes stever correct and you wrong?

No, you don't get it. Schools without a GOR can move conferences without the threat of unlimited damages because they have not turned over their rights to a conference. THus, the conference isn't going to throw a billion dollar lawsuit at them, but the school will need to pay an exiting fee.

When a school turns over their rights to a conference, the network that is contracted with the conference then has the rights to broadcast x and y and when that contract with the conference is broke because a school left, the school is taken to court for breach of contract.

Notre Dame's deal with NBC for football is different. I'm not aware of a GOR in place with Notre Dame and NBC. Their could be one in place, but I don't know if there is one.

No. When a school has granted its rights to a conference who has then sold the rights to one or more networks the school can leave if the network or networks agree and will pay for such a move while still paying the original conference the same money. If the school tries to move to a different conference with a different network than the one who owns the rights the network who does own the rights will file for an injunction. This is not rocket science people.

Correct, a school can leave without damages IF the network signs off on it. But that is NOT a defeat of a GOR.

If a school that ESPN has all of the rights to jumped shift and ran to FOX, that school would be taken to court if ESPN did not sign off on it.

Rights can be sold or traded.

So in effect, Rights can be nullified or at least allow teams to move without penalty. Correct?

Rights is just ownership of something. Like property. For example, you signed a contract for the rights of someone to rent the house for 10 years and you can't come back 5 years later and say house no longer for rent. The person renting the house can take you to court and have a pretty easy case that any lawyer could win in the courtroom.

Obviously rights with conferences and networks is more complicated than a signed contract of a property that is being rented out.

Rights of players in pro sports are traded every year.

(07-26-2015 04:56 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:38 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  You people are idiots.

+1

To make things worse, Flugaur is just one more realignment troll. Almost everything he has posted so far turns out to be wrong.

(07-27-2015 09:36 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 09:15 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 08:04 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 07:42 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:10 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  No, you don't get it. Schools without a GOR can move conferences without the threat of unlimited damages because they have not turned over their rights to a conference. THus, the conference isn't going to throw a billion dollar lawsuit at them, but the school will need to pay an exiting fee.

When a school turns over their rights to a conference, the network that is contracted with the conference then has the rights to broadcast x and y and when that contract with the conference is broke because a school left, the school is taken to court for breach of contract.

Notre Dame's deal with NBC for football is different. I'm not aware of a GOR in place with Notre Dame and NBC. Their could be one in place, but I don't know if there is one.

No. When a school has granted its rights to a conference who has then sold the rights to one or more networks the school can leave if the network or networks agree and will pay for such a move while still paying the original conference the same money. If the school tries to move to a different conference with a different network than the one who owns the rights the network who does own the rights will file for an injunction. This is not rocket science people.

Correct, a school can leave without damages IF the network signs off on it. But that is NOT a defeat of a GOR.

If a school that ESPN has all of the rights to jumped shift and ran to FOX, that school would be taken to court if ESPN did not sign off on it.

Rights can be sold or traded.

So in effect, Rights can be nullified or at least allow teams to move without penalty. Correct?

Rights is just ownership of something. Like property. For example, you signed a contract for the rights of someone to rent the house for 10 years and you can't come back 5 years later and say house no longer for rent. The person renting the house can take you to court and have a pretty easy case that any lawyer could win in the courtroom.

Obviously rights with conferences and networks is more complicated than a signed contract of a property that is being rented out.

Rights of players in pro sports are traded every year.

You did not answer my question............a simple yes or no will do.

(07-26-2015 05:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:54 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The Grant of Rights is to the conference, not the networks.

Wrong.

No you get a clue. The grant of rights is to the conference. PERIOD.



There's that word again.... Conference. The networks don't have a ******* thing to do with the grant of rights. NOTHING.

In general, it always pains me to have to agree with Stever, but he is absolutely right here. A GOR is a contract between the conference and it's members. It just so happens the duration of said GOR's usually tie in with network contracts, because that is the general reason they exist.

(07-26-2015 05:15 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  I don't get why people can't accept the reality that a GOR can't be broken. It is really odd that random message board theorists act like they are smarter than thousands and thousands of lawyers that have went to court over a GOR and have struck out if they were trying to defeat it.

You have to define "break?" They most certainly can be broken. The question is the cost and who retains what rights at and who owes who money by doing so.

(07-27-2015 06:22 AM)krup Wrote:  However, people have been taking that argument forward and saying that means if a school leaves the conference bylaws say the departing school would lose their rights AND wouldn't get paid for them. Even in the example I mentioned above, those recording artists were still paid by Company X for completing those albums which were in dispute.

I would like to see an example of a precedent where someone signed away their rights to something in return for money and then a court said the people who signed for those rights to were allowed to keep them AND stop paying the agreed upon money.

One thing that makes it different in music and movies, is sometimes people have sold their lifetime rights. I.e. they took a lump sum payment to surrender their rights to certain properties forever. The Beatles for example. However some people try to compare that inaccurately to college sports, where the GOR was in e exchagne for set yearly payouts, not a lump sum payment for perpetual rights.

(07-27-2015 11:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 05:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:54 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The Grant of Rights is to the conference, not the networks.

Wrong.

No you get a clue. The grant of rights is to the conference. PERIOD.



There's that word again.... Conference. The networks don't have a ******* thing to do with the grant of rights. NOTHING.

In general, it always pains me to have to agree with Stever, but he is absolutely right here. A GOR is a contract between the conference and it's members. It just so happens the duration of said GOR's usually tie in with network contracts, because that is the general reason they exist.

(07-26-2015 05:15 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  I don't get why people can't accept the reality that a GOR can't be broken. It is really odd that random message board theorists act like they are smarter than thousands and thousands of lawyers that have went to court over a GOR and have struck out if they were trying to defeat it.

You have to define "break?" They most certainly can be broken. The question is the cost and who retains what rights at and who owes who money by doing so.

We've been agreeing way too much here recently....

(07-27-2015 11:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  We've been agreeing way too much here recently....

I feel I should be saying something like telling you to fornicate with yourself or something, to get this back to normal.

(07-27-2015 11:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 05:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:54 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The Grant of Rights is to the conference, not the networks.

Wrong.

No you get a clue. The grant of rights is to the conference. PERIOD.



There's that word again.... Conference. The networks don't have a ******* thing to do with the grant of rights. NOTHING.

In general, it always pains me to have to agree with Stever, but he is absolutely right here. A GOR is a contract between the conference and it's members. It just so happens the duration of said GOR's usually tie in with network contracts, because that is the general reason they exist.

(07-26-2015 05:15 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  I don't get why people can't accept the reality that a GOR can't be broken. It is really odd that random message board theorists act like they are smarter than thousands and thousands of lawyers that have went to court over a GOR and have struck out if they were trying to defeat it.

You have to define "break?" They most certainly can be broken. The question is the cost and who retains what rights at and who owes who money by doing so.

Do you guys eve nknow what you are trying to argue when you are not even arguing anything to dispute?

Everyone knows the schools turned over the rights to the conference when they signed the GOR. Why are people even debating that. That is a 100% FACT.

The conferences turn around and give specific rights to the networks that protects them to broadcast x and y during the duration of the contract.

This isn't complicated.

(07-27-2015 11:51 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Everyone knows the schools turned over the rights to the conference when they signed the GOR. Why are people even debating that. That is a 100% FACT.

You do realize that YOU are the ones debating this, right? Stever has been trying to tell you that. Instead, you claimed they signed a GOR to assign the rights to the network. That is what is false. One has nothing to do with the other contractually. As you said, it's not that complicated. For most of us, anyway.

(07-27-2015 12:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:51 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Everyone knows the schools turned over the rights to the conference when they signed the GOR. Why are people even debating that. That is a 100% FACT.

You do realize that YOU are the ones debating this, right? Stever has been trying to tell you that. Instead, you claimed they signed a GOR to assign the rights to the network. That is what is false. One has nothing to do with the other contractually. As you said, it's not that complicated. For most of us, anyway.

You still don't get it. The rights from the schools are transferred over to the CONFERENCE that is then turned over to the NETWORK!!!!

Why can't you guys grasp that simple contractual arrangement concept?

A game contracted to be shown on FOX can't be shown on ESPN due to the conference contractual agreements.

What you are saying is just a basic TV contract.....

The AAC who is with ESPN. They have a tv contract but no grant of rights. But Fox can't air an AAC game because ESPN has the rights to that conference....

A Grant of Rights is with the CONFERNCE. It's the CONFERNCE that would go after a school if they left the conference. The network has NOTHING to do with it at all. NOTHING is turned over to the network. I repeat.... NOTHING.