There's a school of thought that the future of the Big 12 depends on whether the "have-nots" let the "haves" out of the GOR early.

Right now, the "have-nots" have leverage. If they wait until 2025 when the GOR runs out, they have no leverage.

So what might they bargain for? First, an agreement from the departing "haves" (and the conferences taking them) that the Big 12 will retain an autobid to the NY6 bowls in the next postseason agreement beginning 2026. Second, hefty exit fees.

If this arrangement is reached, then the Big 12 survives and backfills with American/MWC schools and/or BYU.

If however, the GOR expires, then the "haves" become free agents. The future of the Big 12 would be in jeopardy at that point. Just as likely that the American, MWC devour the Big 12 leftovers as the Big 12 leftovers cherry pick the American/MWC.

Whatever happens, the "haves" (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas) cannot leave without making sure their political ball & chains (Tech, Ok St, Kan St) have a Power conference future, either in a reconsituted Big 12 that retains its NY6 autobid . . . or in other power leagues.

(05-07-2017 12:04 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  There's a school of thought that the future of the Big 12 depends on whether the "have-nots" let the "haves" out of the GOR early.

Right now, the "have-nots" have leverage. If they wait until 2025 when the GOR runs out, they have no leverage.

So what might they bargain for? First, an agreement from the departing "haves" (and the conferences taking them) that the Big 12 will retain an autobid to the NY6 bowls in the next postseason agreement beginning 2026. Second, hefty exit fees.

If this arrangement is reached, then the Big 12 survives and backfills with American/MWC schools and/or BYU.

If however, the GOR expires, then the "haves" become free agents. The future of the Big 12 would be in jeopardy at that point. Just as likely that the American, MWC devour the Big 12 leftovers as the Big 12 leftovers cherry pick the American/MWC.

Whatever happens, the "haves" (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas) cannot leave without making sure their political ball & chains (Tech, Ok St, Kan St) have a Power conference future, either in a reconsituted Big 12 that retains its NY6 autobid . . . or in other power leagues.

^^^^ pretty much total nonsense considering:

1. The schools that you think would be looking to leave the Big 12 have no ability to guarantee a NY6 bowl to anyone

2. the schools you think are looking to leave the Big 12 have no power to guarantee a left over Big 12 maintains two votes with the NCAA

3. the schools you think are looking to leave the Big 12 have no power to guarantee that the left over Big 12 gets $50 million per year for the playoffs existing

4. the schools you think are looking to leave the Big 12 have no power to guarantee the remaining Big 12 teams any media contract at all much less one with a high value

the only guarantee they could give them is that without all of the above they would look only slightly less stupid than the AAC if they made P7 stickers and put out a PDF that addresses none of the above

and please don't try and double down on the ridiculous with some silly nonsense about all the other conferences will step in and make sure the remaining Big 12 gets a NY6 bowl (who is going to play opposite them and why would ESPN or Fox pay)

and there is no chance they will vote to let the Big 12 keep two votes and a $50 million share of the playoff money

if the other 4 conferences are going to kill off the Big 12 they are either going to take all but one team or they are going to take all but a couple and take the playoff money and the bowl slot and the vote and that is that

and PS the GOR is still not the same as the conference bylaws that are in place for 99 years and that have a damages clause associated with them

so just because the GOR ends that does not mean that conference membership ends the conference bylaws are for 99 years as is the parts requiring damages to be paid

so the remaining members of the Big 12 will have cash

and even if it goes to a vote and it is 8-2 or 9-1 to fold the conference there is still the aspect of teams needing to notify the other members within 12 days of a 3rd party enticing them to break the contract with the conference AND to turn that offer down

and there is no chance the Big 12 will get divided up in 12 days with one member or more than one member left hanging.....and thus those members still have a legal claim of collusion to cause damages and further harm by not being notified as required while X number of teams find a home for each other in hopes of getting an 8-2 or 9-1 vote to fold and thus avoid damages

(05-07-2017 10:55 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Oklahoma has been laying the groundwork to challenge the GoR and media contracts. They demanded/asked for a conference network, conference expansion and a CCG. Only the CCG passed. If Oklahoma can demonstrate that they are being damaged by these, they may have found a crack in the GoR and Media contracts.

The 3rd party notification requirement is a joke. You publicly say you are not interested then continue the discussion in private.

If the big 3 leave (Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas) the B12 is still strong enough to raid the AAC and MWC. Each school that leaves after that diminishes that ability exponentially.

Every day that ticks by the potential damages for leaving decrease and each season that goes by the inventory of games covered by the GOR's decreases.

I bet there is a date already on the calendar where OU has determined that the risk becomes affordable.

(05-07-2017 01:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 10:55 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Oklahoma has been laying the groundwork to challenge the GoR and media contracts. They demanded/asked for a conference network, conference expansion and a CCG. Only the CCG passed. If Oklahoma can demonstrate that they are being damaged by these, they may have found a crack in the GoR and Media contracts.

The 3rd party notification requirement is a joke. You publicly say you are not interested then continue the discussion in private.

If the big 3 leave (Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas) the B12 is still strong enough to raid the AAC and MWC. Each school that leaves after that diminishes that ability exponentially.

Every day that ticks by the potential damages for leaving decrease and each season that goes by the inventory of games covered by the GOR's decreases.

I bet there is a date already on the calendar where OU has determined that the risk becomes affordable.

the GOR has no damages clause

the GOR is not the same as the conference bylaws that are in place for 99 years and that do contain the damages clause

and those same bylaws require a member to notify the conference within 12 days of and 3rd party discussing with the member any attempt to break the agreement in the bylaws AND to turn that third party down

so no member is free to just go out and sit and workout details for endless periods of time on how to leave the conference

and if they try that they will be subjected to greater damages and the 3rd party or parties involved with be subjected to that as well

I think the issue is if the PAC 12 or sec offer the combo of OU and Ok state vs Ou taking a big 10 solo offer not if OU is staying in the big 12 long term. I would guess the combo offer is made and ou leaves in 3-5 years. I think the sec will land ou and ok state, than try to jump to 18 with Texas and x. X will be either Texas tech or Tulane, yes Tulane to get the academic types on board and for an easy W

(05-07-2017 01:18 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 10:55 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Oklahoma has been laying the groundwork to challenge the GoR and media contracts. They demanded/asked for a conference network, conference expansion and a CCG. Only the CCG passed. If Oklahoma can demonstrate that they are being damaged by these, they may have found a crack in the GoR and Media contracts.

The 3rd party notification requirement is a joke. You publicly say you are not interested then continue the discussion in private.

If the big 3 leave (Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas) the B12 is still strong enough to raid the AAC and MWC. Each school that leaves after that diminishes that ability exponentially.

Every day that ticks by the potential damages for leaving decrease and each season that goes by the inventory of games covered by the GOR's decreases.

I bet there is a date already on the calendar where OU has determined that the risk becomes affordable.

the GOR has no damages clause

the GOR is not the same as the conference bylaws that are in place for 99 years and that do contain the damages clause

and those same bylaws require a member to notify the conference within 12 days of and 3rd party discussing with the member any attempt to break the agreement in the bylaws AND to turn that third party down

so no member is free to just go out and sit and workout details for endless periods of time on how to leave the conference

and if they try that they will be subjected to greater damages and the 3rd party or parties involved with be subjected to that as well

I believe the point they are making is that the courts will ultimately decide all of this if somebody decides to challenge it. Even the legality of a state school to enter into a GOR has not been tested in the courts.

But, all of that aside the burden of proof that a school had planned to leave would be on the conference. Intent is the hardest thing in the world to prove, especially since checking one's value, a practice utilized by even the most staunch members of any conference, is a matter of common practice. The ability to distinguish between due diligence and intent with regards to potential movement will be impossible to sort, unless actual movement occurs.

You do a great job of knowing and discussing the regulations as laid out by the Big 12 and its GOR, but your idealistic view of it does not correspond with the every day practice of any school. Law is practiced in the gray areas of life. And our country has more attorneys per capita than any other nation. If a will that is carefully laid out can be disputed and overturned how solid is any contract among 10 distant and distinct parties going to be?
And how can it avoid interpretation?

(05-06-2017 02:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 10:20 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  You are basically correct. Colorado was a part of the original six. Then Baylor started politicking to replace Colorado. That is when Scott issued an invite to Colorado to kill Baylor's plan.

No, CU had an invitation to join from day one. A small number of delusional politician-clowns with no real power loudly squawked that they wanted to force Baylor in. CU just waited to accept until after Texas said no because the idea was that, if UT said yes, they would announce all six new members at once.

I think that is what I said. Colorado was a part of the original six. In fact the PAC wanted Colorado when the Big12 was formed. I stand by my original statement....when Baylor started campaigning to Texas politicians to have Baylor replace Colorado in the original six, Scott abruptly invited Colorado alone to abort that attempt..

(05-07-2017 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:18 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 10:55 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Oklahoma has been laying the groundwork to challenge the GoR and media contracts. They demanded/asked for a conference network, conference expansion and a CCG. Only the CCG passed. If Oklahoma can demonstrate that they are being damaged by these, they may have found a crack in the GoR and Media contracts.

The 3rd party notification requirement is a joke. You publicly say you are not interested then continue the discussion in private.

If the big 3 leave (Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas) the B12 is still strong enough to raid the AAC and MWC. Each school that leaves after that diminishes that ability exponentially.

Every day that ticks by the potential damages for leaving decrease and each season that goes by the inventory of games covered by the GOR's decreases.

I bet there is a date already on the calendar where OU has determined that the risk becomes affordable.

the GOR has no damages clause

the GOR is not the same as the conference bylaws that are in place for 99 years and that do contain the damages clause

and those same bylaws require a member to notify the conference within 12 days of and 3rd party discussing with the member any attempt to break the agreement in the bylaws AND to turn that third party down

so no member is free to just go out and sit and workout details for endless periods of time on how to leave the conference

and if they try that they will be subjected to greater damages and the 3rd party or parties involved with be subjected to that as well

I believe the point they are making is that the courts will ultimately decide all of this if somebody decides to challenge it. Even the legality of a state school to enter into a GOR has not been tested in the courts.

But, all of that aside the burden of proof that a school had planned to leave would be on the conference. Intent is the hardest thing in the world to prove, especially since checking one's value, a practice utilized by even the most staunch members of any conference, is a matter of common practice. The ability to distinguish between due diligence and intent with regards to potential movement will be impossible to sort, unless actual movement occurs.

You do a great job of knowing and discussing the regulations as laid out by the Big 12 and its GOR, but your idealistic view of it does not correspond with the every day practice of any school. Law is practiced in the gray areas of life. And our country has more attorneys per capita than any other nation. If a will that is carefully laid out can be disputed and overturned how solid is any contract among 10 distant and distinct parties going to be?
And how can it avoid interpretation?

the last team to leave a major conference was Maryland

Maryland was NOT a part of the GOR

Maryland paid $31+ million to leave the ACC.....again NOT being subjected to the GOR

the ACC replaced Maryland and their contract stayed the same so one could technically argue there were "no damages".....but they still paid $31+ million WITHOUT being a party to the GOR

CU, NU, A&M and MU all paid to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT a GOR

and when CU and NU were leaving the Fox tier 2 deal with the Big 12 was expiring and in the process of being worked out for a new one

the new deal was for a great deal more money than the old deal so again one could argue "no damages" and the ESPN deal stayed the same without 12 teams and without a CCG

when A&M and MU left the ESPN deal was still in place and the new Fox deal stayed the same with WVU and TCU moving in and MU and A&M moving out and MU and A&M still PAID to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT a GOR in place

less than 6 months later the Big 12 signed a new deal with ESPN even though there were 3 years left on the old one and Fox kicked in a bit more money as well

but MU and A&M did not get a "refund" they still PAID to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT A GOR in place

so again WITHOUT A GOR IN PLACE schools PAY to leave conferences when the conference has a CONTRACT FOR MEMBERSHIP that specifies there are damages for a member leaving the conference.....even when one can argue there were "no damages" because media contracts stayed the same

and in the case of the Big 12 it could be EASILY argued that in fact the damages are MUCH GREATER when a team or multiple teams leave the conference and the conference ends up:

1. with a greatly reduced new media deal

2. no longer participating in a NY6 bowl automatically

3. no longer getting $50 million a year for the playoff existing

4. no longer getting 2 votes with the NCAA

so the precedent is VERY CLEAR that conference membership contracts EXCLUSIVE of a GOR that call for damages result in damages being paid

and that is in cases where it ould be argued no damages happened like Maryland and the ACC and MU and A&M and the Big 12 and in cases where at lease one media contract was expiring and replaced and another stayed the same even with large changes to membership (NU and CU)

so thinking that there will be little to no "damages" if a conference just goes to crap as does their payouts because a number of teams leave is quite a stretch

and it is VERY CLEAR that the existence of a GOR means NOTHING as far as actual damages being awarded or not awarded and that conference membership contracts that call for damages that are separate from a GOR are enforceable often for very large sums of money like $31+ million in the case of Maryland

so the "gray area" is people pretending those precedents do not already exist or that a GOR changes that

The long wait until the end of the GOR does give everyone involved a long, long time to think about what their potential moves are and devise a few scenarios.

Had things not developed and changed so quickly we might have seen a Pac 16 in the opening salvo of the 2010-2011 round. If the Aggies weren't interested the slot for them could have been given to Kansas, who the Pac 10 tried to swap out for Oklahoma St.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Okie St, Colorado, and Kansas all end up in the Pac 16.

Nebraska still goes to the Big Ten and Missouri does too.

A&M goes to the SEC.

Feeling the need to jump to 16, the SEC and Big Ten declare open season on the Big East and ACC to fill their ranks and the remaining Big East football schools move over to join the remaining ACC schools to form the 4th mega league.

(05-07-2017 02:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:18 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 10:55 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Oklahoma has been laying the groundwork to challenge the GoR and media contracts. They demanded/asked for a conference network, conference expansion and a CCG. Only the CCG passed. If Oklahoma can demonstrate that they are being damaged by these, they may have found a crack in the GoR and Media contracts.

The 3rd party notification requirement is a joke. You publicly say you are not interested then continue the discussion in private.

If the big 3 leave (Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas) the B12 is still strong enough to raid the AAC and MWC. Each school that leaves after that diminishes that ability exponentially.

Every day that ticks by the potential damages for leaving decrease and each season that goes by the inventory of games covered by the GOR's decreases.

I bet there is a date already on the calendar where OU has determined that the risk becomes affordable.

the GOR has no damages clause

the GOR is not the same as the conference bylaws that are in place for 99 years and that do contain the damages clause

and those same bylaws require a member to notify the conference within 12 days of and 3rd party discussing with the member any attempt to break the agreement in the bylaws AND to turn that third party down

so no member is free to just go out and sit and workout details for endless periods of time on how to leave the conference

and if they try that they will be subjected to greater damages and the 3rd party or parties involved with be subjected to that as well

I believe the point they are making is that the courts will ultimately decide all of this if somebody decides to challenge it. Even the legality of a state school to enter into a GOR has not been tested in the courts.

But, all of that aside the burden of proof that a school had planned to leave would be on the conference. Intent is the hardest thing in the world to prove, especially since checking one's value, a practice utilized by even the most staunch members of any conference, is a matter of common practice. The ability to distinguish between due diligence and intent with regards to potential movement will be impossible to sort, unless actual movement occurs.

You do a great job of knowing and discussing the regulations as laid out by the Big 12 and its GOR, but your idealistic view of it does not correspond with the every day practice of any school. Law is practiced in the gray areas of life. And our country has more attorneys per capita than any other nation. If a will that is carefully laid out can be disputed and overturned how solid is any contract among 10 distant and distinct parties going to be?
And how can it avoid interpretation?

the last team to leave a major conference was Maryland

Maryland was NOT a part of the GOR

Maryland paid $31+ million to leave the ACC.....again NOT being subjected to the GOR

the ACC replaced Maryland and their contract stayed the same so one could technically argue there were "no damages".....but they still paid $31+ million WITHOUT being a party to the GOR

CU, NU, A&M and MU all paid to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT a GOR

and when CU and NU were leaving the Fox tier 2 deal with the Big 12 was expiring and in the process of being worked out for a new one

the new deal was for a great deal more money than the old deal so again one could argue "no damages" and the ESPN deal stayed the same without 12 teams and without a CCG

when A&M and MU left the ESPN deal was still in place and the new Fox deal stayed the same with WVU and TCU moving in and MU and A&M moving out and MU and A&M still PAID to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT a GOR in place

less than 6 months later the Big 12 signed a new deal with ESPN even though there were 3 years left on the old one and Fox kicked in a bit more money as well

but MU and A&M did not get a "refund" they still PAID to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT A GOR in place

so again WITHOUT A GOR IN PLACE schools PAY to leave conferences when the conference has a CONTRACT FOR MEMBERSHIP that specifies there are damages for a member leaving the conference.....even when one can argue there were "no damages" because media contracts stayed the same

and in the case of the Big 12 it could be EASILY argued that in fact the damages are MUCH GREATER when a team or multiple teams leave the conference and the conference ends up:

1. with a greatly reduced new media deal

2. no longer participating in a NY6 bowl automatically

3. no longer getting $50 million a year for the playoff existing

4. no longer getting 2 votes with the NCAA

so the precedent is VERY CLEAR that conference membership contracts EXCLUSIVE of a GOR that call for damages result in damages being paid

and that is in cases where it ould be argued no damages happened like Maryland and the ACC and MU and A&M and the Big 12 and in cases where at lease one media contract was expiring and replaced and another stayed the same even with large changes to membership (NU and CU)

so thinking that there will be little to no "damages" if a conference just goes to crap as does their payouts because a number of teams leave is quite a stretch

and it is VERY CLEAR that the existence of a GOR means NOTHING as far as actual damages being awarded or not awarded and that conference membership contracts that call for damages that are separate from a GOR are enforceable often for very large sums of money like $31+ million in the case of Maryland

so the "gray area" is people pretending those precedents do not already exist or that a GOR changes that

Your preponderance of words does not dismiss the fact that it has yet to be challenged in a court. GOR's were contracts entered into by artists (musical and other) with another party. As they pertain to sports most of them were still contracts between two private parties. The whole issue as to whether or not a state entity can tie themselves to anything that affects appropriations or which would place a larger burden upon the taxpayers of a state due to contractual restriction is still wide open to interpretation. It just hasn't been challenged yet. It only takes one. And since most courts tend to allow mitigation of damages that is left to interpretation as well. No GOR may restrict an entity from being paid for a product used. So if the away games of an Oklahoma or Texas gave them enough revenue to make a move the Big 12 could retain the home games as property but would still have to give the departing schools their normal amount for those games. There is great precedent for that. So exit fees would then be the issue and again those, as with Maryland, are subject to interpretation and negotiation.

Nothing you can say, regardless of how sincerely and detailed you state it, is going to change the susceptibility of the GOR to court ruling or damage clauses to negotiation. As it applies to taxpayer funded state institutions it has yet to be challenged and there is no reliable precedent, so nothing is certain.

(05-07-2017 02:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 02:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:18 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Every day that ticks by the potential damages for leaving decrease and each season that goes by the inventory of games covered by the GOR's decreases.

I bet there is a date already on the calendar where OU has determined that the risk becomes affordable.

the GOR has no damages clause

the GOR is not the same as the conference bylaws that are in place for 99 years and that do contain the damages clause

and those same bylaws require a member to notify the conference within 12 days of and 3rd party discussing with the member any attempt to break the agreement in the bylaws AND to turn that third party down

so no member is free to just go out and sit and workout details for endless periods of time on how to leave the conference

and if they try that they will be subjected to greater damages and the 3rd party or parties involved with be subjected to that as well

I believe the point they are making is that the courts will ultimately decide all of this if somebody decides to challenge it. Even the legality of a state school to enter into a GOR has not been tested in the courts.

But, all of that aside the burden of proof that a school had planned to leave would be on the conference. Intent is the hardest thing in the world to prove, especially since checking one's value, a practice utilized by even the most staunch members of any conference, is a matter of common practice. The ability to distinguish between due diligence and intent with regards to potential movement will be impossible to sort, unless actual movement occurs.

You do a great job of knowing and discussing the regulations as laid out by the Big 12 and its GOR, but your idealistic view of it does not correspond with the every day practice of any school. Law is practiced in the gray areas of life. And our country has more attorneys per capita than any other nation. If a will that is carefully laid out can be disputed and overturned how solid is any contract among 10 distant and distinct parties going to be?
And how can it avoid interpretation?

the last team to leave a major conference was Maryland

Maryland was NOT a part of the GOR

Maryland paid $31+ million to leave the ACC.....again NOT being subjected to the GOR

the ACC replaced Maryland and their contract stayed the same so one could technically argue there were "no damages".....but they still paid $31+ million WITHOUT being a party to the GOR

CU, NU, A&M and MU all paid to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT a GOR

and when CU and NU were leaving the Fox tier 2 deal with the Big 12 was expiring and in the process of being worked out for a new one

the new deal was for a great deal more money than the old deal so again one could argue "no damages" and the ESPN deal stayed the same without 12 teams and without a CCG

when A&M and MU left the ESPN deal was still in place and the new Fox deal stayed the same with WVU and TCU moving in and MU and A&M moving out and MU and A&M still PAID to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT a GOR in place

less than 6 months later the Big 12 signed a new deal with ESPN even though there were 3 years left on the old one and Fox kicked in a bit more money as well

but MU and A&M did not get a "refund" they still PAID to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT A GOR in place

so again WITHOUT A GOR IN PLACE schools PAY to leave conferences when the conference has a CONTRACT FOR MEMBERSHIP that specifies there are damages for a member leaving the conference.....even when one can argue there were "no damages" because media contracts stayed the same

and in the case of the Big 12 it could be EASILY argued that in fact the damages are MUCH GREATER when a team or multiple teams leave the conference and the conference ends up:

1. with a greatly reduced new media deal

2. no longer participating in a NY6 bowl automatically

3. no longer getting $50 million a year for the playoff existing

4. no longer getting 2 votes with the NCAA

so the precedent is VERY CLEAR that conference membership contracts EXCLUSIVE of a GOR that call for damages result in damages being paid

and that is in cases where it ould be argued no damages happened like Maryland and the ACC and MU and A&M and the Big 12 and in cases where at lease one media contract was expiring and replaced and another stayed the same even with large changes to membership (NU and CU)

so thinking that there will be little to no "damages" if a conference just goes to crap as does their payouts because a number of teams leave is quite a stretch

and it is VERY CLEAR that the existence of a GOR means NOTHING as far as actual damages being awarded or not awarded and that conference membership contracts that call for damages that are separate from a GOR are enforceable often for very large sums of money like $31+ million in the case of Maryland

so the "gray area" is people pretending those precedents do not already exist or that a GOR changes that

Your preponderance of words does not dismiss the fact that it has yet to be challenged in a court. GOR's were contracts entered into by artists (musical and other) with another party. As they pertain to sports most of them were still contracts between two private parties. The whole issue as to whether or not a state entity can tie themselves to anything that affects appropriations or which would place a larger burden upon the taxpayers of a state due to contractual restriction is still wide open to interpretation. It just hasn't been challenged yet. It only takes one. And since most courts tend to allow mitigation of damages that is left to interpretation as well. No GOR may restrict an entity from being paid for a product used. So if the away games of an Oklahoma or Texas gave them enough revenue to make a move the Big 12 could retain the home games as property but would still have to give the departing schools their normal amount for those games. There is great precedent for that. So exit fees would then be the issue and again those, as with Maryland, are subject to interpretation and negotiation.

Nothing you can say, regardless of how sincerely and detailed you state it, is going to change the susceptibility of the GOR to court ruling or damage clauses to negotiation. As it applies to taxpayer funded state institutions it has yet to be challenged and there is no reliable precedent, so nothing is certain.

you clearly have difficulty reading or perhaps understanding what is written

the Big 12 contract for conference membership is a separate contract apart from the GOR

challenging the GOR does nor change the fact that a member is still ALSO bound by the contract for conference membership

the GOR is not an addendum to the conference contract for membership

they are independent of each other

and thus challenging the GOR means NOTHING when it comes to the fact that every team that has left a conference WITHOUT BEING A PART OF A GOR has PAID DAMAGES

how else is there to explain it.....the existence or non existence of a GOR or the ability to enforce or not enforce of a GOR does not change the FACT that every team to leave a major conference in recently history PAID to do so under the contract for conference membership.....WHICH IS NOT A GOR

how is it that you simply can't understand that the contract for conference membership IS NOT A GOR

and how is it that you simply cannot understand that a contract for conference membership that has been broken has resulted in payments for damages in all the recent cases where it has been challenged and that was WITHOUT A GOR

so CLEARLY a "state entity" can be subjected to DAMAGES for breaking a CONTRACT FOR CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP because MU, NU, CU, A&M and Maryland ALL PAID.....and they PAID under the CONTRACT FOR CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP that is EXCLUSIVE OF A GOR and NOT TIED TO A GOR and that a GOR IS NOT A PART OF

(05-07-2017 02:30 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 02:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 02:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:18 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the GOR has no damages clause

the GOR is not the same as the conference bylaws that are in place for 99 years and that do contain the damages clause

and those same bylaws require a member to notify the conference within 12 days of and 3rd party discussing with the member any attempt to break the agreement in the bylaws AND to turn that third party down

so no member is free to just go out and sit and workout details for endless periods of time on how to leave the conference

and if they try that they will be subjected to greater damages and the 3rd party or parties involved with be subjected to that as well

I believe the point they are making is that the courts will ultimately decide all of this if somebody decides to challenge it. Even the legality of a state school to enter into a GOR has not been tested in the courts.

But, all of that aside the burden of proof that a school had planned to leave would be on the conference. Intent is the hardest thing in the world to prove, especially since checking one's value, a practice utilized by even the most staunch members of any conference, is a matter of common practice. The ability to distinguish between due diligence and intent with regards to potential movement will be impossible to sort, unless actual movement occurs.

You do a great job of knowing and discussing the regulations as laid out by the Big 12 and its GOR, but your idealistic view of it does not correspond with the every day practice of any school. Law is practiced in the gray areas of life. And our country has more attorneys per capita than any other nation. If a will that is carefully laid out can be disputed and overturned how solid is any contract among 10 distant and distinct parties going to be?
And how can it avoid interpretation?

the last team to leave a major conference was Maryland

Maryland was NOT a part of the GOR

Maryland paid $31+ million to leave the ACC.....again NOT being subjected to the GOR

the ACC replaced Maryland and their contract stayed the same so one could technically argue there were "no damages".....but they still paid $31+ million WITHOUT being a party to the GOR

CU, NU, A&M and MU all paid to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT a GOR

and when CU and NU were leaving the Fox tier 2 deal with the Big 12 was expiring and in the process of being worked out for a new one

the new deal was for a great deal more money than the old deal so again one could argue "no damages" and the ESPN deal stayed the same without 12 teams and without a CCG

when A&M and MU left the ESPN deal was still in place and the new Fox deal stayed the same with WVU and TCU moving in and MU and A&M moving out and MU and A&M still PAID to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT a GOR in place

less than 6 months later the Big 12 signed a new deal with ESPN even though there were 3 years left on the old one and Fox kicked in a bit more money as well

but MU and A&M did not get a "refund" they still PAID to leave the Big 12 WITHOUT A GOR in place

so again WITHOUT A GOR IN PLACE schools PAY to leave conferences when the conference has a CONTRACT FOR MEMBERSHIP that specifies there are damages for a member leaving the conference.....even when one can argue there were "no damages" because media contracts stayed the same

and in the case of the Big 12 it could be EASILY argued that in fact the damages are MUCH GREATER when a team or multiple teams leave the conference and the conference ends up:

1. with a greatly reduced new media deal

2. no longer participating in a NY6 bowl automatically

3. no longer getting $50 million a year for the playoff existing

4. no longer getting 2 votes with the NCAA

so the precedent is VERY CLEAR that conference membership contracts EXCLUSIVE of a GOR that call for damages result in damages being paid

and that is in cases where it ould be argued no damages happened like Maryland and the ACC and MU and A&M and the Big 12 and in cases where at lease one media contract was expiring and replaced and another stayed the same even with large changes to membership (NU and CU)

so thinking that there will be little to no "damages" if a conference just goes to crap as does their payouts because a number of teams leave is quite a stretch

and it is VERY CLEAR that the existence of a GOR means NOTHING as far as actual damages being awarded or not awarded and that conference membership contracts that call for damages that are separate from a GOR are enforceable often for very large sums of money like $31+ million in the case of Maryland

so the "gray area" is people pretending those precedents do not already exist or that a GOR changes that

Your preponderance of words does not dismiss the fact that it has yet to be challenged in a court. GOR's were contracts entered into by artists (musical and other) with another party. As they pertain to sports most of them were still contracts between two private parties. The whole issue as to whether or not a state entity can tie themselves to anything that affects appropriations or which would place a larger burden upon the taxpayers of a state due to contractual restriction is still wide open to interpretation. It just hasn't been challenged yet. It only takes one. And since most courts tend to allow mitigation of damages that is left to interpretation as well. No GOR may restrict an entity from being paid for a product used. So if the away games of an Oklahoma or Texas gave them enough revenue to make a move the Big 12 could retain the home games as property but would still have to give the departing schools their normal amount for those games. There is great precedent for that. So exit fees would then be the issue and again those, as with Maryland, are subject to interpretation and negotiation.

Nothing you can say, regardless of how sincerely and detailed you state it, is going to change the susceptibility of the GOR to court ruling or damage clauses to negotiation. As it applies to taxpayer funded state institutions it has yet to be challenged and there is no reliable precedent, so nothing is certain.

you clearly have difficulty reading or perhaps understanding what is written

the Big 12 contract for conference membership is a separate contract apart from the GOR

challenging the GOR does nor change the fact that a member is still ALSO bound by the contract for conference membership

the GOR is not an addendum to the conference contract for membership

they are independent of each other

and thus challenging the GOR means NOTHING when it comes to the fact that every team that has left a conference WITHOUT BEING A PART OF A GOR has PAID DAMAGES

how else is there to explain it.....the existence or non existence of a GOR or the ability to enforce or not enforce of a GOR does not change the FACT that every team to leave a major conference in recently history PAID to do so under the contract for conference membership.....WHICH IS NOT A GOR

how is it that you simply can't understand that the contract for conference membership IS NOT A GOR

and how is it that you simply cannot understand that a contract for conference membership that has been broken has resulted in payments for damages in all the recent cases where it has been challenged and that was WITHOUT A GOR

so CLEARLY a "state entity" can be subjected to DAMAGES for breaking a CONTRACT FOR CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP because MU, NU, CU, A&M and Maryland ALL PAID.....and they PAID under the CONTRACT FOR CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP that is EXCLUSIVE OF A GOR and NOT TIED TO A GOR and that a GOR IS NOT A PART OF

I don't have a bit of problem understanding the same hogwash that you spew every time you post here on that subject, but I haven't carried my replies to a level of personal attack as you did with the last post. So now I'm going to tell you why I responded to this topic. It's because you use the same tactics every time you post. You give a long diatribe of the same reasons over and over and when your opponent is not impressed you resort to ad hominem usage.

Stow it! Change that part of your posting habit and you will be fine. Resort to it again and you will be gone. Got it! Why? Because you fill pages in threads with this same approach and it makes it difficult for the average viewer to follow the thread, frequently becomes a cat fight between you and another poster, and eventually derails the thread. It simply isn't going to be tolerated from you or a few others who do similar things any longer.

Stick to the topic, argue your position well, be polite, and if someone disagrees they simply disagree. Endless repetition of the same points, without addressing the arguments of others directly will be penalized.

If you have further questions or want to reply to this then PM me. If not? Oh well!