If the big 12 doesnt have the money and the autobid (which it wont if it loses texas and oklahoma, or maybe even just one of them) the big 12 will not be raiding anyone. Kansas becomes the only valuable member of that conference.

Texas tech = nothing (lubbok)

Baylor = nothing (waco)

Iowa St = nothing (ames)

Kansas St = nothing (manhattan, no not that one)

Oklahoma St = nothing (stillwater)

TCU = solid/good in Dallas but what the third team behind Texas, OU, and Texas AnM?

WVU = already out on its own, solid/good not enough to flagship a major conference (morgantown)

After being dismantled the scraps will be trying to find refuge any where in the other four leagues with Kansas being the only one with any hope. TCU maybe if the sec wants in to Dallas market and someone to tag along with AnM.

We have seen this show before with the SWC, when Texas leaves its lights out for whatever conference they are in. If not through natural means then Texas will ensure it. That way Texas can still throw its weight around, after all it was the foundation of 2 power conferences.

Something I've been mulling over...

We all know something is going to happen in 2023, but what if it's limited to just Texas going independent?

Without Texas as the lynchpin, I don't think we see 2 or 4 B12 schools going to the PAC-12

There's no indication that any conference is willing to go to 16, so that makes Kansas unlikely to the B1G tbh, especially considering that adding Kansas flies in the face of the B1G's recent expansion patterns (ala tv markets in Maryland / DC and New York).

It may very well be that Texas goes independent, resumes scheduling with historic rivals in Nebraska, Oklahoma, aTm, et al. leaving the B12 at 9.

The question at that point, is do they stay at 9 with their "One True Champion" model, do they expand by 3 (in which case I think the easy solution is Cinci, UCF, USF in that order) or do they go to 14 with 2 more adds? Who are those other 2 teams?

(08-18-2017 11:56 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 11:17 AM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 08:17 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:04 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:45 AM)Underdog Wrote:  I don't understand how you think we will grab WV and ISU when a B12 that almost lost UT, TT, OU, and OSU was going to raid the Big East:

“The sources said that if Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State were to leave the Big 12 and the five remaining schools do not have an opportunity to join the ACC, SEC or Big Ten, the Big 12 would move to absorb remaining Big East schools -- not the other way around….”


http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ources-say


You're also overlooking the fact that most of the schools in this conference would start packing their bags while on the phone with the B12 leftovers....

Only under these assertions: the new B12 keeps its power status, keeps its bowl access, and keeps a least a larger payout than the current aac. If these aren't present, you're looking at more travel expenses to terrible places that aren't easy to get to and very little to gain.

Good points; however, I will counter with the following with emphasis on UCF:

Think about the precarious circumstances that surrounded this conference when UCF agreed to join. It was losing its AQ status, losing members, and there was great uncertainty about the TV $$. This conference subsequently lost the C7 and the Big East name. Moreover, our commissioner said during a radio interview that he didn’t think the conference would make it at one point. Why did UCF still join despite the odds stacked against this conference surviving? One important reason is because the president and AD for UCF knew that it was better to be in a conference with UC, UCONN, USF, Temple, Houston, Memphis, and SMU than possibly being left behind in CUSA. They also knew that UC, UCONN, and USF had leverage over CUSA (because of the perceived FBS conference hierarchy) and could invite another school if UCF had turned down an invite. The president and AD for UCF made the right decision because look at what CUSA is worth now….

When the B12 implodes, it will have the same leverage over this conference even if it drops in status, TV $$$, and bowl affiliations. Do you really think UC, UCONN, USF, and Temple would stay here if the B12 leftovers are willing to reunite them with WV? Furthermore, do think Houston, SMU, Memphis, etc… would say "no" to a rebuilding B12 and risk having to rebuild the American with depreciated CUSA parts? That’s the leverage the B12 leftovers have over this conference: "Join us even if it’s a literal move or risk rebuilding the American with CUSA parts and lowering your value." In addition to the aforementioned, the B12 will likely invite four schools from this conference so that they arrive the last two years before its TV contract and GOR expires. Consequently, this conference would already have 4 former members in the B12 before its GOR expires—which greatly increases the odds of additional American schools joining them (not to mention the B12 exit fees)….

You sound way too hopeful.


T


...

I'm "hopeful" that most of the members in this conference will get an invite to the rebuilding B12....

Yeah... and I don't like it.


T


...

(08-18-2017 12:32 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Something I've been mulling over...

We all know something is going to happen in 2023, but what if it's limited to just Texas going independent?

Without Texas as the lynchpin, I don't think we see 2 or 4 B12 schools going to the PAC-12

There's no indication that any conference is willing to go to 16, so that makes Kansas unlikely to the B1G tbh, especially considering that adding Kansas flies in the face of the B1G's recent expansion patterns (ala tv markets in Maryland / DC and New York).

It may very well be that Texas goes independent, resumes scheduling with historic rivals in Nebraska, Oklahoma, aTm, et al. leaving the B12 at 9.

The question at that point, is do they stay at 9 with their "One True Champion" model, do they expand by 3 (in which case I think the easy solution is Cinci, UCF, USF in that order) or do they go to 14 with 2 more adds? Who are those other 2 teams?

Building on this, I don't think Memphis or Houston would get the call for all the reasons expounded upon in the last debacle of realignment.

I think, thinking regionally, Temple then ECU () would make sense, especially if Temple can get an OCS built by 2023 and ECU shows some signs of life. If not, Tulane / Memphis would be in the wings. I don't think a Big 12 without Texas would look to replace with another Texas school.

(08-16-2017 04:32 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 03:35 PM)RGV Pony Wrote:  Why would Arky leave SEC?

exactly, Nebraska and Ark are not going to B12.

Nebraska got tired of UT throwing their weights around..and sought out greener pastures. I don't think they'd ever go back unless Texas gave up the Longhorn Network.

(08-16-2017 08:56 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  Seriously guys, why on earth would Texas boot current members out of the B12 replacing them with worse programs in Nebraska and Arkansas... or somebody from the AAC?

Texas does not need a single dime - they are as loaded as a college program can be. In fact, they're more loaded than probably every professional sports team in America. They could continue to operate at their current level ad infinitum without another single dime from television. Texas will never make a hasty decision and/or bring a school like Houston in to replace a current member. Nothing against Houston but, they're not currently in the B12 so their brand is not as strong as current B12 members. The only way Texas brings AAC members, or somebody like Nebraska into the B12, is if they are forced to because of a mass exodus.


T


...

Nebraska had their most success in sports as a member of the Big 12. They had rivalries with Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado in football. I imagine real Husker fans would sell their souls to be able to play Oklahoma in football again on a regular basis. Nebraska fits the geographical footprint of the big 12 more than they do the BIG.
However, they left because of Texas having too much clout...and that hasn't changed.
I imagine Nebraska wouldn't be thrilled with the LHN...and I don't see them ever leaving the BIG unless they are kicked out (won't happen)

(08-17-2017 10:12 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 09:01 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 08:56 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  Seriously guys, why on earth would Texas boot current members out of the B12 replacing them with worse programs in Nebraska and Arkansas... or somebody from the AAC?

Texas does not need a single dime - they are as loaded as a college program can be. In fact, they're more loaded than probably every professional sports team in America. They could continue to operate at their current level ad infinitum without another single dime from television. Texas will never make a hasty decision and/or bring a school like Houston in to replace a current member. Nothing against Houston but, they're not currently in the B12 so their brand is not as strong as current B12 members. The only way Texas brings AAC members, or somebody like Nebraska into the B12, is if they are forced to because of a mass exodus.


T


...

The big12-2 is a dead walking conference... C'mon man, you know this already

Although the original post in this thread is an absolute joke, your post Big H warrants a serious response. The American is the “dead walking conference...” If five schools leave the B12 which many have speculated, this conference has to pray that WV is not left behind if it’s to remain above ground. WV will determine the fate of this conference. At a minimum, WV will likely suggest to the other B12 leftovers to give UC, UCF, UCONN, USF, and Temple a call—this is only for one division! Therefore, image what happens to this conference when the B12 west is constructed….

if the Big12 loses Texas and Oklahoma...their tv contract aint worth ish. The American would be in the position to invite Big12 teams.
The Big12 would have to ensure that they still had a sizable tv contract to attract teams from the American to jump ship.

(08-18-2017 08:41 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 08:17 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:04 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:45 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:31 AM)TforTempleU Wrote:  If the Big 12 is depleted and the ACC doesn't snatch them up maybe we can grab WVU for the east and ISU for the west.

I don't understand how you think we will grab WV and ISU when a B12 that almost lost UT, TT, OU, and OSU was going to raid the Big East:

“The sources said that if Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State were to leave the Big 12 and the five remaining schools do not have an opportunity to join the ACC, SEC or Big Ten, the Big 12 would move to absorb remaining Big East schools -- not the other way around….”


http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ources-say


You're also overlooking the fact that most of the schools in this conference would start packing their bags while on the phone with the B12 leftovers....

Only under these assertions: the new B12 keeps its power status, keeps its bowl access, and keeps a least a larger payout than the current aac. If these aren't present, you're looking at more travel expenses to terrible places that aren't easy to get to and very little to gain.

Good points; however, I will counter with the following with emphasis on UCF:

Think about the precarious circumstances that surrounded this conference when UCF agreed to join. It was losing its AQ status, losing members, and there was great uncertainty about the TV $$. This conference subsequently lost the C7 and the Big East name. Moreover, our commissioner said during a radio interview that he didn’t think the conference would make it at one point. Why did UCF still join despite the odds stacked against this conference surviving? One important reason is because the president and AD for UCF knew that it was better to be in a conference with UC, UCONN, USF, Temple, Houston, Memphis, and SMU than possibly being left behind in CUSA. They also knew that UC, UCONN, and USF had leverage over CUSA (because of the perceived FBS conference hierarchy) and could invite another school if UCF had turned down an invite. The president and AD for UCF made the right decision because look at what CUSA is worth now….

When the B12 implodes, it will have the same leverage over this conference even if it drops in status, TV $$$, and bowl affiliations. Do you really think UC, UCONN, USF, and Temple would stay here if the B12 leftovers are willing to reunite them with WV? Furthermore, do think Houston, SMU, Memphis, etc… would say no to a rebuilding B12 and risk having to rebuild the American with depreciated CUSA parts? That’s the leverage the B12 leftovers have over this conference: "Join us even if it’s a literal move or risk rebuilding the American with CUSA parts and lowering your value." In addition to the aforementioned, the B12 will likely invite four schools from this conference so that they arrive the last two years before its TV contract and GOR expires. Consequently, this conference would already have 4 former members in the B12 before its GOR expires—which greatly increases the odds of additional American schools joining them….

Not to mention Houston would take the big 12 over the American any day simply for the geography of the conference.

SMH

(08-18-2017 02:02 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 10:12 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 09:01 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 08:56 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  Seriously guys, why on earth would Texas boot current members out of the B12 replacing them with worse programs in Nebraska and Arkansas... or somebody from the AAC?

Texas does not need a single dime - they are as loaded as a college program can be. In fact, they're more loaded than probably every professional sports team in America. They could continue to operate at their current level ad infinitum without another single dime from television. Texas will never make a hasty decision and/or bring a school like Houston in to replace a current member. Nothing against Houston but, they're not currently in the B12 so their brand is not as strong as current B12 members. The only way Texas brings AAC members, or somebody like Nebraska into the B12, is if they are forced to because of a mass exodus.


T


...

The big12-2 is a dead walking conference... C'mon man, you know this already

Although the original post in this thread is an absolute joke, your post Big H warrants a serious response. The American is the “dead walking conference...” If five schools leave the B12 which many have speculated, this conference has to pray that WV is not left behind if it’s to remain above ground. WV will determine the fate of this conference. At a minimum, WV will likely suggest to the other B12 leftovers to give UC, UCF, UCONN, USF, and Temple a call—this is only for one division! Therefore, image what happens to this conference when the B12 west is constructed….

if the Big12 loses Texas and Oklahoma...their tv contract aint worth ish. The American would be in the position to invite Big12 teams.
The Big12 would have to ensure that they still had a sizable tv contract to attract teams from the American to jump ship.

I'm not sure who will go where if the big12 imploded... Their $$$ cow however will most definitely go boom.

(08-18-2017 12:51 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 12:32 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Something I've been mulling over...

We all know something is going to happen in 2023, but what if it's limited to just Texas going independent?

Without Texas as the lynchpin, I don't think we see 2 or 4 B12 schools going to the PAC-12

There's no indication that any conference is willing to go to 16, so that makes Kansas unlikely to the B1G tbh, especially considering that adding Kansas flies in the face of the B1G's recent expansion patterns (ala tv markets in Maryland / DC and New York).

It may very well be that Texas goes independent, resumes scheduling with historic rivals in Nebraska, Oklahoma, aTm, et al. leaving the B12 at 9.

The question at that point, is do they stay at 9 with their "One True Champion" model, do they expand by 3 (in which case I think the easy solution is Cinci, UCF, USF in that order) or do they go to 14 with 2 more adds? Who are those other 2 teams?

Building on this, I don't think Memphis or Houston would get the call for all the reasons expounded upon in the last debacle of realignment.

I think, thinking regionally, Temple then ECU () would make sense, especially if Temple can get an OCS built by 2023 and ECU shows some signs of life. If not, Tulane / Memphis would be in the wings. I don't think a Big 12 without Texas would look to replace with another Texas school.

Only way ECU gets an invite is if the Big12 suffers a sudden and catastrophic implosion that leaves them with 5 or less members and they panic. Kinda like how we got the AAC invite....

(08-18-2017 04:54 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 08:41 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 08:17 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:04 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:45 AM)Underdog Wrote:  I don't understand how you think we will grab WV and ISU when a B12 that almost lost UT, TT, OU, and OSU was going to raid the Big East:

“The sources said that if Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State were to leave the Big 12 and the five remaining schools do not have an opportunity to join the ACC, SEC or Big Ten, the Big 12 would move to absorb remaining Big East schools -- not the other way around….”


http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ources-say


You're also overlooking the fact that most of the schools in this conference would start packing their bags while on the phone with the B12 leftovers....

Only under these assertions: the new B12 keeps its power status, keeps its bowl access, and keeps a least a larger payout than the current aac. If these aren't present, you're looking at more travel expenses to terrible places that aren't easy to get to and very little to gain.

Good points; however, I will counter with the following with emphasis on UCF:

Think about the precarious circumstances that surrounded this conference when UCF agreed to join. It was losing its AQ status, losing members, and there was great uncertainty about the TV $$. This conference subsequently lost the C7 and the Big East name. Moreover, our commissioner said during a radio interview that he didn’t think the conference would make it at one point. Why did UCF still join despite the odds stacked against this conference surviving? One important reason is because the president and AD for UCF knew that it was better to be in a conference with UC, UCONN, USF, Temple, Houston, Memphis, and SMU than possibly being left behind in CUSA. They also knew that UC, UCONN, and USF had leverage over CUSA (because of the perceived FBS conference hierarchy) and could invite another school if UCF had turned down an invite. The president and AD for UCF made the right decision because look at what CUSA is worth now….

When the B12 implodes, it will have the same leverage over this conference even if it drops in status, TV $$$, and bowl affiliations. Do you really think UC, UCONN, USF, and Temple would stay here if the B12 leftovers are willing to reunite them with WV? Furthermore, do think Houston, SMU, Memphis, etc… would say no to a rebuilding B12 and risk having to rebuild the American with depreciated CUSA parts? That’s the leverage the B12 leftovers have over this conference: "Join us even if it’s a literal move or risk rebuilding the American with CUSA parts and lowering your value." In addition to the aforementioned, the B12 will likely invite four schools from this conference so that they arrive the last two years before its TV contract and GOR expires. Consequently, this conference would already have 4 former members in the B12 before its GOR expires—which greatly increases the odds of additional American schools joining them….

Not to mention Houston would take the big 12 over the American any day simply for the geography of the conference.

SMH

So you prefer a terrible geographical conference with teams that most houston fans don't get excited about playing? Interesting coming from a "houston" fan.

(08-18-2017 12:26 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  If the big 12 doesnt have the money and the autobid (which it wont if it loses texas and oklahoma, or maybe even just one of them) the big 12 will not be raiding anyone. Kansas becomes the only valuable member of that conference.

Texas tech = nothing (lubbok)

Baylor = nothing (waco)

Iowa St = nothing (ames)

Kansas St = nothing (manhattan, no not that one)

Oklahoma St = nothing (stillwater)

TCU = solid/good in Dallas but what the third team behind Texas, OU, and Texas AnM?

WVU = already out on its own, solid/good not enough to flagship a major conference (morgantown)

After being dismantled the scraps will be trying to find refuge any where in the other four leagues with Kansas being the only one with any hope. TCU maybe if the sec wants in to Dallas market and someone to tag along with AnM.

We have seen this show before with the SWC, when Texas leaves its lights out for whatever conference they are in. If not through natural means then Texas will ensure it. That way Texas can still throw its weight around, after all it was the foundation of 2 power conferences.

I agree with the part of your post that states, “After being dismantled the scraps will be trying to find refuge any where in the other four leagues with Kansas being the only one with any hope.” However, I disagree with certain schools on your leftover list. UT, TT, OU, and OSU all know that the PAC 12 will take them as a group. Unfortunately for the American, the B12 “scraps” will make meal out of this conference. It almost happened back in 2011 when it appeared UT, TT, OU, and OSU were going to the PAC 12—for the second time. Please keep in mind that back in 2011, the five B12 leftovers were only making about $10 mil per school in TV $$ (I could be a little off on the TV $$). Nevertheless, they were going to “absorb” the entire Big East as a conference—which included the C7….

Furthermore, if you don’t believe Tulsa would join the B12 leftovers in the future, please consider what occurred when it joined this conference: Tulsa is the only school that agreed to join this conference when it didn’t have a name and had full knowledge that it was unstable. I previously posted in this thread that “our commissioner said during a radio interview that he didn’t think the conference would make it at one point” (post #37). Guess which school’s interview this occurred… Tulsa! He unconscionably said this during an interview in which Tulsa accepted its invite. He was specifically asked the name of this conference and couldn’t give an answer because it hadn’t been named yet.

Why did Tulsa still agree to join an unnamed and unstable conference? I’ll give you the basically the same answer as I gave in Post #37: The president and AD for Tulsa knew that it was better to be in an unnamed and unstable conference with UC, UCONN, UCF, USF, Temple, Houston, Memphis, SMU, ECU, and Tulane than staying in CUSA. They also knew that UC, UCONN, and USF had leverage over CUSA (because of a higher FBS status) and could invite another school if Tulsa had turned down an invite.

My point:> When the B12 implodes, it will have the same leverage over this conference even if it drops in status, TV $$$, and bowl affiliations. Moreover, history has shown that a conference with a higher FBS status can raid a conference that’s lower in status despite losing key members. Basically three former Big East schools dismantled CUSA into the SBC. Likewise, by being higher in status, a decimated CUSA dismantled the SBC into the plains of New Mexico and Idaho until FCS programs could arrive….

(08-18-2017 12:32 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Something I've been mulling over...

We all know something is going to happen in 2023, but what if it's limited to just Texas going independent?

Without Texas as the lynchpin, I don't think we see 2 or 4 B12 schools going to the PAC-12

There's no indication that any conference is willing to go to 16, so that makes Kansas unlikely to the B1G tbh, especially considering that adding Kansas flies in the face of the B1G's recent expansion patterns (ala tv markets in Maryland / DC and New York).

It may very well be that Texas goes independent, resumes scheduling with historic rivals in Nebraska, Oklahoma, aTm, et al. leaving the B12 at 9.

The question at that point, is do they stay at 9 with their "One True Champion" model, do they expand by 3 (in which case I think the easy solution is Cinci, UCF, USF in that order) or do they go to 14 with 2 more adds? Who are those other 2 teams?

OU would leave the B12; it tried to join the PAC 12 when A&M and MIZZOU went to the SEC....

if the Big 12 was to lose a number of members the remaining members would have a large amount of exit fees that would encourage them to stay together

people (on this forum especially) seem to not understand that the GOR and the contract for conference membership are two different contracts and the GOR expires in 8 years and specifically has no exit clause or fees associated with it and that is by design

while the other separate contract for conference membership for the Big 12 goes for 99 years and it specifically calls for exit dees and for the potential of further paying damages for leaving the conference

GORs have not been tested in court, but contracts for conference membership including the one for the Big 12 have been tested several times in court and they have always been upheld to some degree including the last time when Maryland paid $31.5 million to leave the ACC

it is highly unlikely that several members of the Big 12 could go to court and claim the contract for conference membership is not valid or should not be upheld when all of those members that would be making that claim have in the past gone to court to uphold that same contract and to take damages from CU, NU, MU and A&M that all paid significant money to leave the Big 12

again the GOR is not the same contract and the two of them are not tied together the GOR is an additional contract that further makes clear that a team looking to leave the conference does not retain their media rights for the remainder of the GOR if they choose to leave

and the contract for conference membership allows a team to leave, but it specifies damages to be paid and those have been upheld time and again and there is no reason to believe they would not be upheld in the future especially when the teams looking to break it have in the past fought to enforce it and collect damages

and if any aac team was not interested in the Big 12 there are plenty of others that would be

so the end of the GOR simply means the end of a time period when a team that has the right to leave a conference must go to court and prove that they should be able to take their media rights with them or that they will be damaged if they are not allowed to do so

but the end of the GOR is not the end of the 99 year contract for conference membership that makes clear a team can leave, but also specifies damages for doing so and that has been upheld 4 times for the Big 12 alone (CU, NU, MU, A&M) much less similar ones for the ACC (Maryland) and Big East (TCU, Boise, WVU, Rutgers ect)

(08-19-2017 01:09 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 11:20 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  if the Big 12 was to lose a number of members the remaining members would have a large amount of exit fees that would encourage them to stay together

people (on this forum especially) are not intelligent enough to understand that the GOR and the contract for conference membership are two different contracts and the GOR expires in 8 years and specifically has no exit clause or fees associated with it and that is by design

while the other separate contract for conference membership for the Big 12 goes for 99 years and it specifically calls for exit dees and for the potential of further paying damages for leaving the conference

GORs have not been tested in court, but contracts for conference membership including the one for the Big 12 have been tested several times in court and they have always been upheld to some degree including the last time when Maryland paid $31.5 million to leave the ACC

it is highly unlikely that several members of the Big 12 could go to court and claim the contract for conference membership is not valid or should not be upheld when all of those members that would be making that claim have in the past gone to court to uphold that same contract and to take damages from CU, NU, MU and A&M that all paid significant money to leave the Big 12

again the GOR is not the same contract and the two of them are not tied together the GOR is an additional contract that further makes clear that a team looking to leave the conference does not retain their media rights for the remainder of the GOR if they choose to leave

and the contract for conference membership allows a team to leave, but it specifies damages to be paid and those have been upheld time and again and there is no reason to believe they would not be upheld in the future especially when the teams looking to break it have in the past fought to enforce it and collect damages

and if any aac team was not interested in the Big 12 there are plenty of others that would be

so the end of the GOR simply means the end of a time period when a team that has the right to leave a conference must go to court and prove that they should be able to take their media rights with them or that they will be damaged if they are not allowed to do so

but the end of the GOR is not the end of the 99 year contract for conference membership that makes clear a team can leave, but also specifies damages for doing so and that has been upheld 4 times for the Big 12 alone (CU, NU, MU, A&M) much less similar ones for the ACC (Maryland) and Big East (TCU, Boise, WVU, Rutgers ect)

I would have given you +2 Todge if the bold words were left out of your post. Also, before you question someone’s intelligence that belongs to this forum, please consider the lack of capital letters, punctuation, run-ons, etc.… that compels someone not to read your posts….

I would have left those out, but in the repeated discussions like these on this forum it has been pointed out time and again that in addition to the GOR the Big 12 also has a contract for conference membership that goes for 99 years and that has exit fees and clauses for potential damages in it

and that contract and all other similar ones have held up in court to some degree with significant damages paid including $31.5 million by Maryland in the very recent past

so the end of the GOR is not the end of the Big 12 nor is it the end of the obligation of Big 12 members towards the conference nor is it the end of the cost and issues with leaving the conference

but in spite of that being pointed out time and again in the multiple similar threads on this topic people still want to pretend that the end of the GOR just means a free for all and the ability of teams to walk away from the Big 12 with no expense and with no associated issues.....all the more relevant when all the teams in the Big 12 have either paid an exit fee in the past or they have gone to court to enforce the Big 12 contract for conference membership and collected exit fees in the past

yet these same threads pop up over and over and ignore that reality and put up the idea that the end of the GOR means teams can walk away from the Big 12 at will and fee of charge in spite of the fact that contracts and multiple court cases dealing with that Big 12 contract and similar other contracts say otherwise

when people ignore that reality one could and should question their intelligence

(08-19-2017 01:23 PM)Underdog Wrote:  You and I have had our differences in the past regarding your beloved B12, but we never questioned each other’s intelligent. I would be willing to remove my post if you would reword yours. The +2 is still available, but you only have 5 minutes to decide...

I generally do not whore for points (in fact there are a large number of past negative points that mods have offered to remove from my total because they were multiple by the same people many of whom are now banned for doing things like that and I declined because I thought it was funny)

but you ask nicely and out of respect for that I changed my post

(08-19-2017 11:20 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  if the Big 12 was to lose a number of members the remaining members would have a large amount of exit fees that would encourage them to stay together

people (on this forum especially) seem to not understand that the GOR and the contract for conference membership are two different contracts and the GOR expires in 8 years and specifically has no exit clause or fees associated with it and that is by design

while the other separate contract for conference membership for the Big 12 goes for 99 years and it specifically calls for exit dees and for the potential of further paying damages for leaving the conference

GORs have not been tested in court, but contracts for conference membership including the one for the Big 12 have been tested several times in court and they have always been upheld to some degree including the last time when Maryland paid $31.5 million to leave the ACC

it is highly unlikely that several members of the Big 12 could go to court and claim the contract for conference membership is not valid or should not be upheld when all of those members that would be making that claim have in the past gone to court to uphold that same contract and to take damages from CU, NU, MU and A&M that all paid significant money to leave the Big 12

again the GOR is not the same contract and the two of them are not tied together the GOR is an additional contract that further makes clear that a team looking to leave the conference does not retain their media rights for the remainder of the GOR if they choose to leave

and the contract for conference membership allows a team to leave, but it specifies damages to be paid and those have been upheld time and again and there is no reason to believe they would not be upheld in the future especially when the teams looking to break it have in the past fought to enforce it and collect damages

and if any aac team was not interested in the Big 12 there are plenty of others that would be

so the end of the GOR simply means the end of a time period when a team that has the right to leave a conference must go to court and prove that they should be able to take their media rights with them or that they will be damaged if they are not allowed to do so

but the end of the GOR is not the end of the 99 year contract for conference membership that makes clear a team can leave, but also specifies damages for doing so and that has been upheld 4 times for the Big 12 alone (CU, NU, MU, A&M) much less similar ones for the ACC (Maryland) and Big East (TCU, Boise, WVU, Rutgers ect)

Thanks for the GOR info... +2....

(08-19-2017 01:27 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 01:23 PM)Underdog Wrote:  You and I have had our differences in the past regarding your beloved B12, but we never questioned each other’s intelligent. I would be willing to remove my post if you would reword yours. The +2 is still available, but you only have 5 minutes to decide...

I generally do not whore for points (in fact there are a large number of past negative points that mods have offered to remove from my total because they were multiple by the same people many of whom are now banned for doing things like that and I declined because I thought it was funny)

but you ask nicely and out of respect for that I changed my post

Thanks for agreeing to reword your questionable post... another +2....

also according to the Big 12 contract for conference membership the exit fees could be as high as the PRIOR two years worth of distributions

at the end of the GOR the Big 12 will be distributing somewhere around $45 or $46 million per team

past court cases have generally allowed the conference to keep the prior years distributions for each leaving member (about $46 million for the Big 12 at that time)

so based on that if two teams left the others would have $92 million to split up and if three left they would have $138 million to split up

and if it was upheld for two years worth of distributions it could be as high as $184 to $276

and again Maryland paid $31.5 to leave the ACC when they were a party to a contract that had (I believe) a $25 million exit fee at the time thought it could have been the $50 million one.....Maryland was not a party to the GOR and Maryland paid well over 1 years worth of distributions to leave the ACC because they were not paying close to $31.5 million at that time and I do not think they have paid out that amount per year per member even in the most recent year

so there is a long precedent of these contracts being upheld

even if the Big 12 members were looking at something similar to Maryland that is still $63 to $94.5 million for two or three teams leaving the Big 12

and that is millions of reasons for the remaining members to stay together considering even at the amount Maryland paid the ACC the members of the Big 12 would be splitting $63/8 = $7.875 or $94.5/7 = $13.5

and I think the AAC is the last conference that would have fans of member teams that can try and say that contracts with exit fees are irrelevant or easily broken.......because several members of the ACC are collecting some pretty big dollars off of just those very contracts (but then again we have this thread...)

(08-19-2017 01:36 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  also according to the Big 12 contract for conference membership the exit fees could be as high as the PRIOR two years worth of distributions

at the end of the GOR the Big 12 will be distributing somewhere around $45 or $46 million per team

past court cases have generally allowed the conference to keep the prior years distributions for each leaving member (about $46 million for the Big 12 at that time)

so based on that if two teams left the others would have $92 million to split up and if three left they would have $138 million to split up

and if it was upheld for two years worth of distributions it could be as high as $184 to $276

and again Maryland paid $31.5 to leave the ACC when they were a party to a contract that had (I believe) a $25 million exit fee at the time thought it could have been the $50 million one.....Maryland was not a party to the GOR and Maryland paid well over 1 years worth of distributions to leave the ACC because they were not paying close to $31.5 million at that time and I do not think they have paid out that amount per year per member even in the most recent year

so there is a long precedent of these contracts being upheld

even if the Big 12 members were looking at something similar to Maryland that is still $63 to $94.5 million for two or three teams leaving the Big 12

and that is millions of reasons for the remaining members to stay together considering even at the amount Maryland paid the ACC the members of the Big 12 would be splitting $63/8 = $7.875 or $94.5/7 = $13.5

and I think the AAC is the last conference that would have fans of member teams that can try and say that contracts with exit fees are irrelevant or easily broken.......because several members of the ACC are collecting some pretty big dollars off of just those very contracts (but then again we have this thread...)

I have to agree. The remaining Big12 members would have a strong motivation to rebuild due to exit fees and left behind NCAA credits. Using pieces from the MW and AAC, they could build a very attractive conference with reasonable geography that, while not power conference, would be clearly different from the other non-power conferences. No invited AAC or MW would decline an invite from the B12 leftovers. Something like this might even be able to land a decent bowl or two (at least by G5 standards).