Search
Log in
Register
Teams
Teams
Fan Sites
Forums
Shows
College
College Football News
College Football Player Rankings
College Football Rankings
College Football Playoff
Field of 68
College Basketball News
Women's Sports
NIL
NIL News
NIL Valuation
NIL Deals
NIL Deal Tracker
Sports Business
Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal News
NCAA Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal Rankings
Transfer Portal Team Rankings
Recruiting
Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Database
Team Rankings
Player Rankings
Industry Comparison
Commitments
Recruiting Prediction Machine
High School
High School News
Schools
Rankings
Scores
Draft
NFL Draft
NFL Draft News
Draft By Stars
College Draft History
College Draft Totals
NBA Draft
NBA Draft News
Pro
NFL
NASCAR
NBA
Culture
Sports Betting
About
About
On3 App
Advertise
Press
FAQ
Contact
Get a profile. Be recruited.
New posts
Menu
Install the app
Install
MegaBoard
Trending
Michigan Hot Board
Hot
All-America Team
Field of 68
Message Boards
Where Michigan, QB Bryce Underwood stand following Sherrone Moore firing
Skeptics cast doubt on College Sports Commission's participation agreement
College Football Playoff predictions: J.D. PicKell reveals his picks for entire bracket
Michigan Head Coach Hot Board: Top candidates to replace Sherrone Moore
College Football Playoff: Predicting who will win the national title?
Reply to thread
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Expansion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charleston Mountie" data-source="post: 129495191" data-attributes="member: 1427666"><p>The points made are based on what we know in my case however. There is real evidence to support that the BIG 12 is disadvantaged in not having a 13th data point. The commissioner and others have stated this themselves. There is real evidence to support that the BIG 12 has the smallest footprint, that its tv ratings are behind some of the other leagues. There is real evidence--including a recent direct quote from the commissioner that financially there are schools not doing as well as Texas, that in the future BIG 12 school will significantly fall behind other P5 conferences. None of those sorts of things are guesses as others are making here.</p><p></p><p><strong>Don't get too lost in seeing your way as the only way just because others do not agree 100% with you. Everyone believes their points are based on what they see and it is poor form to discount the view of others while touting yours as the only true vision. Better to just explain your view and let others contrast it with their own. Just a suggestion.</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>But, nothing you posted there has been a contention of mine and was certainly not in the prior post I made. I am not sure what you are refuting that I have posted as I agree with those points.</strong></p><p></p><p>Other things likewise--we know for a fact that grants of rights were created and used by many conferences. Even Boren referenced that no one knows for certain what might occur if someone challenged one in court, but that they are believed to be solid and binding legally. No one is expected to take on the financial burden of challenging one--and Boren referenced the BIG 12 was advised not to go after schools under grants of rights.</p><p>So when I state a conference has a GOR for a period-that is a fact. When I state that schools won't be available to the end of those, I'm basing that on the belief of those that created and hold GORs that they are legally binding and won't be challenged.</p><p></p><p><strong>There are two reason why I do not believe the GOR is an ironbound inviolate:</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>1: Contracts - and that is all the GOR is - are wrangled with in courts every day. There is an entire field of litigation devoted to just contract law. Better written contracts just mean more time and money to alter, nothing more - ever.</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>2: Boren, who has a vested interest in the integrity of the GOR is unsure how tight it is because it has not been challenged but also because he is aware of the conditions I alluded to in my first point. He is probably the best position to gauge the strength of the GOR and if he is not sure of the strength of the GOR, how can you be?</strong></p><p></p><p>When Boren implied he would need to look around if comprehensive action isn't taken, he isn't talking about tomorrow--he is talking about at the end of the current tv contract. That doesn't do WVU or anyone else much good because its going to take years to do everything you can to be prepared for that as best you can but it causes a very uncertain future that is going to impact you from this day forward.</p><p></p><p><strong>How do you know what he meant? He gave no date and the context makes it sound like near-term because everything he has stated has been in the near-term timeline. The more logical conclusion is that he is talking near-term and not suddenly tossing in outlier in the conversation, especially when he does not qualify that point with a date or projected time frame. To assume it is anything but a near-term timeframe is speculative.</strong></p><p></p><p>You say if the Big Ten or SEC wants to pluck someone they will--based on what? How can you "pluck" someone if that someone doesn't want to be "plucked"? Are they magic? Seriously, they wanted to "pluck" schools before and the SEC ended up with an A&M whose pre Manziel status wasn't all that, and a Missouri that was even less so. They wanted Texas and Oklahoma but couldn't get them. Rutgers and Maryland subbed in ok for the schools the Big Ten really coveted in Virginia and North Carolina, but that is what they settled for. The schools they wanted like Texas, UNC and UVA they were unable to interest in leaving their current situations. Financially when one looks at the facts there is evidence to support that a school will pay a hefty price when they leave a conference. Maryland paid over $30 million and WVU paid over $20 million for a league that didn't pay them half that per year. The Big Ten had to give Maryland a $30million "gift" to entice them and no P5 team is in the dire situation that Rutgers was in a defunct conference being moved down to the also ran ranks. There is also the real situation of years of litigation that especially getting free of a grant of rights would require--costly litigation , and in the meantime you won't receive any pay from your conference. We are talking many tens of millions of $$ here--perhaps well over $100 million lost when all is said and done. So no, they can't just "pluck" anyone they want, they aren't superpowered.</p><p></p><p>Neither the SEC nor the Big Ten have let the concerns of other conferences influence impact choices they have made for themselves. They have always done what was in their own respective best interest. By this, I mean they have been active and not pro-active as the ACC, Big East, Big-12 and Pac-10 were and the successors of those conferences still are.</p><p></p><p><strong>Is it magic? No. It is determination and strength. Their conferences are where they are because they each have a track record of such leadership working hard consistently to improve the circumstances of their membership. The last round of realignment was about content because the media rights deals were based totally on content, so they both went out and raided the Big-12 to improve their content. In the process they were probably content to get as a perk, the possible destruction of the Big-12 as icing on the cake. That is better for both of them, less competition and more dollars available to ESPN just when ESPN is deciding how much to pay for their content.</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>You are lost on what the schools are as a sports team. The last round was not just about the quality of the football team, it was so much more, it was about everything that made up each institution. I have not read that the SEC "wanted" any one. I have read that they invited Missouri and the Big Ten told Missouri to pound sand. Texas A&M got into the SEC much like VT got into the ACC, but politics and because that school was acting like Jan Brady to Texas' Marsha. It worked for them, but I do not think either school was what the SEC "wanted" both schools fell into their lap and they took advantage of it, especially as it seemed that the Big TEN was going for 16 and the SEC had to keep pace - do note that both stopped at 14, which has the look that they conferred and agree to halt the process in situ. </strong></p><p></p><p><strong>The rest of this section by you seems a bit "ranty" and your logic is really thin. The Big Ten did not bribe UMD. UMD wanted out of the shanty town that the ACC has become because it is poor and UMD needed money, same for Rutgers, as both were in the red for a long time. Both schools would have found a way to pay their exit fees in total if it meant getting into the Big Ten. All the Big Ten had to do was tell them "We have a spot open for you, you meet our rigid requirements and we have unanimously voted to invite you because we feel your membership would make our conference even better."</strong></p><p></p><p>Besides-if its 2025, why would an ACC team try to challenge a GOR legally when they only have two years and they'll be completely free of a contract and owe nothing if they leave?</p><p></p><p><strong>You are looking at the math the wrong way. You see it as a negative when a more gifted investor sees it as a positive. You see either the Bi Ten or the SEC saving money by waiting until 2025 to grab an ACC school because it might cost as much as a 100 million each to grab one right now?</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>All conferences have escalation clauses if their membership changes and at present, it is believed that each of the Big Ten schools have a media value of 27 million dollars to the Big Ten. This does not take into account all of the ancillary dollars generated by a new name on the schedule, possible new face in the CCG or the impact of such things as inter-related Tier 3 revenues. So, in 4 years, a school like UNC has earned the Big Ten the equivalent value of your 100 million dollar "snatch and grab" cost. There are still six more years that UNC would add to the bottom line above and beyond that cost. You can see this either an expense or an income. Investors see things as an income and write off the exit fee as the cost of doing business because in the long run the presence of UNC adds to the coffers and strengthens the Big Ten. The same holds true for the SEC.</strong></p><p></p><p>Also, you are hoping the BIG 12 takes a huge gamble that if four schools leave the ACC, the rest will scatter to the BIG 12. Based on what? The schools in that conference didn't come before-the ACC was able to cobble together last minute "saves", there's 0 guarantee they would even have interest down the road. Its just as likely and actually moreso that schools like FSU, GT, Clemson, Duke, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Miami, Wake Forest and Louisville stick together, perhaps even adding Notre Dame and UConn or Cincinnati or someone else to maintain their own P5 league. You don't gamble the future of your own conference on idle poorly thought out speculation of what someone else might do a decade from now.</p><p></p><p><strong>I believe the best approach for the Big-12 is to take on Cincinnati and some other partner to get to 12 right now and set up a CCG. This is not about making more money at all. It is ALL about real and perceived conference stability. Nothing else matters at this point, not even the LHN. That can all be sorted later.</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC is going to wait ten years to expand, when one moves, they both will move. They just did that in 2011 and are both probably preparing to do it again all they need is a catalyst, such as the Big-12 going to 12. The schools in the ACC - FSU/GT/Clemson did not come before, because a last minute bit of theater and what has turned out to be a ton of empty promises by Swafford got them to pause long enough to plop a GOR done on their necks. Now the truth is coming out that there was never more than a suggested of an ACCN and that there will be none. That was what kept them in the ACC and now that is gone. The Big-12 does not make the most from its media rights deal and yet WVU is going to bring ~31 million in the latest year. I believe Clemson is the currently best paid ACC school for the same year and her revenues are going to be only 23 million. None of those three can watch a school like WVU out perform them by 8 million or more per year much less a school like Texas that makes more than twice what they make. Do they want out of the ACC? The money says they have to leave whether they want too or not - UMD went down that same road and they left.</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>As for what is left over after the dissection of the ACC? Does it matter and more than the Big East or AAC matter now? No one gives either conference a second thought, not even in basketball. I expect that FSU/GT/Clemson/Louisville end up in the Big-12, Pitt and UVA in the Big Ten and VT and UNC in the SEC. Left behind are Wake Forest, Duke, NC State, Syracuse and Boston College - looks like a lot of small basketball schools to me. They can invite others of their kind in the east and call it a day and NO ONE will care.</strong></p><p></p><p>You are basing your thoughts on these matters on what you want to be true and nothing more.</p><p></p><p>I covered this predilection of yours to come across as imperious, bad form and I would hope you refrain from it. Just because I digest the same material as you do and come to a different conclusion does not make my view any less valid than is yours. I afford you the respect of your views; I do not discount your view.</p><p></p><p>Boren is on the expansion committee and has verified the candidates to choose from are not under a grant of rights.</p><p></p><p><strong>Boren is looking at getting 12 and that is only going to happen with G5 schools, where have I said otherwise?</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charleston Mountie, post: 129495191, member: 1427666"] The points made are based on what we know in my case however. There is real evidence to support that the BIG 12 is disadvantaged in not having a 13th data point. The commissioner and others have stated this themselves. There is real evidence to support that the BIG 12 has the smallest footprint, that its tv ratings are behind some of the other leagues. There is real evidence--including a recent direct quote from the commissioner that financially there are schools not doing as well as Texas, that in the future BIG 12 school will significantly fall behind other P5 conferences. None of those sorts of things are guesses as others are making here. [B]Don't get too lost in seeing your way as the only way just because others do not agree 100% with you. Everyone believes their points are based on what they see and it is poor form to discount the view of others while touting yours as the only true vision. Better to just explain your view and let others contrast it with their own. Just a suggestion.[/B] [B]But, nothing you posted there has been a contention of mine and was certainly not in the prior post I made. I am not sure what you are refuting that I have posted as I agree with those points.[/B] Other things likewise--we know for a fact that grants of rights were created and used by many conferences. Even Boren referenced that no one knows for certain what might occur if someone challenged one in court, but that they are believed to be solid and binding legally. No one is expected to take on the financial burden of challenging one--and Boren referenced the BIG 12 was advised not to go after schools under grants of rights. So when I state a conference has a GOR for a period-that is a fact. When I state that schools won't be available to the end of those, I'm basing that on the belief of those that created and hold GORs that they are legally binding and won't be challenged. [B]There are two reason why I do not believe the GOR is an ironbound inviolate:[/B] [B]1: Contracts - and that is all the GOR is - are wrangled with in courts every day. There is an entire field of litigation devoted to just contract law. Better written contracts just mean more time and money to alter, nothing more - ever.[/B] [B]2: Boren, who has a vested interest in the integrity of the GOR is unsure how tight it is because it has not been challenged but also because he is aware of the conditions I alluded to in my first point. He is probably the best position to gauge the strength of the GOR and if he is not sure of the strength of the GOR, how can you be?[/B] When Boren implied he would need to look around if comprehensive action isn't taken, he isn't talking about tomorrow--he is talking about at the end of the current tv contract. That doesn't do WVU or anyone else much good because its going to take years to do everything you can to be prepared for that as best you can but it causes a very uncertain future that is going to impact you from this day forward. [B]How do you know what he meant? He gave no date and the context makes it sound like near-term because everything he has stated has been in the near-term timeline. The more logical conclusion is that he is talking near-term and not suddenly tossing in outlier in the conversation, especially when he does not qualify that point with a date or projected time frame. To assume it is anything but a near-term timeframe is speculative.[/B] You say if the Big Ten or SEC wants to pluck someone they will--based on what? How can you "pluck" someone if that someone doesn't want to be "plucked"? Are they magic? Seriously, they wanted to "pluck" schools before and the SEC ended up with an A&M whose pre Manziel status wasn't all that, and a Missouri that was even less so. They wanted Texas and Oklahoma but couldn't get them. Rutgers and Maryland subbed in ok for the schools the Big Ten really coveted in Virginia and North Carolina, but that is what they settled for. The schools they wanted like Texas, UNC and UVA they were unable to interest in leaving their current situations. Financially when one looks at the facts there is evidence to support that a school will pay a hefty price when they leave a conference. Maryland paid over $30 million and WVU paid over $20 million for a league that didn't pay them half that per year. The Big Ten had to give Maryland a $30million "gift" to entice them and no P5 team is in the dire situation that Rutgers was in a defunct conference being moved down to the also ran ranks. There is also the real situation of years of litigation that especially getting free of a grant of rights would require--costly litigation , and in the meantime you won't receive any pay from your conference. We are talking many tens of millions of $$ here--perhaps well over $100 million lost when all is said and done. So no, they can't just "pluck" anyone they want, they aren't superpowered. Neither the SEC nor the Big Ten have let the concerns of other conferences influence impact choices they have made for themselves. They have always done what was in their own respective best interest. By this, I mean they have been active and not pro-active as the ACC, Big East, Big-12 and Pac-10 were and the successors of those conferences still are. [B]Is it magic? No. It is determination and strength. Their conferences are where they are because they each have a track record of such leadership working hard consistently to improve the circumstances of their membership. The last round of realignment was about content because the media rights deals were based totally on content, so they both went out and raided the Big-12 to improve their content. In the process they were probably content to get as a perk, the possible destruction of the Big-12 as icing on the cake. That is better for both of them, less competition and more dollars available to ESPN just when ESPN is deciding how much to pay for their content.[/B] [B]You are lost on what the schools are as a sports team. The last round was not just about the quality of the football team, it was so much more, it was about everything that made up each institution. I have not read that the SEC "wanted" any one. I have read that they invited Missouri and the Big Ten told Missouri to pound sand. Texas A&M got into the SEC much like VT got into the ACC, but politics and because that school was acting like Jan Brady to Texas' Marsha. It worked for them, but I do not think either school was what the SEC "wanted" both schools fell into their lap and they took advantage of it, especially as it seemed that the Big TEN was going for 16 and the SEC had to keep pace - do note that both stopped at 14, which has the look that they conferred and agree to halt the process in situ. [/B] [B]The rest of this section by you seems a bit "ranty" and your logic is really thin. The Big Ten did not bribe UMD. UMD wanted out of the shanty town that the ACC has become because it is poor and UMD needed money, same for Rutgers, as both were in the red for a long time. Both schools would have found a way to pay their exit fees in total if it meant getting into the Big Ten. All the Big Ten had to do was tell them "We have a spot open for you, you meet our rigid requirements and we have unanimously voted to invite you because we feel your membership would make our conference even better."[/B] Besides-if its 2025, why would an ACC team try to challenge a GOR legally when they only have two years and they'll be completely free of a contract and owe nothing if they leave? [B]You are looking at the math the wrong way. You see it as a negative when a more gifted investor sees it as a positive. You see either the Bi Ten or the SEC saving money by waiting until 2025 to grab an ACC school because it might cost as much as a 100 million each to grab one right now?[/B] [B]All conferences have escalation clauses if their membership changes and at present, it is believed that each of the Big Ten schools have a media value of 27 million dollars to the Big Ten. This does not take into account all of the ancillary dollars generated by a new name on the schedule, possible new face in the CCG or the impact of such things as inter-related Tier 3 revenues. So, in 4 years, a school like UNC has earned the Big Ten the equivalent value of your 100 million dollar "snatch and grab" cost. There are still six more years that UNC would add to the bottom line above and beyond that cost. You can see this either an expense or an income. Investors see things as an income and write off the exit fee as the cost of doing business because in the long run the presence of UNC adds to the coffers and strengthens the Big Ten. The same holds true for the SEC.[/B] Also, you are hoping the BIG 12 takes a huge gamble that if four schools leave the ACC, the rest will scatter to the BIG 12. Based on what? The schools in that conference didn't come before-the ACC was able to cobble together last minute "saves", there's 0 guarantee they would even have interest down the road. Its just as likely and actually moreso that schools like FSU, GT, Clemson, Duke, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Miami, Wake Forest and Louisville stick together, perhaps even adding Notre Dame and UConn or Cincinnati or someone else to maintain their own P5 league. You don't gamble the future of your own conference on idle poorly thought out speculation of what someone else might do a decade from now. [B]I believe the best approach for the Big-12 is to take on Cincinnati and some other partner to get to 12 right now and set up a CCG. This is not about making more money at all. It is ALL about real and perceived conference stability. Nothing else matters at this point, not even the LHN. That can all be sorted later.[/B] [B]Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC is going to wait ten years to expand, when one moves, they both will move. They just did that in 2011 and are both probably preparing to do it again all they need is a catalyst, such as the Big-12 going to 12. The schools in the ACC - FSU/GT/Clemson did not come before, because a last minute bit of theater and what has turned out to be a ton of empty promises by Swafford got them to pause long enough to plop a GOR done on their necks. Now the truth is coming out that there was never more than a suggested of an ACCN and that there will be none. That was what kept them in the ACC and now that is gone. The Big-12 does not make the most from its media rights deal and yet WVU is going to bring ~31 million in the latest year. I believe Clemson is the currently best paid ACC school for the same year and her revenues are going to be only 23 million. None of those three can watch a school like WVU out perform them by 8 million or more per year much less a school like Texas that makes more than twice what they make. Do they want out of the ACC? The money says they have to leave whether they want too or not - UMD went down that same road and they left.[/B] [B]As for what is left over after the dissection of the ACC? Does it matter and more than the Big East or AAC matter now? No one gives either conference a second thought, not even in basketball. I expect that FSU/GT/Clemson/Louisville end up in the Big-12, Pitt and UVA in the Big Ten and VT and UNC in the SEC. Left behind are Wake Forest, Duke, NC State, Syracuse and Boston College - looks like a lot of small basketball schools to me. They can invite others of their kind in the east and call it a day and NO ONE will care.[/B] You are basing your thoughts on these matters on what you want to be true and nothing more. I covered this predilection of yours to come across as imperious, bad form and I would hope you refrain from it. Just because I digest the same material as you do and come to a different conclusion does not make my view any less valid than is yours. I afford you the respect of your views; I do not discount your view. Boren is on the expansion committee and has verified the candidates to choose from are not under a grant of rights. [B]Boren is looking at getting 12 and that is only going to happen with G5 schools, where have I said otherwise?[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Expansion
Top
Bottom